Heaven and Hell -Are they for real?

[Paulclem]

I've just read an interesting article in the UK's Independant newspaper on the idea of Heaven.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/heaven-a-fools-paradise-1949399.html

It says that the Christian/ Jewish/ Muslim version of heaven is an invented idea - around 165BC, which it claims arose due to the insecurity of burial rituals during the Greek occupation of Jewish lands.


It quotes some stats:

83% of US citizens and 51% of UK citizens believe in heaven.

Of these 71% believe it's an actual place

41% of these think their cats and dogs etc will follow them there.

It doesn't say that belief in Heaven implies a belief in Hell. What do you think - does it?

Is the idea of Heaven wish fulfillment, and what about near death experiences?

Are ideas of heaven, and by implication hell, too woolly?

[BienvenuJDC]

This kind of discussion is equivalent to the old "Is there a God" discussion. It cannot be proven either way. The discussion will be heavily based on the belief system of those involved.

[Dodo25]

'It can't be proven either way' is tautologically true, and grossly misleading. I also can't 'prove' that French evolved out of Latin (yet the evidence concludes this beyond reasonable doubt), and neither can I prove that unicorns don't exist.

However, in theory, one can make an (indirectly) evidence-based case for anything that does exist, even things like black holes or dark matter, which are pretty mysterious and (referring to the latter) not yet understood at all.

And, just to say it once again, the statement 'it can't be disproven' is rather meaningless, since nothing can be disproven.

To answer the question: Most likely there is neither heaven nor hell.

Because
1) There's absolutely no evidence for it.
2) The concept of a 'soul' that lives on after death does not have any selective advantage in evolution, additionally, looking at the evolutionary history, there is no teleological trend towards anything.
3) The concept of a 'creator' is deemed improbable, since the creator, in all it's intelligence and infinite complexity, is just 'postulated' without explanation, this is much more improbable than a purposeless universe with SIMPLER beginnings.

And the fact that 41% think that pets go to heaven is simply ridiculous (I really tried to find a nicer word but I failed). It just shows that people believe what they want, without caring for objective evidence, or even without reading any 'holy book' apparently.

[The Atheist]

It says that the Christian/ Jewish/ Muslim version of heaven is an invented idea - around 165BC, which it claims arose due to the insecurity of burial rituals during the Greek occupation of Jewish lands.

Yep, like pretty much all of christianity, it's borrowed from elsewhere. The "vigin birth" is a classic example of a theme that runs through many religions.


It quotes some stats:

83% of US citizens and 51% of UK citizens believe in heaven.

That's a pretty good improvement on around the time of WWII, when I'd say it was probably near 100% in both countries.


41% of these think their cats and dogs etc will follow them there.

:lol:

If that doesn't confirm my statement that people believe because they want to, I don't know what would.


Is the idea of Heaven wish fulfillment, and what about near death experiences?

I can't see heaven as being anything else.

What about NDEs? I'm pretty confident oxygen deprivation is to blame. And what of people who have an NDE and do not "see" heaven. Kerry Packer - late Australian billionaire - had his heart stop beating for several minutes and awoke to claim that there was neither heaven nor hell as he saw nothing.


Are ideas of heaven, and by implication hell, too woolly?

Oh yeah.

The thing christians overlook is that eternity is a hell of a long time. I suspect that one could be a bit bored with the harps and lack of beer after the first trillion years or so, and that's just a blink to eternity.

And eternal torment? Are any crimes worth being tortured eternally for?

I'd feel a bit hard done by that being an atheist gets me the same torture sentence as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy.

Not to mention that the christian bible doesn't threaten four generations of murderers' families the way it does unbelievers.

[ktm5124]

Yep, like pretty much all of christianity, it's borrowed from elsewhere.


It seems like your vendetta against Christianity is causing you to exaggerate your statements. Sure, I'll accept that Christianity borrows a lot from other religions (e.g. Judaism) but to say that "pretty much all of [it]" is borrowed is so exaggerated that it would offend any rational mind, Christian or not. Besides, you can't measure "pretty much all" of anything.



If that doesn't confirm my statement that people believe because they want to, I don't know what would.


Believing in something without evidence is called faith. People who have faith do not deny that they believe without evidence - they understand this to be the definition of their faith. What is so wrong with this? Personally I find something beautiful in the idea of it - faith is very freeing.



The thing christians overlook is that eternity is a hell of a long time. I suspect that one could be a bit bored with the harps and lack of beer after the first trillion years or so, and that's just a blink to eternity.

And eternal torment? Are any crimes worth being tortured eternally for?

I'd feel a bit hard done by that being an atheist gets me the same torture sentence as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy.


I agree with you here. I don't think there are any crimes that warrant eternal suffering.

My own view on religion is that it is good in moderation. I find that it helps bring people together, forming friendships and family bonds that would not have been formed otherwise. I have a whole network of family friends that is reinforced many times a year on religious holidays. None of us are actually very practicing in our religion, but we all appreciate the opportunities it provides us to come together four, five times a year around a table - all of us present - to eat, converse, and catch up.

You seem to view religion only in the sense of fundamentalism, extremism, or 'letter of the law' interpretation. For instance, you write



The thing christians overlook is that eternity is a hell of a long time.


But not all Christians believe in heaven and hell. In fact, I am sitting in a room right now with a Christian who just professed not to believe in heaven and hell. And yet your statement overlooks this fact - perhaps you don't mean to assert that all Christians believe in heaven and hell, but you unconsciously do so, in the way you phrase it.

I raise these points because I have to say it bugs me how you often go beyond a rational critique of religion by adding subtle, implied, and unconscious insults to those who are religious. In the above post you have made exaggerations, you have degraded the idea of faith (calling it "believing in something just because you want to believe it"), and you unconsciously assert that all Christians believe in heaven and hell.

I would be surprised if you could acknowledge that there are moderate forms of religion which can do a lot of good by persons and communities.

[blazeofglory]

In fact what we call heaven or hell is simply a projection of our minds. In fact it has some values in the past. For the fear of hell or the reward of heaven always drove people to do good jobs.

I remember as a child I always felt that I must do something good and the thought of hell always dissuaded me to do something sinful. If we go to a tribal community where the majority are poor, illiterate beleive in God, heaven and hell and such beliefs have really helped them.

It still help in so many communities.

As it is mentioned in the Brothers Karamazov if we have no fear of God, or no sense of morality or afterlives anything is possible. No matter whether we kill anybody secretly.

The idea of heaven or hell has great implications for life.

[The Atheist]

It seems like your vendetta against Christianity is causing you to exaggerate your statements.

I think using highly emotive terms like "vendetta" is absurd, myself.

I have stated on an enormous number of occasions that I have no problem with christianity until it is evangelised, as happens very frequently.


Sure, I'll accept that Christianity borrows a lot from other religions (e.g. Judaism) but to say that "pretty much all of [it]" is borrowed is so exaggerated that it would offend any rational mind, Christian or not. Besides, you can't measure "pretty much all" of anything.

I'd settle for "majority" then.

Looking at the important parts - creation, the fall, the flood, exodus, the virgin birth, a messianic character, life after death, heaven, hell, the only god, I find it hard to see much originality anywhere.

Maybe you'd like to state which parts are original to christianity - it could be that you aren't aware of just how derivative it is.

I don't think it's that much of an exaggeration, but I'm open to discussion.


What is so wrong with this? Personally I find something beautiful in the idea of it - faith is very freeing.

See above - I have no problem with people believing in the christian, islamic or hindu god/s and having faith that they're right.

Trouble is, we have a couple of thousand years of evidence that theists will try to force their beliefs onto others.


You seem to view religion only in the sense of fundamentalism, extremism, or 'letter of the law' interpretation. For instance, you write

I know all christians don't believe in hell, which is why I separated heaven in that particular comment. In fact, only a small number of sects believe in a literal hell since the RCC gave it away.


But not all Christians believe in heaven and hell. In fact, I am sitting in a room right now with a Christian who just professed not to believe in heaven and hell.

Not believing in heaven, or just a different name for it?

By "heaven" I mean some place or form of eternal life, which is central to all christian beliefs. Without a life after death, there wouldn't be much point in having a religion, so I think his stance is somewhat disingenuous if he's claiming there is no heaven.


And yet your statement overlooks this fact - perhaps you don't mean to assert that all Christians believe in heaven and hell, but you unconsciously do so, in the way you phrase it.

Well, I've never yet of heard of one professing there is no afterlife, so I'd be interested to hear how that works.


I raise these points because I have to say it bugs me how you often go beyond a rational critique of religion by adding subtle, implied, and unconscious insults to those who are religious.

Oh, I wouldn't say they're subtle. They're certainly not meant to be.

I look at it like a Clive Cussler book. An absurd plot, full of ridiculous inconsistencies with a really stupid premise followed up by the worst deus ex machina you've ever read.

Yet people buy Cussler's books and others believe the ghost of a dead Jew runs the entire universe.

What is there to be subtle about?


In the above post you have made exaggerations,

Well, I'm waiting for evidence of that, so I'll wait.


you have degraded the idea of faith (calling it "believing in something just because you want to believe it"),]/QUOTE]

Which, after 40-odd years of observing christians and other theists and discussing the subject with some of the world's best-known theologians, I am certain that's the case - that people believe because they want to.

There is actually not one single, rational reason to believe in a sky-daddy, and claiming there is would be naive in the extreme.

One thing you do need to note is that I am not even that anti-religion. I can pretty well prove that religious people live longer, are happier and more altruistic than non-religious people. On balance, I find religion is a positive in human society, but it demonstrably needs to be kept in check, and My agressive attacks are part of that balance.

Again, I have said for many years, if religion stopped trying to subvert and convert, I'd leave them alone.

[QUOTE=ktm5124;887003]and you unconsciously assert that all Christians believe in heaven and hell.

Covered.


I would be surprised if you could acknowledge that there are moderate forms of religion which can do a lot of good by persons and communities.

As you see above, I can go well beyond that and there is plenty of evidence to show that I've strongly praised moderate christianity and leaders like Archbishop Rowan Williams.

Sadly, for every Rowan, there is a Pat Robertson, a Jerry Falwell, a Fred Phelps, a Benny Hinn and a Jim Jones.

[dizzydoll]

However, in theory, one can make an (indirectly) evidence-based case for anything that does exist, even things like black holes or dark matter, which are pretty mysterious and (referring to the latter) not yet understood at all.


And what of dark energy... so unpredictable and not understood at all. How cool is that?

I believe we make our OWN heaven or hell.
I also believe that God is in YOU and ME and EVERYTHING we see.

Mine is a simple philosophy that works very well.

[blazeofglory]

In fact the idea of heaven or hell originated from our minds and end there only

[JuniperWoolf]

I always thought that the whole heaven/hell thing was stupid, even when I was a kid. My reasoning: billions of people die every generation. Wouldn't it get full?

If some form of existance continues after death, I always thought that reincarnation seemed more likely.

[Paulclem]

I would be surprised if you could acknowledge that there are moderate forms of religion which can do a lot of good by persons and communities.

To be fair to The Atheist, he has said as much in previous threads.

Heaven and hell's existence can't be proven in the conventional sense.

The Buddhist take on Heaven and Hell is that they exist, but are not permanent. So a being will live in a hell realm until they have run out of the bad karma that put them there.

One indicator of the existence of heaven / hell in Buddhism has been that if you can accept reincarnation, and then you observe hellish or heavenly conditions on earth, then the possibility exists that there are hellish or heavenly realms.

Certainly, and worryingly, I can think of examples of hellish conditions on earth, fire, flood, war etc, but not as many heavenly.

Would Christians/ Muslims/Jews consider their version of afterlife to be a kind of limited reincarnation, and could this be then an argument for it's existence?


In fact the idea of heaven or hell originated from our minds and end there only

Perhaps this is so.

You only have to visit your local Psychiatric unit to see people who seem to living in an unreachable private hell.

[Lote-Tree]

Ask this question - Do you want to go to Heaven or Hell?

How many will say Hell?

Must be zero.

[Paulclem]

But you wouldn't ask the question if you don't believe it in the first place, as many do not.

I think we would agree that proof can't be supplied in the same way as it does in science, but is there another way to examine the question?

[The Atheist]

And what of dark energy... so unpredictable and not understood at all.

I beg to differ. Dark energy, as far as we can tell with something we can neither measure nor see, appears to act in highly predictable ways, which is why there are many constants in the universe, and while we don't understand it all that well, it's new science.


I also believe that God is in YOU and ME and EVERYTHING we see.

May the force be with you!

:D


Ask this question - Do you want to go to Heaven or Hell?

How many will say Hell?

Must be zero.

Nope.

I freely state that if I'm wrong, I'm at least guaranteeing a trip to hell, which is where I'd want to be.

I coupldn't cope with all those Catholics in heaven saying "I told you so"!

[hoope]

BienvenuJDC ! You are right and we will end up in the same way as in the last discussion . The whole thing will be diverted to the existence of God .. and then the existence of a world hereafter .. and so Heaven and hell ..



Many of divine books. does mention that it exist..
Or else why are we living... There has to be a reward and a judgement day ... and so people will know whether they are in Heaven or Hell . Because there is eternity and we live for that day . So there gotta be something !

It a part of faith to believe in it . I believe in the existence of life hereafter.. and in Heaven .. and of the hell too.
And everyone will get what he works for in this life.

Things that can't be proved wrong is right .




Nope.

I freely state that if I'm wrong, I'm at least guaranteeing a trip to hell, which is where I'd want to be.

I coupldn't cope with all those Catholics in heaven saying "I told you so"!

Atheist ! Is that the best you can do ... Someone with your intelligence can think of other ways to make it through ... Don't you even wish !
Not try to convince u but coz i know that we can choose to be in heaven and work for it .

[Paulclem]

It a part of faith to believe in it . I believe in the existence of life hereafter.. and in Heaven .. and of the hell too.
And everyone will get what he works for in this life.

This is the attitude of the complacent in my view. There are so many people for whom life was begun at a disadvantage, who don't live very long, who suffer terrible circumstances that they don't have the opportunity to work for anything positive.

It's the same as saying God gives the burdens to those who can stand it, or if it is God's will etc etc. It's all very well to cite such things from the perspective of relative security and comfort, but very different for those whom circumstances are less positive.

Ok - belief is a personal matter and rather unarguable, but can the question of heaven and hell though be indicated by inference or a different kind of logic?

The Atheist has stated his views as a scientific sceptic, and others have stated their views based on belief. Is there a middle ground for discussion?

[The Atheist]

Things that can't be proved wrong is right .

So, the invisible pink unicorn is real after all!


Atheist ! Is that the best you can do ... Someone with your intelligence can think of other ways to make it through ... Don't you even wish !

That's actually an important question, and one which I do get asked occasionally - why don't I even wish for heaven to be real?

I cannot imagine a worse torture than to live eternally.


Not try to convince u but coz i know that we can choose to be in heaven and work for it .

Yes, it's a beautiful theory, but it doesn't actually bode that well under logical examination. If a murderer may be "forgiven" by accepting Jesus into his life, I wonder how an eight year old rape/murder victim will feel when his next door neighbour in heaven is his murderer.


The Atheist has stated his views as a scientific sceptic, and others have stated their views based on belief. Is there a middle ground for discussion?

Well, there are only three positions: atheist, agnostic or theist, so one must examine agnosticism as a middle ground.

Some of the senior theologians in the Church of England support the agnostic position, and even Rowan W has come out and said that belief in things as central as the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus need not be insisted upon.

The problem, as I see it, is that agnosticism as a considered preference becomes a default theism - which is why Anglicans like it so much.

The "I don't know or care" kind of agnosticism doesn't really count, and I like terms like apatheism* or coproagnostic** to describe those people, as agnosticism is a statement about knowledge of god rather than just an "I don't know".

Suggesting that knowledge cannot be known becomes a default theist position, because it is attributing a finite or fixed value on knowledge, and the only way that can be possible is if a divine/sepreme being is at the top of the tree, deciding what can and cannot be known.

The only possibility of middle ground is for atheists to give way and allow religion a free pass.

As I've repeatedly said, if theism could show that it is capable of being a non-caustic force in society, I'd gladly allow it that free pass, so the ball is firmly in religion's court.

*Apathetic atheism - does not believe in god, but doesn't consider the question.

**Doesn't know, doesn't give a ****!

[hoope]

The concept of heaven and hell consequently present a material image rather than a spiritual image of things to be. Heaven is presented, according to their concept, as an immeasurably large garden literally abounding in beautiful trees casting eternal shadows under which rivers will flow. The rivers would be of milk and honey. The garden will be fruit bearing and all man may desire of fruits would be his at his command. The meat would be that of birds of all sorts; it is only for one to wish which meat he particularly craves. Female companions of exceeding beauty and refinement would be provided to the pious men, with no limit imposed on the number, which will be decided according to their capacity. As many as they can cope with will be theirs. What would they do? How would they relate with each other? Will they bear children or lead a barren life of enjoyment? These are all the moot questions. The enjoyment, as it is conceived, is intensely sensual. No work to be performed, no labour to be wasted, no effort to be made. A perfect life (if such life can be called perfect) of complete and total indolence, with the option of overeating and over-drinking, because also wine will be flowing close to the rivers of milk and honey. No fear of dyspepsia or intoxication! Reclining on heavenly cushions of silk and brocade, they will while their time away in eternal bliss -- but what an eternal bliss!

In Islam, there are others who categorically reject this naive understanding of the Quranic references to heaven, and prove with many a reference to verses of the Holy Quran that what it describes is just metaphorical imagery which has no carnality about it. In fact the Holy Quran makes it amply clear that the form of existence of the life to come will be so different from all known forms of life here on earth, that it is beyond human imagination even to have the slightest glimpse of the otherworldly realities.



In heaven as described in divine book , there is what a mind can't imagine.. what an eye has never seen and what has never been heard about.
We can't visualize many things with our small limited brain.. which from any small tumor can die !


The atheistic view is outside the domain of this discussion.

Its inference and logic .. People who do wrong and those who do right can't be equal.. A criminal (, who steals , kills, raps )can run from the crime he committed in front of the law but what about the Creator who created him .. and who will judge him for his acts.
Nothing and no one is equal when it comes to one's acts and attitude.

Only animal are those who won't be judged for their actions..
A time will come when man says " Oh God brinf me back to do good "

No way we have been in this earth aimlessly or no way we have been created aimlessly .
We work for something......

Am sorry if i can't make my point more clear and easier than this !
I can say that its more like having a FAITH in things that you can't see but you know it's there..

[Paulclem]

In heaven as described in divine book , there is what a mind can't imagine.. what an eye has never seen and what has never been heard about.
We can't visualize many things with our small limited brain.. which from any small tumor can die !


The atheistic view is outside the domain of this discussion.

Its inference and logic .. People who do wrong and those who do right can't be equal.. A criminal (, who steals , kills, raps )can run from the crime he committed in front of the law but what about the Creator who created him .. and who will judge him for his acts.
Nothing and no one is equal when it comes to one's acts and attitude.

Only animal are those who won't be judged for their actions..
A time will come when man says " Oh God brinf me back to do good "

No way we have been in this earth aimlessly or no way we have been created aimlessly .
We work for something......

Am sorry if i can't make my point more clear and easier than this !
I can say that its more like having a FAITH in things that you can't see but you know it's there..


What about a Buddhist who rejects the idea of God, but accepts the Buddhist worldview which includes heaven and hell?

And if you reject the Atheist view as irrelevant, then we might as well just say Heaven yes, hell yes - right lets go home. No discussion.

As for atheist, agnostic and theist - I think in this case we must all be agnostic as we might have belief or non-belief, but we don't have direct knowledge - either through the decision of God in the case of god, or having no experience or scientific proof of it.

[caddy_caddy]

when we will go there we will find out if it is real or not .

[Paulclem]

when we will go there we will find out if it is real or not .

We're talking about it because it's either :party:

or :eek2:

Who wants to wait and see, or are you entirely sure...

[JuniperWoolf]

The "I don't know or care" kind of agnosticism doesn't really count, and I like terms like apatheism* or coproagnostic** to describe those people, as agnosticism is a statement about knowledge of god rather than just an "I don't know".

**Doesn't know, doesn't give a ****!

I've been looking for a word for a while now, because people ALWAYS eventually ask me "so if you hate Christianity so much, what religion are you?"

I used to respond: "I really, really just don't care. It's all pure bull ****, all of these little theories are insane because they are all so obviously based on nothing at all."

Either that or I called myself "devoutly apathetic" which I thought was kinda clever. Kept the pushy ones off my back, too.

Now I have a word: Coproagnostic! I like it!

[hoope]

And if you reject the Atheist view as irrelevant, then we might as well just say Heaven yes, hell yes - right lets go home. No discussion.

.

It's not what i meant - I mean that the Atheist don't believe in anything , so why they even bother about the existene of God nor heaven nor hell.


What about a Buddhist who rejects the idea of God, but accepts the Buddhist worldview which includes heaven and hell?

But they don't believe that it's the eternal life..

[Paulclem]

It's not what i meant - I mean that the Atheist don't believe in anything , so why they even bother about the existene of God nor heaven nor hell.



But they don't believe that it's the eternal life..

Yes, they don't believe that heaven and hell are eternal - but the point of buddhism is to escape from the cycle of birth ageing sickness and death of which heavens and hells are a part. Enlightenment is the eternal bit.

[hoope]

To start with Buddhism is not a divine religion , wasn't revealed by any prophet nor has a divine book.
Buddhism sees life as a full of pain and teaches us how to be free fom that pain and darkness.
However , the other religions or at least what i mean is divine religions - look at life as living as both in its goodness & bad , the pain and the healings , hateness and love , problems and solvings - all is there and its the mixture of what we experience.
And we humans are required to work and live it , do the right and find the path - not to get rid of it - we have to work in earth - for our life here after.
There have to be something called Moderations - having a life and a religions - spiritually as well as not getting detached from the world.

If you want to disuss about buddhism trust me u will find many things to discuss and there are answers that would only need a common sense to think about . Buddhism is not an answer for people who want to sek enlightment and peace.
With all my respect there many issues i Buddhism that requires questioning :

- the deny of existence of God .

Every divine religion , and every human being with a mind to think - always questions what s death ? who created us ? what is death ? where are we going after death ? Questions take us to one true think!!!
Are we created for a reason or what ? What is the purpose of living ?
All evidence of what were proved by The reasoning , The instinct , the Meditation on the world around us , the sun , the sky the moon etc and theGuidence

- Buddhism believe in shifting or something like the sou goes somewhere else , or to someone else after death.....Rebirthing i guess

Marriage and delivery is not a choice in Buddhism , so how can any one be born again ,, there has to be al ong process in that - two gametes to be and forming a zygote and life to start....
That only makes us think how silly and small we are in believing such thing-No human will be walking on earth if that is true..
Buddhism believes in soul shifthing fromone body to another.. and thus denies the fact of being there a body !!

A list to come..... i didn't want to go through all that but you made me .

[Lynne Fees]

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've just read an interesting article in the UK's Independant newspaper on the idea of Heaven.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/heaven-a-fools-paradise-1949399.html

It says that the Christian/ Jewish/ Muslim version of heaven is an invented idea - around 165BC, which it claims arose due to the insecurity of burial rituals during the Greek occupation of Jewish lands.


It quotes some stats:

83% of US citizens and 51% of UK citizens believe in heaven.

Of these 71% believe it's an actual place

41% of these think their cats and dogs etc will follow them there.

It doesn't say that belief in Heaven implies a belief in Hell. What do you think - does it?

Is the idea of Heaven wish fulfillment, and what about near death experiences?

Are ideas of heaven, and by implication hell, too woolly?

[Virgil]

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.

Yes, I agree. I was going to jump in with something along those lines but I really didn't care that much. You're right, while there is no specific mention of heaven in the Old Testament, it is very much implied in several places.

Just a cursory flip through pulled up this:


He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Eccl 3:11

And in Isaiah 25

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will provide for all peoples A feast of rich food and choice wines, juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines.
7
On this mountain he will destroy the veil that veils all peoples, The web that is woven over all nations;
8
he will destroy death forever. The Lord GOD will wipe away the tears from all faces; The reproach of his people he will remove from the whole earth; for the LORD has spoken.
9
On that day it will be said: "Behold our God, to whom we looked to save us! This is the LORD for whom we looked; let us rejoice and be glad that he has saved us!"

And as you point out, it's all over the Psalms. The Bible was not the sole means of God's word in Judaism. There was the Torah, orally communicated practice and understanding, and written commentary, such as the Talmud. The notion that the Bible is the sole means of religions knowledge is a relatively recent one and it's a Protestant notion, called sola scriptura. Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Eastern Churches nor the Coptic Church, which make up probably 80% (if not more) of Christianity supports sola scriptura, and neither now nor in the past did Judaism.

[BienvenuJDC]

Abraham must have heard something that would make him believe.

Hebrews 11:13-16,
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. (14) People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. (15) If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. (16) Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

[NikolaiI]

There are two infinites; Infinite illusion and infinite reality. Neither one can be expressed or encapsulated in words. The infinite reality is the source of reason and all virtues; is it illogical to think that logic has a source, a more-perfect form than what we as humans conceive and perceive? Heavens, no!! And many, many brilliant philosophers East and West have perceived this and written volumes of philosophy, many of which were enlightening to everyone. It's such a shame that people spit on the names of brilliant minds who were believers in a spiritual dimension to existence. It is a shame that they try by any means, the means of persuasion by trying to seem clever and intelligent, and "Above" all those who are "superstitious.." it is really so absurd.

Heaven means spiritual realm, spiritual reality or spiritual dimension. Paradise is where God is, Paradise is the dimension of existence closest to God. It is strange that people think that God does not exist --- when you consider that God is the absolute, the reality, and the source. This may not be the extent of the Source, but we can tell that everything has a source! And to say it is illogical to think that everything has a source! Ah, oh well. Continuing on...!

God is the Source which is infinite. Paradise is again, the closest point to God.

How to understand this... that Heaven is the closest point to God. This means that Paradise, if it is the dimension which the denizens are closest in perception and communion with God, is more real than this physical universe. -Not so that this universe should be neglected, however. Rather it should be transformed into the next step along evolution. Who knows where we will get to in our understanding of each other and the universe, and how far we may go in our enlightenment, to understand love and to share this deepest soul's love. How far will we grow in our beauty and likeness of the divine? Only God knows. The goal of religion is to submit to the will of God, who is the Source of Love and the Source of Being.

We can even understand scientifically that everything in the universe is light! All things are energy and matter; both are light. All life on Earth has come from the same source - Sol - who is light. Now how can we be of a different essence than our source??? Consciousness is light - and consciousness is a mirror - a reflection of the universe, so that subject and object are part of each other, they are one - so that all life is one. Yes this mystical truth found in Islam, Christianity, Paganism, Buddhism (NON-duality), and among other religions like that of the ancient Native Americans.

Paradise is a relative thing - where anyone understands God and lives in LOVE, then this is Paradise.

[Paulclem]

To start with Buddhism is not a divine religion , wasn't revealed by any prophet nor has a divine book.
Buddhism sees life as a full of pain and teaches us how to be free fom that pain and darkness.
However , the other religions or at least what i mean is divine religions - look at life as living as both in its goodness & bad , the pain and the healings , hateness and love , problems and solvings - all is there and its the mixture of what we experience.
And we humans are required to work and live it , do the right and find the path - not to get rid of it - we have to work in earth - for our life here after.
There have to be something called Moderations - having a life and a religions - spiritually as well as not getting detached from the world.

If you want to disuss about buddhism trust me u will find many things to discuss and there are answers that would only need a common sense to think about . Buddhism is not an answer for people who want to sek enlightment and peace.
With all my respect there many issues i Buddhism that requires questioning :

- the deny of existence of God .

Every divine religion , and every human being with a mind to think - always questions what s death ? who created us ? what is death ? where are we going after death ? Questions take us to one true think!!!
Are we created for a reason or what ? What is the purpose of living ?
All evidence of what were proved by The reasoning , The instinct , the Meditation on the world around us , the sun , the sky the moon etc and theGuidence

- Buddhism believe in shifting or something like the sou goes somewhere else , or to someone else after death.....Rebirthing i guess

Marriage and delivery is not a choice in Buddhism , so how can any one be born again ,, there has to be al ong process in that - two gametes to be and forming a zygote and life to start....
That only makes us think how silly and small we are in believing such thing-No human will be walking on earth if that is true..
Buddhism believes in soul shifthing fromone body to another.. and thus denies the fact of being there a body !!

A list to come..... i didn't want to go through all that but you made me .

Yes, Buddism is not a Divine religion because it denies that there is a God. There are clearly areas of Buddhism that you misapprehend, but the thread is not about that so I won't respond here, suffice to say that all the aspects you mentioned can be explained.

[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/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Heaven_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?
:biggrin5:

[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.

:D

[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:angel:


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:angel:


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...

:lol:

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

[caddy_caddy]

Yes but during the discussions it turned out to be sth else .


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.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
It's really boring . I don't know what will be there to make us handle living for eternity . For sure I fear hell and I don't want to be there but I never longed for eternity in heaven . If I could choose I would come back again and have another life . The earth is so beautiful too and what is mentionned in the Qura'n about heaven : its physical reality has many resemblances with what we have on earth , for instance rivers , trees , fruits and so on .
So , the Atheist , u won't miss anything there .
The only thing that makes me think of it is the fact that I can meet whom i love there . I'm making " rendez -vous there " .:angel: really I'm not kidding .

And since here I don't get bored being with them and time passes very quickly when we are together . I think this very thing would make eternity endurable and we won't feel it that long .
Actually we are told that we will be for ever youth there . That means we won't be affected by the passage of time and we don't know what would be the time there . We cannot make an analogy between our conditions here and our conditions there.
Moreover God will purify our hearts from envy and hatred . Our hearts would be only full of love so you will be happy being with your ex-wife and do not complain about it .

In what concerns the murderer being with his victim in heaven . You should know that unless the victim " forgives " his murderer , the latter won't get the mercy of God .LooK how God is just .

From the discusions I noticed that there are differences concerning this issue . One thing I want to add being essential to the conception of heaven
for Muslims at least is that " in heaven we could see God ".
." This is what they long for and what they pray for . In their consciousness it is related to this possibilty .It is a great motive for human beings . Immagine that u could see the Lord !

[Paulclem]

Where do the Muslim references to heaven come from? Is it the Koran?

In the original article, the problem with Christian heaven is that the original conception is not like the current one, and the original Jewish idea was that there was no afterlife, though the messages are mixed.

Perhaps because the Koran is more recent, then it has provided a more consistent image of heaven?

[caddy_caddy]

Yes The Qura'n is full of details about heaven and hell .What is mentionned asserts that they are physical , real , and concrete . We have no such problem. This matter is very clear and consistent .
But before that and long time ago ,if you accept that Adam is the origin of our species , the very idea comes from God not human and inherited from Adam to his descendants .

[Dodo25]

As it is mentioned in the Brothers Karamazov if we have no fear of God, or no sense of morality or afterlives anything is possible. No matter whether we kill anybody secretly.


I wanted to buy that book today, but they didn't have it and I'd need to order it. But seeing that statement makes me want to reconsider.. I don't need to read a book with a moral message atheism = nihilism.

Anyone willing to defend the book (I know lots of people here have read it)?

And in order to not get too off topic, I am also interested in what you all think of the statement in general. i.e. 'The Atheist' said Christians are more altruistic and he could even give evidence for that.. Is that really true? I'd like to hear the reasoning and see some stats.

[Paulclem]

Yes The Qura'n is full of details about heaven and hell .What is mentionned asserts that they are physical , real , and concrete . We have no such problem. This matter is very clear and consistent .
But before that and long time ago ,if you accept that Adam is the origin of our species , the very idea comes from God not human and inherited from Adam to his descendants .

In what way are they physical and real? Does that mean they are in a physical place? Is this place on earth or somewhere else? What then about hell? I ask out of interest.

[Paulclem]

I wanted to buy that book today, but they didn't have it and I'd need to order it. But seeing that statement makes me want to reconsider.. I don't need to read a book with a moral message atheism = nihilism.

Anyone willing to defend the book (I know lots of people here have read it)?

And in order to not get too off topic, I am also interested in what you all think of the statement in general. i.e. 'The Atheist' said Christians are more altruistic and he could even give evidence for that.. Is that really true? I'd like to hear the reasoning and see some stats.

I don't know about stats, but look in many Weatern cities and there is a salvation Army hostel. There are lots of christian charities, too. The missions set up abroad may well exploit opportunities for conversion, but I'm sure that they do that after the charity.

In India there are also Christian charities. Mother Theresa's mission is one example of Catholic good works. From working at one for a short while, I didn't get the impression that it was to swell Catholic membership, but was for altruistic purposes. I'm not a Christian by the way.

[The Atheist]

I wanted to buy that book today, but they didn't have it and I'd need to order it. But seeing that statement makes me want to reconsider.. I don't need to read a book with a moral message atheism = nihilism.

Quite right, it's a stupid premise. I don't like to blow my own trumpet, but I'm a hardline atheist and I bet I give more money and time to charities than just about any christian you'll find.


I am also interested in what you all think of the statement in general. i.e. 'The Atheist' said Christians are more altruistic and he could even give evidence for that.. Is that really true? I'd like to hear the reasoning and see some stats.

I'll try to find them - there are some quality statistics on it.


Mother Theresa's mission is one example of Catholic good works.

Maybe not the best choice you could come up with - MT's "charity" made hundreds of millions of dollars out of ostensibly helping terminally ill people, but in fact was exploiting many curable patients and letting them die.

Chris Hitchens does a great job of exposing the myths about Theresa.

Interestingly, before she died, she admitted that she'd lost her faith.

[Paulclem]

Quite right, it's a stupid premise. I don't like to blow my own trumpet, but I'm a hardline atheist and I bet I give more money and time to charities than just about any christian you'll find.



I'll try to find them - there are some quality statistics on it.



Maybe not the best choice you could come up with - MT's "charity" made hundreds of millions of dollars out of ostensibly helping terminally ill people, but in fact was exploiting many curable patients and letting them die.

Chris Hitchens does a great job of exposing the myths about Theresa.

Interestingly, before she died, she admitted that she'd lost her faith.


Perhaps not but the choice was based upon what I saw happening in a mission. It wasn't a big place, and was filled with nuns helping disabled kids and elderly people. I don't know about the big organisation stuff, but certainly the individuals who worked there were sincere.

[dizzydoll]

Quite right, it's a stupid premise. I don't like to blow my own trumpet, but I'm a hardline atheist

So I have to wonder what you doing on a thread like this... are you trying to change our minds to your way of thinking? http://serve.mysmiley.net/tongue/tongue0015.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

I havent read the thread because its irrelevant what people think about Heaven or Hell, they live their own... whatever they are comfortable with.

Heaven and Hell are not places and there are billions [or rather trillions] of forms of heaven and hell on earth.

http://forum.thescubasite.com/animated/anim_26.gif (http://www.thescubasite.com)

[Paulclem]

So I have to wonder what you doing on a thread like this... are you trying to change our minds to your way of thinking? http://serve.mysmiley.net/tongue/tongue0015.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

I havent read the thread because its irrelevant what people think about Heaven or Hell, they live their own... whatever they are comfortable with.

Heaven and Hell are not places and there are billions [or rather trillions] of forms of heaven and hell on earth.

http://forum.thescubasite.com/animated/anim_26.gif (http://www.thescubasite.com)

That does depend upon your point of view. Muslims and Christians claim heaven to be a different place, whilst Buddhist views of the world are that it's underlying feature is suffering - including the various heavens in the worldview.

The viewpoint - people think whatever they are comfortable with is all very well, but what if they think something damaging like the terrorists who believe that heaven awaits them after they have been martyred.
I also think it;s a complacent view, as life for so many people is difficult and full of suffering.

[dizzydoll]

Thats why I said there are trillions of heavens and hells, we all have our own.



The viewpoint - people think whatever they are comfortable with is all very well, but what if they think something damaging like the terrorists who believe that heaven awaits them after they have been martyred.

The world will never rid itself of its madmen.



I also think it;s a complacent view, as life for so many people is difficult and full of suffering.

Paul if we only focus on difficulties and suffering then what is LIFE is for? We may as well be done with it and blow a hole in our heads or take an overdose. Assuming reincarnation does exist, its message teaches.. what we dont learn in this life will become our nemesis in the next. What does that say for suffering?

I believe in life we must try to keep it and simple and as joyful as we can otherwise there is no quality of life... I live in Heaven, but thats probably due to coming from more than enough Hell, to not want to go back there. The choice is always ours.

Life is like a wild tiger
You can either lie down
and let it
Lay its paw on your head --
Or sit on its back and ride it.

From: Ride the Wild Tiger.

http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_16.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-laughing-smileys.php)

[blazeofglory]

That does depend upon your point of view. Muslims and Christians claim heaven to be a different place, whilst Buddhist views of the world are that it's underlying feature is suffering - including the various heavens in the worldview.

The viewpoint - people think whatever they are comfortable with is all very well, but what if they think something damaging like the terrorists who believe that heaven awaits them after they have been martyred.
I also think it;s a complacent view, as life for so many people is difficult and full of suffering.

In fact even in Christianity there is an idea of figurative heaven not material. Milton in Paradise Lost said Heaven or Hell is a state of mind only.

[dizzydoll]

Thanks for pointing that out Blaze, I didnt know that.

I came back to add, every single human being has things they can appreciate. The sooner they concentrate on those, the sooner joy returns and where else is joy but in Heaven.

[Paulclem]

Thats why I said there are trillions of heavens and hells, we all have our own.



The world will never rid itself of its madmen.



Paul if we only focus on difficulties and suffering then what is LIFE is for? We may as well be done with it and blow a hole in our heads or take an overdose. Assuming reincarnation does exist, its message teaches.. what we dont learn in this life will become our nemesis in the next. What does that say for suffering?

I believe in life we must try to keep it and simple and as joyful as we can otherwise there is no quality of life... I live in Heaven, but thats probably due to coming from more than enough Hell, to not want to go back there. The choice is always ours.

Life is like a wild tiger
You can either lie down
and let it
Lay its paw on your head --
Or sit on its back and ride it.

From: Ride the Wild Tiger.

http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_16.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-laughing-smileys.php)

I certainly hope you continue to live in heaven, but the nature of our existence is suffering - and to answer your question, from the buddhist viewpoint, life is to develop, improve and ultimately escape from suffering. The point of it is that there's a way to make life better and ultimately show others.

It's not about lying down but dealing with it. I don't know you dizzy, and so I can't make assumptions about you and your attitude of course, but if a person focuses only upon the heavenly aspects of life , then they mss learning opportunities, and are ignoring the fundamental causes of their suffering. This is the Buddhist viewpoint.

Assuming reincarnation does exist, its message teaches.. what we dont learn in this life will become our nemesis in the next. What does that say for suffering?

This is not the Buddhist view. It is karma that determines your reincarnated state. You may be referring to another system though.

[caddy_caddy]

In fact even in Christianity there is an idea of figurative heaven not material
Are u sure that the heaven in Christianity is not material ???:shocked:

[blazeofglory]

Are u sure that the heaven in Christianity is not material ???:shocked:

I think heaven and hell oftentimes are considered physical places high in the sky. This is a myth. They are symbolic, figurative only.

[dizzydoll]

from the buddhist viewpoint, life is to develop, improve and ultimately escape from suffering. The point of it is that there's a way to make life better and ultimately show others.

Spot on, thats where I am and thats where everyone can be -- developing and improving. Paul, we should be careful to not blindly accept any conditioning so I put it to you, if someone lives in suffering they are living in the past. It is wrong to live in the past, we must learn to live in the present NOW. Also I dont know if its our responsibility to show others anything, each of us has our own guiding Light to trust and follow.

I think its also wise to remember that all records of all religions and belief systems have been written by man which makes them all man-made concepts and therefore we should not allow them to control every aspect of our lives. This is not to say we cannot learn from their teachings but we should always allow and trust our own guiding Light first. Was not Buddha’s last words "Be lamps unto yourselves"?


but if a person focuses only upon the heavenly aspects of life , then they mss learning opportunities, and are ignoring the fundamental causes of their suffering. This is the Buddhist viewpoint.

You are correct, you have no clue what I have learned, and to my knowledge, I havent missed any opportunities and I havent ignored any part of my life either. I believe that I chose my life and my lessons before I was born and I believe everyone else did the same. I have suffered also like everyone else. But are all these points reason to not enjoy the aspects of heaven in which I choose to live?



This is not the Buddhist view. It is karma that determines your reincarnated state. You may be referring to another system though.

Well who makes our karma Paul? No-one else but ourselves. As far as reincarnation is concerned there are many different divisions of Buddhism, some dont believe our souls return to earth and others do. Those who dont believe we return teach that we make our own karma here and now. Those who do, believe good and bad karma carry through many lifetimes. All this is really besides the point, what is more to the point is that we determine our karma. So as I stated before, its our choice.. we make our own Heaven or Hell by the way we conduct our lives.

This is just a friendly debate Paul, no offence meant if I disagree with you, or others views about Heaven and Hell or other spiritual issues. I will say tho, until I am given proof that Heaven and Hell are "physical places", I will not believe it.

Paul, I think you might have missed this comment because you and I posted at the same time:

I came back to add, every single human being has things they can appreciate. The sooner they concentrate on those, the sooner joy returns and where else is joy but in Heaven.

[The Atheist]

So I have to wonder what you doing on a thread like this...

Like Paul, I find the subject interesting.

I find it even more interesting that such a clearly constructed idea should be so vague.



... if someone lives in suffering they are living in the past...

I have to say that's an extremely naive view.

Lots of people live in hell right now and cannot change it.

[dizzydoll]

Well enjoy your hell http://serve.mysmiley.net/angel/oncloud.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net) and I will enjoy my naive heaven.

http://serve.mysmiley.net/happy/happy0049.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-sick-smileys.php)

[NikolaiI]

I wanted to buy that book today, but they didn't have it and I'd need to order it. But seeing that statement makes me want to reconsider.. I don't need to read a book with a moral message atheism = nihilism.

Anyone willing to defend the book (I know lots of people here have read it)?

And in order to not get too off topic, I am also interested in what you all think of the statement in general. i.e. 'The Atheist' said Christians are more altruistic and he could even give evidence for that.. Is that really true? I'd like to hear the reasoning and see some stats.

Haha, yes!!!

In fact the chapters on Father Zosimov are really moving and beautiful. I have this one, and think it is a good translation (it was award-winning :p)

http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Karamazov-Vintage-Classics/dp/0679729259

[dizzydoll]

We can even understand scientifically that everything in the universe is light! All things are energy and matter; both are light. All life on Earth has come from the same source - Sol - who is light. Now how can we be of a different essence than our source??? Consciousness is light - and consciousness is a mirror - a reflection of the universe, so that subject and object are part of each other, they are one - so that all life is one. Yes this mystical truth found in Islam, Christianity, Paganism, Buddhism (NON-duality), and among other religions like that of the ancient Native Americans.

Paradise is a relative thing - where anyone understands God and lives in LOVE, then this is Paradise.

Agreed and while we seem to think everything is created in duality, tis not really the case as what we perceive as duality is but ONE WHOLE... the one cannot be without the other. We are travelling our journey towards learning unconditional love... for both others and ourselves.

[NikolaiI]

Agreed and while we seem to think everything is created in duality, tis not really the case as what we perceive as duality is but ONE WHOLE... the one cannot be without the other. We are travelling our journey towards learning unconditional love... for both others and ourselves.

So you are saying that if someone experiences oneness with the universe, they are not experiencing something real?

[dizzydoll]

No, they are experiencing something real once they become aware that we are all one with the universe and everything in it. I often maintain that God is in everything we see and even that which we cannot see, like oxygen.

[NikolaiI]

No, they are experiencing something real once they become aware that we are all one with the universe and everything in it. I often maintain that God is in everything we see and even what we cannot see, like oxygen.

Well yes , if any one of us are one with the universe, then all of us are. But that's what I thought you were saying was not true a few posts ago..:confused5:

[dizzydoll]

Where, you must have misunderstood my post or else its just my clumsy way of expressing myself again.... Where?

[NikolaiI]

I misunderstood! :p

It was this:
tis not really the case as what we perceive as duality is but ONE WHOLE...

It's not your fault.. I read it like this:


tis not really the case that] what we perceive as duality is but ONE WHOLE...

with a "that" instead of an "as"

I guess...silly me.

[dizzydoll]

Thank God... we as humans are foolish enough to perceive anything.. thats all my comment meant to say. What happened to your other post to Atheist? I was was about to agree with you. I dont mind being called naive by some... we are all learning and are at different stages in life. I would be more unhappy if you called me naive and I would quickly want to learn where I am wrong from you. That is why I asked for your feedback on my posts

[NikolaiI]

Spot on, thats where I am and thats where everyone can be -- developing and improving. Paul, we should be careful to not blindly accept any conditioning so I put it to you, if someone lives in suffering they are living in the past. It is wrong to live in the past, we must learn to live in the present NOW. Also I dont know if its our responsibility to show others anything, each of us has our own guiding Light to trust and follow.

I think its also wise to remember that all records of all religions and belief systems have been written by man which makes them all man-made concepts and therefore we should not allow them to control every aspect of our lives. This is not to say we cannot learn from their teachings but we should always allow and trust our own guiding Light first. Was not Buddha’s last words "Be lamps unto yourselves"?

You are correct, you have no clue what I have learned, and to my knowledge, I havent missed any opportunities and I havent ignored any part of my life either. I believe that I chose my life and my lessons before I was born and I believe everyone else did the same. I have suffered also like everyone else. But are all these points reason to not enjoy the aspects of heaven in which I choose to live?

Well who makes our karma Paul? No-one else but ourselves. As far as reincarnation is concerned there are many different divisions of Buddhism, some dont believe our souls return to earth and others do. Those who dont believe we return teach that we make our own karma here and now. Those who do, believe good and bad karma carry through many lifetimes. All this is really besides the point, what is more to the point is that we determine our karma. So as I stated before, its our choice.. we make our own Heaven or Hell by the way we conduct our lives.

This is just a friendly debate Paul, no offence meant if I disagree with you, or others views about Heaven and Hell or other spiritual issues. I will say tho, until I am given proof that Heaven and Hell are "physical places", I will not believe it.

Paul, I think you might have missed this comment because you and I posted at the same time:

I came back to add, every single human being has things they can appreciate. The sooner they concentrate on those, the sooner joy returns and where else is joy but in Heaven.

I think you are giving a lot of true and positive ideas to the world. :)

And about the Hell and Heaven bit, I'll post a bit from a Buddhist parable which you've probably heard... I was glad to read it again after searching for it! :)


"Heard a great story about how heaven and hell expressed though Buddhism is very different to how religions preach heaven and hell. The story is of a Samurai who was sick of hearing mythical descriptions of heaven and hell and wanted to understand what Buddhist monks believed…The young Samurai warrior came across a monk sitting down and asked him:
“Monk. Is there a heaven and a hell? If you know the answer, tell me. If you don’t, don’t waste my time!”.
The monk looked up at him and said “you’re too stupid to understand!”.
The samurai said “Stupid? I’m a samurai warrior!”. The monk replied “You. A samurai? don’t be silly, you’re just a country bumpkin!”.
“That’s twice you’ve insulted me monk!” he rests his hand on his katana handle and sates “one more insult and I will cut you’re head off with this sword in half a second!”.
“With that, stupid rusty blade, you couldn’t cut a slice of bread with that!”. The samurai draws his sword, incensed by the insult of his imaculate sword, squinting his eyes with rage he prepared to swipe with his blade, the monk made eye contact and said:
“Samurai! That’s hell!”.
The samuai then understood at that moment that the anger he felt was what hell was like. He was so moved that he dropped his sword and his eyes welled up and bowed to the monk saying “thank you monk.”. Then the monk said “and that is heaven.” and the samurai understood that the repect, understanding, and compassion he flet was what heaven was like…"

http://www.jamesmylne.co.uk/blog/?cat=15

[dizzydoll]

Thank you Nikolai.. your response makes perfect sense to me. Your views are important to me. I knew from the very beginning that yours and Blaze's views were most compatible with my outlook when I signed up here. Do you remember?

Now, try telling people that we choose our lessons before we get here and that, what seems to be suffering to us in others, was chosen by their Old Soul and it is not our burden to carry their suffering.. its only our right to offer compassion but we are not able to release them of their load. Once we understand this simple truth then we begin to understand why some people seem more blessed than others, its their due. We are not all required to randomly suffer, and I believe once we grasp this reality our life changes to a heavenly Joy right here on earth.

Life is not a reality its only our perception... we make our own Heaven or Hell even if we ARE repaying bad karma, all we need to remember is that as long as we count our blessings in appreciation of all things, it can only improve even while we work bad karma off.

[NikolaiI]

Thank you Nikolai.. your response makes perfect sense to me. Your views are important to me. I knew from the very beginning that yours and Blaze's views were most compatible with my outlook when I signed up here. Do you remember?

Now, try telling people that we choose our lessons before we get here and that, what seems to be suffering to us in others, was chosen by their Old Soul and it is not our burden to carry their suffering.. its only right to offer compassion but we are not able to release their load.

Interesting. I've never heard that or thought of it that way, but I am glad you shared it with me. Thank you. :smile5:

[dizzydoll]

I had updated the end of that message while you were typing. Please read what you missed Nikolai....

[Paulclem]

Spot on, thats where I am and thats where everyone can be -- developing and improving. Paul, we should be careful to not blindly accept any conditioning so I put it to you, if someone lives in suffering they are living in the past. It is wrong to live in the past, we must learn to live in the present NOW. Also I dont know if its our responsibility to show others anything, each of us has our own guiding Light to trust and follow.

I think its also wise to remember that all records of all religions and belief systems have been written by man which makes them all man-made concepts and therefore we should not allow them to control every aspect of our lives. This is not to say we cannot learn from their teachings but we should always allow and trust our own guiding Light first. Was not Buddha’s last words "Be lamps unto yourselves"?



You are correct, you have no clue what I have learned, and to my knowledge, I havent missed any opportunities and I havent ignored any part of my life either. I believe that I chose my life and my lessons before I was born and I believe everyone else did the same. I have suffered also like everyone else. But are all these points reason to not enjoy the aspects of heaven in which I choose to live?



Well who makes our karma Paul? No-one else but ourselves. As far as reincarnation is concerned there are many different divisions of Buddhism, some dont believe our souls return to earth and others do. Those who dont believe we return teach that we make our own karma here and now. Those who do, believe good and bad karma carry through many lifetimes. All this is really besides the point, what is more to the point is that we determine our karma. So as I stated before, its our choice.. we make our own Heaven or Hell by the way we conduct our lives.

This is just a friendly debate Paul, no offence meant if I disagree with you, or others views about Heaven and Hell or other spiritual issues. I will say tho, until I am given proof that Heaven and Hell are "physical places", I will not believe it.

Paul, I think you might have missed this comment because you and I posted at the same time:

I came back to add, every single human being has things they can appreciate. The sooner they concentrate on those, the sooner joy returns and where else is joy but in Heaven.


It is wrong to live in the past, we must learn to live in the present NOW. Also I dont know if its our responsibility to show others anything, each of us has our own guiding Light to trust and follow.


As the Atheist said, this is a naive view. Many people suffer extremely for many reasons, and these can be through war, poverty, illness, mental problems, loss of jobs, relationships etc. What relief will this view be to someone in a war zone for example? As for the guiding light - where is it? What is it and why don't we all follow it?

Was not Buddha’s last words "Be lamps unto yourselves"?


They were - in the context that you should check out the teachings and not follow them with blind faith. He wasn't saying go and make it up for yourself because he had found a valid path where many before him had not.

You are correct, you have no clue what I have learned, and to my knowledge, I havent missed any opportunities and I havent ignored any part of my life either.

Yes - in reference to your last bit about debate - I'm interested in people's opinions on this thread and mean no offense. I will disagree with you if think it valid - particularly about topics I know more about. :biggrin5:

I believe that I chose my life and my lessons before I was born and I believe everyone else did the same. I have suffered also like everyone else. But are all these points reason to not enjoy the aspects of heaven in which I choose to live?

How does it work then? It's a nice thought, and I have heard similar thoughts in Spiritualist churches, but some people choose very horrible lives. Why would they do that? Some people as choose very negative lives serial killers, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, addicts etc etc. How does that work?

As far as reincarnation is concerned there are many different divisions of Buddhism, some dont believe our souls return to earth and others do.

Buddhists are remarkably consistent in their views about the main teachings. The apparent differences are often cultural with different approaches, but the teachings are the same. Buddhists do not admit the prescence of a soul. We are empty of inherent existence - no soul. I think this shows a partial knowledge of Buddhism as it is a key aspect.

I came back to add, every single human being has things they can appreciate. The sooner they concentrate on those, the sooner joy returns and where else is joy but in Heaven.

If only this were true Dizzy. Yes we all appreciate the good things hopefully, but there is no stronger truth than that suffering will return. This is also a key teaching of The Buddha. We live in Samsara, and it is our Karma to experience the suffering of birth, ageing, sickness and death. The richest, luckiest, happiest person in the world will experience this, and at the point of their death will suffer as much, maybe more than the poorest person, becase they are loosing so much. The transience of our happiness is a fact of our lives.

I try to keep happy though. :lol:

[Paulclem]

Yes The Qura'n is full of details about heaven and hell .What is mentionned asserts that they are physical , real , and concrete . We have no such problem. This matter is very clear and consistent .
But before that and long time ago ,if you accept that Adam is the origin of our species , the very idea comes from God not human and inherited from Adam to his descendants .

Pardon me asking - If heaven is real, physical and solid - then where is it?

How do humans who have died fit in? Do they regain their old body - as some Christians assert, or is it a new body?

if you accept that Adam is the origin of our species , the very idea comes from God not human and inherited from Adam to his descendants

But the original article points to the development of the idea of heaven at a particular time in history. Why wasn't the idea of heaven, as conceived by the modern person, explained earlier?

[dizzydoll]

You see this is why its not recommended to discuss religion in polite company. I will try for the last time to get my point across, if after that you dont get it... then its simply not your time. I can do no more, so I will not return to this thread.



As the Atheist said, this is a naive view. Many people suffer extremely for many reasons, and these can be through war, poverty, illness, mental problems, loss of jobs, relationships etc. What relief will this view be to someone in a war zone for example? As for the guiding light - where is it? What is it and why don't we all follow it?

As I said before, irrespective of the difficulties we face [war, poverty] we have that much more to appreciate if we only open our eyes to see. You say further on in your post that we hopefully appreciate and there is the key... most people DONT stop to appreciate what they have got. Most people only focus on what they want, they dont stop to smell the roses until old age. If you dont believe me there is more than enough poems and stories to back my case.

Most people dont appreciate their eyesight, hearing etc. Now if they began to be grateful rather than always wanting then their lives would vastly improve in the present moment and thats all we have Paul. Suffering is a function of the past, there is no getting away with it. But then how could you ever know this until you try? But you wont try, because you already believe you've got the answers.

Lets put it a different way, if I chose to only focus on the suffering in my life then I would sooner die. So its a case of each to their own. As long as I know that Nikolai and I are in agreement, his is the only opinion that matters to me.. you forget he was born into the Eastern spirituality and culture and he has an excellent understanding of Buddhism as well as other Spiritual philosophies.

From what I have witnessed throughout my life, people from the West often dont understand interpretations of many Eastern Beliefs Systems... like this one of Buddha for example: As far as Buddha's last words "Be lamps unto yourselves"? are concerned I interpret them exactly as those 4 words were intended... I am not going to add words into his mouth as you have done. But hey, if you and Atheist are on the same page I certainly will not interfere.


I will disagree with you if think it valid - particularly about topics I know more about. :biggrin5:

Underestimating my abilities again I see, like I said before... if Nikolai had said I was naive in my beliefs on Eastern Philosophies then I would have been offended. But he is too gentle to say anything like that, as he would rather provide guidance. But its not necessary in this case cos if you look back on the comments you will see he agrees with my posts. But more to the point regarding the quote above, you can NOT know any better than anyone until the day you die. All that we read was written by man and so those texts are just man-made concepts... for sure no one can know more, but our personal Light guides us to a timely understanding.

The rest of your post shows you have much to learn and dont really understand the most basic purpose for our Souls reincarnated. Its obviously not your time to grasp the depths of life's meaning yet. There is nothing wrong with this, we are all on a different rung on the treadmill of our own making and understanding and I do not profess to know everything either [indeed thats impossible]. If you read through previous comments of mine and Nikolai's, I believe it might become clearer with regard to the purpose of reincarnation.

And again, I learn more from those born into Eastern cultures than I do from anyone in the West on mattes of spiritual growth and understanding.
I feel this is the wisest approach.

[MarkBastable]

I think it would be best if there were really a hell, but no heaven - so then the reward for being good would be oblivion, and the avoidance of eternal damnation. It'd be interesting to see how many theists would sign up for that deal.

[Paulclem]

Underestimating my abilities again I see, like I said before...

No this is babel again.I mean subjects I Know more about myself - not subjects I know more about than you do. The only thing I can comment on is where you assert something which I think is incorrect - but I usually will only correct if it concerns Buddhism, which I practice.


Anyway, back to the issue.

My old Uncle may well be able to smell the roses, but he is much more concerned with his diabetes and the sores that won't heal on his legs. There are lots of examples of immediate suffering, but it goes much deeper than that. Everything is suffering - even our perception of happiness - according to the standard Buddhist view. This is not at all unconventional and was in fact the subject of The Buddha's first teaching to his fellow ascetics after his enlightenment.

I do think your assetion about what most people do or don't do is somewhat unfounded. How do you know?

people from the West often dont understand interpretations of many Eastern Beliefs Systems

This is true. Buddhism is the perfect example. I have not seen much understanding of Buddhism on this forum.

The rest of your post shows you have much to learn and dont really understand the most basic purpose for our Souls reincarnated. Its obviously not your time to grasp the depths of life's meaning yet. There is nothing wrong with this, we are all on a different rung on the treadmill of our own making and I do not profess to know everything either . If you read through previous comments of mine, I believe it might become clearer.

I do understand the Buddhist perspective on this, and souls don't figure. It is another exzample of people not understanding Buddhism. As for other systems, well I couldn't say.

As far as Buddha's last words "Be lamps unto yourselves"? are concerned I interpret them exactly as those 4 words were intended... I am not going to add words into his mouth as you have done. But hey, if you and Atheist are on the same page I certainly will not interfere.

But are you really sure about that Dizzy? He addressed those words to his heart disciples who were practising Buddhists. It means find The Path yourself - and he meant the path he had traversed before them. He did not mean go out and make it up as you see fit, otherwise the transmission from the Buddha would not be in the form that it is now - a valid transmission from the Buddha.

But again, I learn more from those born into Eastern cultures than I do from anyone in the West on mattes such as spiritual growth and understanding. I feel this is the wisest approach.

Me too.


I think it would be best if there [I]were really a hell, but no heaven - so then the reward for being good would be oblivion, and the avoidance of eternal damnation. It'd be interesting to see how many theists would sign up for that deal.

Interesting take, but probably unpopular. :D

[dizzydoll]

Interesting. I've never heard that or thought of it that way, but I am glad you shared it with me. Thank you. :smile5:

Thank you Nikolai, I came back to respond to your comment. We are not put on earth to FIX anyone, and we cannot take away their pain. Everyone has their own cross to bear, all we can do is be compassionate and supportive by listening to them... not telling them what to do.

And no-one can FIX our circumstances only we can do that. We are not responsible for them and they are not responsible for us. Karma is a bastard but it has to be paid, its good philosophy to remember that. Most of us do learn our lessons, if not... well, we'll have to die to find out. lol.

I thought readers might enjoy this to add a bit of fun to what seems a serious topic:

Heaven is Where:
The Police are British,
The Chefs are Italian,
The Mechanics are German,
The Lovers are French and
It's all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is Where:
The Police are German,
The Chefs are British,
The Mechanics are French,
The Lovers are Swiss and
It's all organized by the Italians.

http://serve.mysmiley.net/innocent/innocent0001.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-happy-smileys.php)

Just got to love it...........

[Paulclem]

In fact even in Christianity there is an idea of figurative heaven not material. Milton in Paradise Lost said Heaven or Hell is a state of mind only.

Hi Blaze - I think I missed responding to you. It is clear that some people experience mental hell - see locals with mental health concerns. We can see ths on earth.
What about heavenly states of mind though? Do we have those states on earth? We do experience bliss of various kinds, but is this heaven?

[NikolaiI]

Heaven is the nearest thing to INFINITE LOVE.`

[Paulclem]

Heaven is the nearest thing to INFINITE LOVE.`

How does it work though? Is it with a spiritual body or a human body, or is it a kind of bliss state?

[NikolaiI]

You can see my thoughts in two previous posts...

I already know you disagree with all my ideas Paul.

[Paulclem]

You can see my thoughts in two previous posts...

I already know you disagree with all my ideas Paul.

OK - I looked back. I'd read them but it was a while ago.

I don't disagree with your ideas/ beliefs Nik. I might take issue with assertions about Buddhism that I don't think are right, but I don't intend to criticise your own beliefs. I was just asking, as I've been asking other posters.

No worries.

:biggrin5:

[dizzydoll]

I cannot contain myself I have to share with you Paul. I hope this makes it clearer because this is where I feel our misunderstanding lies.



Buddhists are remarkably consistent in their views about the main teachings. The apparent differences are often cultural with different approaches, but the teachings are the same. Buddhists do not admit the prescence of a soul. We are empty of inherent existence - no soul. I think this shows a partial knowledge of Buddhism as it is a key aspect.

This comment of yours is simply not true, especially what you state in bold. I provide a link below to confirm my point. But even so, I dont believe Buddhism has all the answers anyway. Just as science makes new discoveries after some theories die, so I believe is the case with "belief systems", i.e. after we put our current life to death, so our Soul moves on to new discoveries. This means neither science nor religion have all the answers yet.

Please read this link which outlines the Souls Birth and Rebirth according to Buddhist philosophy.

Karma and Rebirth (http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/karma.html)

I have included bits and pieces of its message in this post but please read the entire link, its only one page long. Of course there are other links within the site to Table of Contents but this link deals with:


The wheel of life, or "samsara", is an ancient symbol that has the same meaning in Buddhism and Hinduism. It is symbolises the cycle of birth, life, and death. When one revolution of the wheel is completed, life begins again with rebirth.

Rebirth.

Buddhists hold that the retributive process of karma can span more than one lifetime. Rebirth has always been an important tenet in Buddhism; and it is often referred to as walking the wheel of life (samsara). It is the process of being born over and over again in different times and different situations, possibly for many thousand times.

As long as there is delusion, greed, and aversion, and as long as passions are not extinguished, we generate karma. Because we eventually accumulate unmaterialised karma, there is a next lifetime in which the accumulated karma will take form. Only when all accumulated karma is realised and the generation of new karma is calmed, one can enter the stream that leads to Nirvana. This process continues until Nirvana is reached, which signifies the cessation of rebirth and, hence, the end of suffering.

It is notable that this also entails the avoidance of "good karma". Once the stream that leads to Nirvana is entered, creating wholesome karma is not an object anymore. Although wholesome karma leads to entering the stream, it does not necessarily lead to Nirvana, only the extinguishment of all karma leads to Nirvana.

What is reborn if not the "self"?

If the idea of non-self sounds odd, then it must sound even more curious that non-self can be reborn. There is a seeming contradiction between the canon of rebirth and that of the non-self, which even many Buddhists find difficult to understand. The contradiction is, however, only on the surface and can be solved if one pictures the self as the result of karmic formation. This can be put into less abstract words:

If we imagine the world as an ocean, we are like the ripples on the ocean. Formations like ripples and waves occur, because of wind, tides, and other kinetic forces. In the Buddhist analogy, the universe is in motion due to karmic forces. A ripple, a wave, or a billow may seem as an individual entity for a moment, creating the illusion that it has a self, but it is gone in the next moment. The truth is that all individuals are one. A ripple is a temporary phenomenon; it is just water in motion. We know that kinetic energy causes wave forms on a body of water and it would be ridiculous to say that a single ripple or wave has a self.

Similarly, in case of beings, the process of coming into life and being conditioned in a particular way is caused by karmic forces. The up and down of the ocean's waves corresponds with the rotation of the wheel of life. The sea that surges, falls, and resurges, is the life that is born, dies, and is reborn again. It is therefore obvious that we should not focus on the temporary phenomenon of the wave, but on the force that causes, forms, and drives it. Nothing else is said, although in more practical terms, in the Eightfold Path.

There are many other links which provide similar information but I think this one rules your quote, which I placed at the beginning of this post, as null and void. Because you love Buddhism Paul, I am sure you will enjoy the rest of this website... its really very imformative, just your cuppa tea!. Have a wonderful day without suffering, just let it go, be it yours or contemplation of others.

[Paulclem]

Buddhists do not admit the prescence of a soul. We are empty of inherent existence - no soul.

Is what I said and what you quoted.

This is from the website that you linked.

The Buddhist concept is subtly different from the classical Indian understanding, because it denies the existence of a self or a soul.

and

The body is mortal and when it dies, all mental activities cease. That is why there is no soul. The idea of soul is simply an extension of the self; in fact it is an immortal version of the self that supposedly survives physical death. Buddhism denies the existence of such an entity. Instead, what we call self is just a stream of consciousness that draws identity from concepts and memories, all of which are impermanent.

I'm sorry Dizzy, but I don't see where it contradicts what I said on the website. Could you clarify?

[dizzydoll]

It looks like the website is contradicting itself then unless its just their expression which we seem to be misinterpreting. You have to agree with this at least after reading what I have posted from the same site. As I said to you before, Buddhism doesnt work for me but let me try to understand the passages you have outlined.

Possibly what they mean by this is:

because it denies the existence of a self or a soul.

Well we all know the "self" in its present form does exist because we are evidence of it, so I have no clue why that statement was made except... possibly... they mean just that "in its present form", which is just as my personal spiritual awareness leads me to believe, that WE are NOT this present "mortal self or current soul" we are in fact an Old Soul or an Immortal Soul who returns in reincarnation as per the rest of this website states. What other reason can there be for it, because the website makes reference to Rebirth and Karma often in connection with reincarnation into new lives to cleanse bad karma? It could mean that they are classifying the mortal "self" and "soul" as the same thing.

The idea of soul is simply an extension of the self; in fact it is an immortal version of the self that supposedly survives physical death.

Taken from your post. Again it looks as if this website is coupling the "mortal self" and the "current soul" as one and the same thing. And then when I look at that bolded bit, it can just as well read that "the immortal self survives physical death" which is accurate as I believe the immortal Old Soul never dies, which fits with my personal spiritual understanding. Energy never dies it only changes form.

Its ambiguous, but please explain to me then... why in the areas I have quoted on this thread and in other areas on the site they consistently bring up: "It is the process of being born over and over again in different times and different situations, possibly for many thousand times." in different ways? Thats of more interest to me than this small piece of ambiguity that you have managed to dig up. It could even mean that the person writing for the website might not have mastered the English language sufficiently to understand that what they have written has come across as contradictory. In fact all the material I have ever read in regard to Buddhism refers to reincarnation to cleanse karma's.

Who knows, it looks again that there a divisions in Buddhism, but considering that a lot of their beliefs stem from Hinduism then that could just be their twist to show the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism. As I told you before, I dont follow one single belief system, I follow whatever I am comfortable with and in my minds-eye there is no purpose to life unless there is reincarnation to improve our disposition.

[Paulclem]

Hi Dizzy. I agree that the bit you refer to is not clear. Can I answer your question in another thread? I'll call it Self and rebirth. Another poster mentioned some ideas about Buddhism and I can respond to those too. Is this ok? I'm aware that weve strayed off topic.

[dizzydoll]

Good idea Paul, then we can all learn what each others beliefs are and clear up the misconceptions that arise from the differences. Cos after all, we will probably find every poster has their own ideal of what spiritual growth and spiritual progress is.

[MrRegular]

When we die we all become potatoes. To prove this I give you the fact that when a human dies, somewhere a potato germinates. There is also the conciousness of the potato, which is remarkably similar to that of the human. They are known to suffer from many similar neurosis, such as bipolar disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder, though their physical capacity limits the display of these.
You may then ask 'what happens when a potato dies?'
The answer is simple. They can become such things as the majestic Ccptilst of PSR 1257+12 if their behavior as a potato was good or as a 'chicken' at a Kentucky Fried Chicken farm if their behavior was bad.

[Paulclem]

When we die we all become potatoes. To prove this I give you the fact that when a human dies, somewhere a potato germinates. There is also the conciousness of the potato, which is remarkably similar to that of the human. They are known to suffer from many similar neurosis, such as bipolar disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder, though their physical capacity limits the display of these.
You may then ask 'what happens when a potato dies?'
The answer is simple. They can become such things as the majestic Ccptilst of PSR 1257+12 if their behavior as a potato was good or as a 'chicken' at a Kentucky Fried Chicken farm if their behavior was bad.

They have found the link after all - Mr and Mrs Potato Head.

Sorted.:conehead:

[NikolaiI]

OK - I looked back. I'd read them but it was a while ago.

I don't disagree with your ideas/ beliefs Nik. I might take issue with assertions about Buddhism that I don't think are right, but I don't intend to criticise your own beliefs. I was just asking, as I've been asking other posters.

No worries.

:biggrin5:

Paul,

I think Dizzy and I both have a certain understanding that we are trying to share with you.. which goes all the way back to Plotinus even! That everything has a source... etc. And you underestimate us! I don't mean to underestimate you, you have your own life and your thoughts which have an immeasurable value.

Let me try to say it one more way. Think about it this way. Just for a moment, humour me.


Your mind is light. Your eyes are light.

Your face is light, your teeth are light, your skin is light, and your body and consciousness and heart are light. Your thoughts are light.

As Lama Surya Das said, "The secret of Buddhism is that enlightenment can be experienced even within samsara; that even the shadows themselves are light."

Consider this... and consider - what is there? Is there any experience, any consciousness, awareness, dimension, which is to this (our normative) dimension as this awareness is to sleep? This is precisely what Buddhism teaches. And no - it isn't as emphasized in Theravada Buddhism as it is in Mahayana, nor is it in Mahayana as much as it is in Vajrayana. And yes, Vajrayana Buddhism is a secret teaching which it is necessary to have a teacher in a lineage to learn.

But I would use Kenneth Inada's words at the beginning of The Range of Buddhist Ontology


The perception of the nature of reality in Buddhism is a consequence of the
Buddha's original enlightenment. Failure to recognize this fact has caused
many problems in the understanding of Buddhism. Many take the enlighten-
ment to be strictly a private affair and will skirt around it and not involve it in
any discussion, especially within the framework of other doctrines and princi-
ples of Buddhism. This is simply a gratuitous gesture and serves no purpose at
all. For the greatest gift of the Buddha, after all, is his enlightenment and the
exposition he gave of it.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95263941


I can tell you of my own experiences, though I cannot speak of Dizzy's. I can tell you what I saw, which, when I saw it, carried with it the imperative never to forget it! And then to tell others - that no matter what, there is never a reason to doubt, worry, fear, or grieve. That there is a deathless or infinite peace. The experience of this peace is like experiencing reality, and upon realizing one's nature, of the mind, or the self (as you wish!!!), it is like waking up from a dream.

So, so many people, several on here say that to say that this life is an illusion is a negating of it! And they will press this so much it seems like emotionalism to me. But if it is true, then it's pretty important.

Now Paul I hope you will always have more success in your spiritual life than you could ever have imagined. Don't doubt me to say that you can achieve this. When I said that there's no reason ever, ever to doubt, worry, fear or grieve, remember that Buddha's have a fearlessness, a fierce side as well! Buddhas after all do battle with and kill demons... in today's day it's mostly demons of delusion than a real live demon...

Now - as to self... perhaps I should post this on another thread, but I don't want to engage you on too many fronts. It seems to me like you are debating these and using quotes about Buddhist ontology and philosophy because you were convinced by it, which is good. Because it's a very good ontology and ground from which to proceed. It's amazing that people hold many views which are false. (Just like Descartes admitted.) And Buddhism has attained a lot. But you should not have any fixed ideas. Even if you have accepted an abstract idea of Buddhism as being closer to truth than the abstract ideas of modern secular ontology, which when you examine them do reveal themselves to bear no weight at all; even so, you should not have fixed ideas. There are many poems about this. Direct experience of reality is one thing - it is enlightenment. Everything is word jumbles and games which don't serve to much purpose... although they are necessary convulsions along the path to understanding.

I would urge you to really consider two things; one is the idea of non-duality, and it means. What is the range of your existence? Non-duality means that self and other are not dual, as well as other dualities. It means that when you experience pain, you are the pain, the experiencer of it, and the giver of it. However this is only an abstract idea and construct, it is not the same thing as experience, or feeling, of the unity of self and other, or self and universe. Yes it is true that self may be empty, but if you hang yourself up on this single word every time someone uses it to express a thought, you may miss what wisdom is behind the words.

The idea of non-duality, as we speak of it, is an abstract. Yet it is also something which may be experienced.

Now as to whether Heaven is real, I would ask you to go back again to what I said, that you are light - your consciousness, your eyes, your mind, your body, heart, and face, are all light. This is akin to the scripture called Prajna Paramitam Hrdaya, it is far more akin than you realize - the statements that "There is no eye, no consciousness," etc. In other words saying that there is no consciousness, no eye, no body, etc. There is not - but there is only as a dream-body, etc.

If your consciousness is light - and I do ask you to find a better definition if there exists one - then is it not possible for you to experience infinite (deathless) peace? Indeed it is, and this is the essential core of Buddhism. This is merely all I wish to say. And yet it is a pretty shocking or unbelievable implication. I say the follow-up as well - that this life is a dream, an illusion; in relation to experience of reality, which one can infinite peace, this life of duailty is a hey-day, even if it seems great and peaceful (may it so be.)

In the end I will not fight or argue or engage with you but retreat to within my own walls, where I am comforted by the near presence of hearts who love me absolutely, as I love them. If you have seen what I have seen, you would not be afraid of love as restricting one to remain in samsara; you would know the peak of perfect enlightenment to be so distant yet also so near - because again, the only separation, the only walls, are illusions, in other words, nothings. Again, the only separation between you, and anyone, from reality, is nothing. This seems like a redundancy, yet it's rather important. The best life and health are gained when one strives for the highest ideals with all of one's being. And love is a very real part of that, and it does indeed go beyond samsara.

I have more to say but I have neglected actually writing to a very dear friend to write this to you, so I should go now, also as it is so long.

I can just tell you; Heaven is real, and it can be attained, but helping others is really heaven, not experiencing of bliss for oneself.

And forget whatever I said... about my being reserved about you - I know you will not criticize my experiences or feelings. I just have seen some very ugly things come out of people's heads on here before... Please forgive me for before but I do trust you and know you are a very good person.

[Paulclem]

Thanks

[Satan]

If there's one thing that truly frightens me beyond all rational explanation, it's afterlife. I don't want heaven or hell or your purgatory. Let me die when I die; once and forever. No rebirth, no endless cycles of life and death. End! Let death be the end of everything. Let this biological machine rest after a tiresome involuntary tour.

[dizzydoll]

At least Paul, we know... you and I... that we are on the right track. And we have a whole life-time to put things in perspective to whatever we are most comfortable with and in finding the true nature of life.


If there's one thing that truly frightens me beyond all rational explanation, it's afterlife. I don't want heaven or hell or your purgatory. Let me die when I die; once and forever. No rebirth, no endless cycles of life and death. End! Let death be the end of everything. Let this biological machine rest after a tiresome involuntary tour.

Remember these words: "I want never gets". lol. But seriously there is nothing to be afraid of Satan. Its our perception that frightens us most:


Men are disturbed not by things
that happen,
but by their opinion of the things
that happen.

Epictetus

As long as the world and humanity is progressing, there will always be plenty good on the way... all one needs to do is open ones eyes to see it.

[Paulclem]

If there's one thing that truly frightens me beyond all rational explanation, it's afterlife. I don't want heaven or hell or your purgatory. Let me die when I die; once and forever. No rebirth, no endless cycles of life and death. End! Let death be the end of everything. Let this biological machine rest after a tiresome involuntary tour.

I know what you mean. Buddhist writings talk of two extremes annihilation and the survival of a soul. The Buddhist view is that there is no permanent soul and so no survival of personality. The karmic impetus takes a being to their next reincarnation, which may be fortunate of unfortunate. So the state of mind at death is seen as very important.

It's not a comfortable or idealistic view, but scary. There are lots of other beings any of us might become if we don't manage to control our negativity. The only good thing about it is that there are paths to escape this. As there's no God/ creator idea - then it's down to the individual.

I'm only putting the Buddhist view. :biggrin5:

[dizzydoll]

So the state of mind at death is seen as very important.

I agree with this 100% Paul, but its not difficult to keep a good state of mind, its really very very simple... control your thoughts to only see the beauty in all life. Be "aware" of your thoughts and if something negative pops into your mind, immediately replace it with something pleasant. Enjoy your day. http://serve.mysmiley.net/winking/winking0066.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

[Paulclem]

I agree with this 100% Paul, but its not difficult to keep a good state of mind, its really very very simple... control your thoughts to only see the beauty in all life. Be "aware" of your thoughts and if something negative pops into your mind, immediately replace it with something pleasant. Enjoy your day. http://serve.mysmiley.net/winking/winking0066.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

I'm glad you find it easy but I don't think this is true for most people. It's very easy to say what to do, but it takes training just to count the breaths. As for controlling the fear of death and coping with pain and illness - that's something else.

[NikolaiI]

I know what you mean. Buddhist writings talk of two extremes annihilation and the survival of a soul. The Buddhist view is that there is no permanent soul and so no survival of personality. The karmic impetus takes a being to their next reincarnation, which may be fortunate of unfortunate. So the state of mind at death is seen as very important.

It's not a comfortable or idealistic view, but scary. There are lots of other beings any of us might become if we don't manage to control our negativity. The only good thing about it is that there are paths to escape this. As there's no God/ creator idea - then it's down to the individual.

I'm only putting the Buddhist view. :biggrin5:

Don't think there's no place for Buddhist idealism. Buddhism speaks of a reality which is to our mind inconceivable, for it is beyond the realm of our perception of the universe (which is based on I and other). The Buddhist reality is that of unity and oneness. Buddhist nature is that within us which is beyond everything else; and being beyond everything else it includes everything else. Including everything else, it must be the source, because the source is the only form which includes all others. As soon as one gets close enough to the source, one realizes, "I am the same as the source." Since the source is where you came from, it is who you are. When you say "I am" something, the "I am" is what everything in the universe came from. In Buddhist reality every individual has an influence on the world, and so they are co-creator. Each of us contain all of our own reality within our hands; with a gesture of the hand I change the whole universe. This is why the Buddhist scriptures describe of infinite heavens and pure lands. A Buddha can travel to any of them, and create any of them, with no effort, and no time given.

Mathematics comes to us and tells us the same thing; that the universe is an infinite fractal. You cannot division off any "part" because if you view a "part" you view the whole pattern repeated again. This is why we are the same as the energy of the universe, as are our cells. And as we are the highest of conscious beings on this planet (to some extent and in many respects), we have a greater degree of control over the energy in the universe than any other being on our planet. When we can see that the higher evolution toward which we should strive for is for us to live in perfect harmony with our environment, taking as little as possible and necessary, and caring for the rest of earth as our main concern; and then living happily in families or whatever we chose to do.

This is the highest form we can achieve on this planet; we can chase our dreams and chase eternity from a secondary priority, first we attian equilibrium in our living on the planet, then we try to make the world as wonderful as possible.

Buddhism is idealist in the very definition of the word, as it posits that this ideal utopia is possible; and tells us it is beyond what we can even imagine it could be. It tells us it is possible, and even possible now. Buddhism in fact teaches us to focus on the present moment, the momentary, though not as a permament escape, but as a way of improving our focus.

[Paulclem]

I agree that Buddhism is a very positive religion -and it has the highest idealism at it's core - to release the countless sentient beings from samsara.

The here and now aspect in Budhism is also very important. It is designed to deal with the problems humans have in an incremental way. People's suffering is often self inflicted as they are afflicted by the three poisons - hatred, attachment and ignorence. It teaches first to deal with the obvious faults - anger for example - with the antidote patience. Then it encourages the practitioner to begin to interact better with the people and circumstances in their environment - loving kindness- and to begin to cherish the people around. The next stage is to devote oneself to all beings.

Each of us contain all of our own reality within our hands; with a gesture of the hand I change the whole universe.

The problem is the realisation of the potential within a human life. The myriad probems individuals face make it difficult to realise. Buddhism is idealistic, but it is also realistic.

For example it recognises that the right conditions for a human have to be present before any practice can be done - these conditions are: a functioning mind/ body; living in a place where there is freedom to practice the Dharma; living wthout war; being wealthy enough to have the leisure time to practice; and having enough wealth/ food etc to sustain oneslf. Without these conditions even as a human - it is difficult to achieve anything.

[NikolaiI]

That's interesting. Keep working for all our benefit. :) Keep up the good work.

[Paulclem]

That's interesting. Keep working for all our benefit. :) Keep up the good work.

I think the conversation has been very useful for me in organising my thoughts.
:biggrin5:

The group of Buddhists I meet and I have started a new study group, where we are studying Lama Yeshe's texts. It's been really good so far.

[NikolaiI]

I think the conversation has been very useful for me in organising my thoughts.
:biggrin5:

The group of Buddhists I meet and I have started a new study group, where we are studying Lama Yeshe's texts. It's been really good so far.

I love Lama Yeshe's writing. I've only read one article by him. Let me know if you ever get to "Make Your Mind an Ocean." That one was brilliant in my opinion. Take care.

[Paulclem]

I've got a number of his books and those of his Heart disciple Lama Zopa. We get them free as they are printed and disributed throughout the FPMT by benefactors. We're lucky.:biggrin5:

[Lynne Fees]

I always thought that the whole heaven/hell thing was stupid, even when I was a kid. My reasoning: billions of people die every generation. Wouldn't it get full?

If some form of existance continues after death, I always thought that reincarnation seemed more likely.

I was just studying in Mark chapter 13. The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, either. Jesus really set them straight!

[Paulclem]

I was just studying in Mark chapter 13. The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, either. Jesus really set them straight!

Is it true that the belief is that the body is resurrected and made whole again?

[El Viejo]

It says that the Christian/ Jewish/ Muslim version of heaven is an invented idea - around 165BC, which it claims arose due to the insecurity of burial rituals during the Greek occupation of Jewish lands.

It quotes some stats:

83% of US citizens and 51% of UK citizens believe in heaven.

Of these 71% believe it's an actual place

People's opinions of a place they've never seen, that they only know about through hearsay, say nothing about the place and everything about those with the opinions.


Is the idea of Heaven wish fulfillment...

I think (for what that's worth) that Heaven and Hell are both about our wish for justice. We see many instances of evil going unpunished (i.e. the behavior of Greek occupying forces towards the Jews) and of good being unrewarded. We like to imagine that there is a time and place where an objective judgment will be passed and appropriate punishment/reward meted out.


...and what about near death experiences?

The brain's job is to process and interpret things happening to the body and choose appropriate responses. Most of the time it does a reliable job, but changes, anomalies, and damage to the brain can cause one to perceive things very differently from the way another sees them. We've also seen that there is the boatload of tricks that we can use to deceive the brain. In short, the brain, like any instrument, is only reliable within a certain range of operation. When you place it outside that range, such as by cutting off its oxygen and causing it to begin to die, it will still diligently work to interpret these events as best it can. If one is pulled back to consciousness, the memory of these interpretations become the NDE.


Are ideas of heaven, and by implication hell, too woolly?

If by 'too woolly' you mean without practical purpose because they're based purely upon imagination and hearsay, yes.

Wait, I take that back to some extent. Waving the carrot (gifts from Santa, 72 virgins for 'martyrs') or the stick (coal in the stocking, a lake of burning fire) can be used to influence another's behavior. Parents, government officials, and the clergy do this all the time. So, in their twisted ways, do abusive parents, abusive spouses, corrupt/demented officials and so on. So the ideas of heaven and hell are indeed somewhat practical. They have no intrinsic morality of their own, however, they are merely tools.

It's up to us to create good, or to do evil through action or inaction. There's no God to oversee, reward, or punish. No heaven, no hell waiting at the end. Life is now and it is what we make it. It's a huge responsibility, and we've been too afraid to face up to it. We've created our pantheons (from the gods down to the 'invisible hand') as a means of avoiding the responsibility for creating good and stopping evil. Occasionally we do involve ourselves, in crusades, proselytizing, or calculations, but always with the idea that we're an instrument of a higher power, and thus have limited personal responsibility--we're just tools of the mighty one. It will probably be a long, long time before there's general realization of our responsibility to one another and our world. Even longer before we are capable of integrated action.

[billl]

Even longer before we are capable of integrated action.

I like a lot of what you've put in that post, viejo. But it should be noted that we are now (and have been) capable of integrated action for some time. It is often seen among groups of people uniting in crisis, in team sports, in well-managed business situations, etc.

If you are talking about complete, constant, universal integration of actions between all individuals, well, I (for one) am not at all attracted to such goals.

[Paulclem]

I think (for what that's worth) that Heaven and Hell are both about our wish for justice. We see many instances of evil going unpunished (i.e. the behavior of Greek occupying forces towards the Jews) and of good being unrewarded. We like to imagine that there is a time and place where an objective judgment will be passed and appropriate punishment/reward meted out.
.

I think this might be part of the motivation, but there's also the strong wish for personal security and the desire to see one's relations.



The brain's job is to process and interpret things happening to the body and choose appropriate responses. Most of the time it does a reliable job, but changes, anomalies, and damage to the brain can cause one to perceive things very differently from the way another sees them. We've also seen that there is the boatload of tricks that we can use to deceive the brain. In short, the brain, like any instrument, is only reliable within a certain range of operation. When you place it outside that range, such as by cutting off its oxygen and causing it to begin to die, it will still diligently work to interpret these events as best it can. If one is pulled back to consciousness, the memory of these interpretations become the NDE.
.

This is as much speculation as the claims that it is a near death experience.



It's up to us to create good, or to do evil through action or inaction. There's no God to oversee, reward, or punish. No heaven, no hell waiting at the end. Life is now and it is what we make it. It's a huge responsibility, and we've been too afraid to face up to it. We've created our pantheons (from the gods down to the 'invisible hand') as a means of avoiding the responsibility for creating good and stopping evil. Occasionally we do involve ourselves, in crusades, proselytizing, or calculations, but always with the idea that we're an instrument of a higher power, and thus have limited personal responsibility--we're just tools of the mighty one. It will probably be a long, long time before there's general realization of our responsibility to one another and our world. Even longer before we are capable of integrated action.

A simplification - as religious people are clearly not just negative, or tools of authority. A lot of good is done already.

[Dark Star]

This is as much speculation as the claims that it is a near death experience.

I take issue with this statement. His ideas on the subject, while theoretical, are in fact based off of empirical research done in the area of NDEs and thus, are certainly not speculation on par with a religious claim which is crafted whole-cloth without any empirical evidence to back up the statement.

A couple of examples of the former: His statement on NDE is speculation in the same sense that claiming homosexuality has a genetic basis' is speculation, or claiming 'there is a high probability of some form of alien life at some location in the universe' is speculation. It's speculation, but in an entirely different league than the religious explanations.

[Paulclem]

I take issue with this statement. His ideas on the subject, while theoretical, are in fact based off of empirical research done in the area of NDEs and thus, are certainly not speculation on par with a religious claim which is crafted whole-cloth without any empirical evidence to back up the statement.

A couple of examples of the former: His statement on NDE is speculation in the same sense that claiming homosexuality has a genetic basis' is speculation, or claiming 'there is a high probability of some form of alien life at some location in the universe' is speculation. It's speculation, but in an entirely different league than the religious explanations.

I'm not sure that this is true. Ok so there are ways to affect the brain with chemicals, lack of oxygen etc, but it's simulated. The point can't be finally proved though, and I suppose it comes down to preferences for empirical evidence or evidence in the form of testimony.

[Boo Radley]

No they aren't

[The Atheist]

No they aren't

Well, I won't disagree with you!

:D

Are you sure you're an Aussie? They're not known for brevity.

[MarkBastable]

I suppose it comes down to preferences for empirical evidence or evidence in the form of testimony.

I don't think that's the choice, because I don't think the two have equal weight. "Evidence in the form of testimony" is a convincing-sounding way of saying "whatever people tell you".

In the case of NDE, they are telling you two things - what seemed to happen and what was going on to make that seem so. There's no argument about the first of those - what they say seemed to happen is indeed what seemed to them to happen ("There was a long white tunnel and my mother was at the other end beckoning to me..."). However - the person saying that has no more authority than anyone else to conjecture as to why that seemed so ("She was calling me to heaven.")

The difference here is that some of us seem ready to accept that the person who had the experience has some insight as to why they had it. And others think that that's a separate issue entirely.

If this were a court case, by the way, the process would tend to support the latter. Witnesses are asked to say what they experienced ("...I saw a man run out of the shop holding a gun...") but they aren't permitted to make any conjecture concerning what led to that experience ("...he had robbed the store..." "And do you see that man in court today?" "Yes - he's there." "Right. That's the policeman who was later stabbed by the robber, who you didn't see at all.")

[blazeofglory]

The idea of heaven and hell is nonsense and particuallrly physical domains of heaven and hell. Maybe there are allegorical heaven and hell but to think about a physical heaven and hell in this age of science and technology is ridiculous. How can I imagine about a physical heaven and hell and relate the same to my son? Can I convince him of the existence of heaven and hell high in the sky? Maybe I can convince the old generation who had part of their lives spent with their overly uncritical parents but this generation is not so, and this is an age where knowledge is cheap and accessible to most.

[Paulclem]

I don't think that's the choice, because I don't think the two have equal weight. "Evidence in the form of testimony" is a convincing-sounding way of saying "whatever people tell you".

In the case of NDE, they are telling you two things - what seemed to happen and what was going on to make that seem so. There's no argument about the first of those - what they say seemed to happen is indeed what seemed to them to happen ("There was a long white tunnel and my mother was at the other end beckoning to me..."). However - the person saying that has no more authority than anyone else to conjecture as to why that seemed so ("She was calling me to heaven.")

The difference here is that some of us seem ready to accept that the person who had the experience has some insight as to why they had it. And others think that that's a separate issue entirely.

If this were a court case, by the way, the process would tend to support the latter. Witnesses are asked to say what they experienced ("...I saw a man run out of the shop holding a gun...") but they aren't permitted to make any conjecture concerning what led to that experience ("...he had robbed the store..." "And do you see that man in court today?" "Yes - he's there." "Right. That's the policeman who was later stabbed by the robber, who you didn't see at all.")

I think you're right about the conjectural aspects. There are testimonies that claim to have seen the medical process from above etc. I was thinking more of those and should have made myself clearer.


The idea of heaven and hell is nonsense and particuallrly physical domains of heaven and hell. Maybe there are allegorical heaven and hell but to think about a physical heaven and hell in this age of science and technology is ridiculous. How can I imagine about a physical heaven and hell and relate the same to my son? Can I convince him of the existence of heaven and hell high in the sky? Maybe I can convince the old generation who had part of their lives spent with their overly uncritical parents but this generation is not so, and this is an age where knowledge is cheap and accessible to most.

OK so that's the scientific view, but there are people who clearly live a hellish existence - those with serious mental health issues, and there do occurr hellish conditions on earth - fire, flood, etc.

If you believe in an afterlife or reincarnation, then this posits the possibility that hellish conditions can occurr there.

[Dekarto]

Any true believer that takes the Bible seriously should have no doubt in his mind that both Hell and Heaven exist. The Bible is very clear on this issue. Humanity will be held accounted for their sins before God after death and at the resurrection. We all deserve to go to Hell because of our sin, but because Jesus took the punishment that we deserve, believers in Christ can pray for forgiveness and be with the Lord for eternity on the New Earth (Heaven) that He will create for us. The unbelievers will be punished for their sins as they did not trust in Jesus' substitionary punishment; they will be cast into Hell for eternal suffering. The current Earth will be erased and no longer exist, therefore, if Heaven and Hell does not exist, there is obviously no place for our souls to rest (or suffer) after death. Heaven and Hell does exist and study of Scripture will reveal this fact, and for those who wish there are several books and articles on this issue that can be read for further enlightenment.

[Scheherazade]

Hell is other people. ~ Jean-Paul Sartre

So, at least hell is pretty real... And not going away!

[dafydd manton]

A codicil to that - Hell is other people's children!

[blazeofglory]

Hell is a figurative domain, and when you burst into anger or try to annihilate someone to fortify your realm by subjecting others you think you are in a cloud nine pushing your adversary downwardly in a hellish state. You singly embody hell at times when the burning fire within you makes every morale melt

[The Atheist]

Hell is other people. ~ Jean-Paul Sartre

So, at least hell is pretty real... And not going away!

I've always liked that one. If you look at Hell as Paul and I have been looking at it - people who live hell on earth, then it is literally true as well.

________________________________________


I found a nice conundrum for the believers in a literal hell where people's "souls" go:

I am divorced and remarried, with one child by my ex-wife and three with the current one.

Who gets to live where?

[Paulclem]

Any true believer that takes the Bible seriously should have no doubt in his mind that both Hell and Heaven exist. The Bible is very clear on this issue. Humanity will be held accounted for their sins before God after death and at the resurrection. We all deserve to go to Hell because of our sin, but because Jesus took the punishment that we deserve, believers in Christ can pray for forgiveness and be with the Lord for eternity on the New Earth (Heaven) that He will create for us. The unbelievers will be punished for their sins as they did not trust in Jesus' substitionary punishment; they will be cast into Hell for eternal suffering. The current Earth will be erased and no longer exist, therefore, if Heaven and Hell does not exist, there is obviously no place for our souls to rest (or suffer) after death. Heaven and Hell does exist and study of Scripture will reveal this fact, and for those who wish there are several books and articles on this issue that can be read for further enlightenment.

The question arose after this article.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-1949399.html EDIT - this link didn't work for me but the original one does.

which questions the christian idea of heaven as held by many Christian and also Muslim people. it questions the origin of the idea - which it claims is derived from the Judiac tradition. The sceptical and sarcastic tone aside, it does raise interesting questions.

I think it's difficult to use words like fact when what is being considered is a question of faith.

[MarkBastable]

Any true believer that takes the Bible seriously should have no doubt in his mind that both Hell and Heaven exist. The Bible is very clear on this issue. Humanity will be held accounted for their sins before God after death and at the resurrection. We all deserve to go to Hell because of our sin, but because Jesus took the punishment that we deserve, believers in Christ can pray for forgiveness and be with the Lord for eternity on the New Earth (Heaven) that He will create for us. The unbelievers will be punished for their sins as they did not trust in Jesus' substitionary punishment; they will be cast into Hell for eternal suffering. The current Earth will be erased and no longer exist, therefore, if Heaven and Hell does not exist, there is obviously no place for our souls to rest (or suffer) after death. Heaven and Hell does exist and study of Scripture will reveal this fact, and for those who wish there are several books and articles on this issue that can be read for further enlightenment.

Well, I don't know about anyone else but I'd say that analysis was rigorously argued from an initial position of unimpeachable neutrality, and it's difficult to see how any reasonable person could disagree with the conclusions reached.

[sixsmith]

Any true believer that takes the Bible seriously should have no doubt in his mind that both Hell and Heaven exist. The Bible is very clear on this issue. Humanity will be held accounted for their sins before God after death and at the resurrection. We all deserve to go to Hell because of our sin, but because Jesus took the punishment that we deserve, believers in Christ can pray for forgiveness and be with the Lord for eternity on the New Earth (Heaven) that He will create for us. The unbelievers will be punished for their sins as they did not trust in Jesus' substitionary punishment; they will be cast into Hell for eternal suffering. The current Earth will be erased and no longer exist, therefore, if Heaven and Hell does not exist, there is obviously no place for our souls to rest (or suffer) after death. Heaven and Hell does exist and study of Scripture will reveal this fact, and for those who wish there are several books and articles on this issue that can be read for further enlightenment.

So the non-believer who dedicates their life to helping others, who practices love and compassion, who is a good parent, neighbour and friend, who strives for moral consistency, is there no place in the Lord's kingdom for him or her?

[Dekarto]

The question arose after this article. which questions the christian idea of heaven as held by many Christian and also Muslim people. it questions the origin of the idea - which it claims is derived from the Judiac tradition. The sceptical and sarcastic tone aside, it does raise interesting questions. I think it's difficult to use words like fact when what is being considered is a question of faith.

The origin of the idea of Heaven is the Bible. Anyone who does not believe in the Bible will disagree with me here, but as a Christian, I believe that the Bible was inspired by God (or God-breathed as it is often said). God inspired the writers of the Bible, having them write down what He wishes, but still keeping their unique writing style, etc. But the important part here is that if God inspired the authors of the Bible, then Heaven is not a man-made idea, it is something revealed to us from God through the Bible.


Well, I don't know about anyone else but I'd say that analysis was rigorously argued from an initial position of unimpeachable neutrality, and it's difficult to see how any reasonable person could disagree with the conclusions reached.

I, also, see it difficult how any reasonable person could disagree with the conclusions reached.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).


So the non-believer who dedicates their life to helping others, who practices love and compassion, who is a good parent, neighbour and friend, who strives for moral consistency, is there no place in the Lord's kingdom for him or her?

All these things are traits of true Christians, even though non-believers can also be similar in many ways. There is a common belief today that one can get into Heaven by being good people and doing nice things. At the core if this idea is an incorrect understanding of what Heaven is. Heaven is the dwelling place of God, but also what will be the New Earth after the End Times. Heaven is a place for believers to be with their God, not for unbelievers to be with someone they rejected. Where is the logic in going to a Heaven you do not believe in and being with a God you rejected all your life? The greatest sin of all is unbelief in God. Actually, this is the only sin that is unforgivable.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).

God can forgive any sin and allow you entrance to Heaven if you confess and place your trust in Jesus Christ as savior. But except through Jesus, there is no way to Heaven. At the second part of this issue there is the misunderstanding that we can make ourselves righteous and worthy of entering Heaven.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

... he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

Our own deeds and works can not save us, only by grace can we be saved. We must be reborn in the Holy Spirit and be renewed. Only by the gift of God we can enter Heaven. There is truly no way to Heaven except through Jesus Christ.

[Paulclem]

The origin of the idea of Heaven is the Bible. Anyone who does not believe in the Bible will disagree with me here, but as a Christian, I believe that the Bible was inspired by God (or God-breathed as it is often said). God inspired the writers of the Bible, having them write down what He wishes, but still keeping their unique writing style, etc. But the important part here is that if God inspired the authors of the Bible, then Heaven is not a man-made idea, it is something revealed to us from God through the Bible.

.

The point of the article is to point out the origins of the idea of heaven and hell. I think you're talking about your faith - which I have no problem with, but the discussion is about the origin of the idea. it is disputed that our conventional idea of heaven hell, harps, animals etc is not consistent with the bible.

I just thought it would be a good debate. I'm not about challenging your particular faith.

[MarkBastable]

Dekarto said:But the important part here is that if God inspired the authors of the Bible, then Heaven is not a man-made idea, it is something revealed to us from God through the Bible.


..."if"...

What if not?

I think it's something you should express a view on.

You're asking me, a fool who says in his heart that there is no God, to consider the possibility that Heaven is something revealed to me by God through the agency of the authors of the Bible. (I don't think it was necessary to call me a fool in order to get me to do that, but I'll forgive you.)

So - I agree that if the Bible is the Word of God, then Heaven is a real place that I should consider working towards.

Now - if the Bible is not the Word of God, and Heaven is a man-made idea, then what will you do?

[Dekarto]

The point of the article is to point out the origins of the idea of heaven and hell.

This is true, and I have stated my opinion: That the origin of the idea is God. This is what I think is true, you may disagree, and then that is what you think is true. We may have different opinions and thoughts on this issue, and that is ok. If we all had the same thoughts on this, there wouldn't be a thread about it, would it?


What if not?

I think it's something you should express a view on.

You're asking me, a fool who says in his heart that there is no God, to consider the possibility that Heaven is something revealed to me by God through the agency of the authors of the Bible. (I don't think it was necessary to call me a fool in order to get me to do that, but I'll forgive you.)

So - I agree that if the Bible is the Word of God, then Heaven is a real place that I should consider working towards.

Now - if the Bible is not the Word of God, and Heaven is a man-made idea, then what will you do?

I did not call you a fool, the Bible did, or more exact; David.

About your last question: I did for most parts of my life believe that God did not exist and that the Bible was just the Jew's version of Lord of the Rings. So this question is easy to answer. I wouldn't do a thing to get into heaven. I didn't do a thing. I thought that Heaven was a man-made idea and I wondered why people bothered to live by a lot of "dos" "don'ts" just to go to some imagenary candyshop after death. So that is what I would do, and that is what I have done.

[MarkBastable]

I wouldn't do a thing to get into heaven. I didn't do a thing. I thought that Heaven was a man-made idea and I wondered why people bothered to live by a lot of "dos" "don'ts" just to go to some imagenary candyshop after death. So that is what I would do, and that is what I have done.

Wait, wait. So you didn't start being good until you thought there was something in it for you?

I think that that's worse than not being good.

[NikolaiI]

Wait, wait. So you didn't start being good until you thought there was something in it for you?

I think that that's worse than not being good.

Did you just happen to read that with absolutely no comrephension at all?

[Paulclem]

This is true, and I have stated my opinion: That the origin of the idea is God. This is what I think is true, you may disagree, and then that is what you think is true. We may have different opinions and thoughts on this issue, and that is ok. If we all had the same thoughts on this, there wouldn't be a thread about it, would it?



Ok - so where does it describe the idea of heaven currently subscribed to? The images of heaven - are they harps, clouds, meeting loved ones, birdsong, animals? That's what lots of people think of with the idea of heaven - or am I wrong? If this is so - what part of the bible are they from?

[MarkBastable]

Did you just happen to read that with absolutely no comrephension at all?

No, I got it. Until he believed in God and Heaven he (or possibly she) "wondered why people bothered to live by a lot of "dos" "don'ts" just to go to some imagenary candyshop after death".

Now, however, he does believe in God and Heaven, and he has a reason to live by the 'dos and donts'.

So the behaviour is reward-driven.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Post containing inflammatory/personal comments will be removed without further notice.

[sixsmith]

All these things are traits of true Christians, even though non-believers can also be similar in many ways. There is a common belief today that one can get into Heaven by being good people and doing nice things. At the core if this idea is an incorrect understanding of what Heaven is. Heaven is the dwelling place of God, but also what will be the New Earth after the End Times. Heaven is a place for believers to be with their God, not for unbelievers to be with someone they rejected. Where is the logic in going to a Heaven you do not believe in and being with a God you rejected all your life? The greatest sin of all is unbelief in God. Actually, this is the only sin that is unforgivable.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).

God can forgive any sin and allow you entrance to Heaven if you confess and place your trust in Jesus Christ as savior. But except through Jesus, there is no way to Heaven. At the second part of this issue there is the misunderstanding that we can make ourselves righteous and worthy of entering Heaven.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

... he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

Our own deeds and works can not save us, only by grace can we be saved. We must be reborn in the Holy Spirit and be renewed. Only by the gift of God we can enter Heaven. There is truly no way to Heaven except through Jesus Christ.

So let me see if I have this right. A righteous person who dedicates his life to the alleviation of suffering among his fellow man, yet who does not believe in God, is going to spend eternity in Hell (suffering terribly I assume) for the unpardonable sin of not believing in God, while the ardent Christian, who also happens to be a selfish, wife-beating xenophobe, will be rewarded with a place in Heaven.

It seems, then, that believer or not, our eternal fate is to be decided by God. Fair enough. But what kind of God is it that makes this decision based not on the righteousness of our actions, but rather on whether we believe in him or her. That sounds to me like a morally abhorrent system. Indeed, it seems to me you are positing the existence of a God who is superficial and nepotistic.

[Dekarto]

Wait, wait. So you didn't start being good until you thought there was something in it for you?

I think that that's worse than not being good.

I didn't say that at all. I said that before I was a born-again believer I thought that Christians lived by a lot of "dos" and "don'ts" just to get into Heaven. While this is partially true for some people (especially Catholics who have got a wrong teaching on salvation), I found out that I was wrong once my eyes were opened to the truth. The thing is that once you have been saved and accepted Christ as Savior, you will be born again as a new person. God will come into your life and you will be filled with the Holy Spirit so that it falls natural to be good and do nice things. You can't get into heaven by being just good. You get into Heaven by believing in God and all the good deeds is a result of this belief.


No, I got it. Until he believed in God and Heaven he (or possibly she) "wondered why people bothered to live by a lot of "dos" "don'ts" just to go to some imagenary candyshop after death".

Now, however, he does believe in God and Heaven, and he has a reason to live by the 'dos and donts'.

So the behaviour is reward-driven.

The behaviour is not at all reward-driven. As said, it is a natural result of being born again in Christ.


So let me see if I have this right. A righteous person who dedicates his life to the alleviation of suffering among his fellow man, yet who does not believe in God, is going to spend eternity in Hell (suffering terribly I assume) for the unpardonable sin of not believing in God, while the ardent Christian, who also happens to be a selfish, wife-beating xenophobe, will be rewarded with a place in Heaven.

A true Christian will not be a selfish, wife-beating xenophobe, as you describe it. A person with this behaviour can impossibly know God and is not saved. This "Christian" you describe is not really a Christian and will not go to Heaven. Not all so-called Christians will go to Heaven. Only those who truly believe and walk by faith (and God) in life.


It seems, then, that believer or not, our eternal fate is to be decided by God. Fair enough. But what kind of God is it that makes this decision based not on the righteousness of our actions, but rather on whether we believe in him or her. That sounds to me like a morally abhorrent system. Indeed, it seems to me you are positing the existence of a God who is superficial and nepotistic.

This world is already fallen. Our actions on Earth has no eternal value. To God, a thief is just as bad as a rapist. No sin is worse than any other. This world will pass away and there will be a New Earth and it seems only logical to me that God takes with Him only those who love and worship Him to this New Earth, not unbelievers who have not dedicated a moment of their earthly life to worship Him. It is not a morally abhorrent system. Trust me when I say to you that no evil person, no wife-beater, no selfish a-hole will enter Heaven. These people are not true believers.

[The Atheist]

A true Christian will not be a selfish, wife-beating xenophobe, as you describe it.

Oh no you don't. (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/)

[MarkBastable]

To God, a thief is just as bad as a rapist. No sin is worse than any other.

.....


The greatest sin of all is unbelief in God. Actually, this is the only sin that is unforgivable.

[sixsmith]

I didn't say that at all. I said that before I was a born-again believer I thought that Christians lived by a lot of "dos" and "don'ts" just to get into Heaven. While this is partially true for some people (especially Catholics who have got a wrong teaching on salvation), I found out that I was wrong once my eyes were opened to the truth. The thing is that once you have been saved and accepted Christ as Savior, you will be born again as a new person. God will come into your life and you will be filled with the Holy Spirit so that it falls natural to be good and do nice things. You can't get into heaven by being just good. You get into Heaven by believing in God and all the good deeds is a result of this belief.

The behaviour is not at all reward-driven. As said, it is a natural result of being born again in Christ.

A true Christian will not be a selfish, wife-beating xenophobe, as you describe it. A person with this behaviour can impossibly know God and is not saved. This "Christian" you describe is not really a Christian and will not go to Heaven. Not all so-called Christians will go to Heaven. Only those who truly believe and walk by faith (and God) in life.

This world is already fallen. Our actions on Earth has no eternal value. To God, a thief is just as bad as a rapist. No sin is worse than any other. This world will pass away and there will be a New Earth and it seems only logical to me that God takes with Him only those who love and worship Him to this New Earth, not unbelievers who have not dedicated a moment of their earthly life to worship Him. It is not a morally abhorrent system. Trust me when I say to you that no evil person, no wife-beater, no selfish a-hole will enter Heaven. These people are not true believers.


As Mark points out, you initially claimed that not believing in heaven is the sole unpardonable sin, thereby implying that other sins were indeed pardonable. You now claim that no sin is worse than another: a rapist is as bad as a thief. Given that every sin is thus equivalent to the greatest sin, any person who commits a sin (regardless of what that sin was) is unable to enter heaven. Or put another way, if a wife beater is not a true Christian (because of their sinful act), then the thief is not a true Christian (because of their equally offensive act). Of course, there is the separate case of the professed non-believer who lives with compassion and mercy, but their actions are of no interest to God because they do not venerate him. As you suggest one, 'can't get into heaven by being just good. You get into Heaven by believing in God and all the good deeds is a result of this belief.' Before I post any further, can you confirm that I have it right?

[Dekarto]

As Mark points out, you initially claimed that not believing in heaven is the sole unpardonable sin, thereby implying that other sins were indeed pardonable. You now claim that no sin is worse than another: a rapist is as bad as a thief.

I said that not believing in God is the unpardonable sin. And when I later claimed that no sin is worse than another sin, I was of course not talking about the unpardonable sin. I thought I made this clear by the context, but if not, I apologize for not being specific enough and causing confusion.


Given that every sin is thus equivalent to the greatest sin, any person who commits a sin (regardless of what that sin was) is unable to enter heaven. Or put another way, if a wife beater is not a true Christian (because of their sinful act), then the thief is not a true Christian (because of their equally offensive act).

You are making new meanings of my words here. I claimed no sin to be worse than any other (not including the unpardonable sin), not that every wife-beater and every theif is not a true Christian. They are most likely not, but it is not certain. Christians can "slip" or "fall", and sin, but as long as they get back up again and walk with God, it is not certain that they are not true Christians. All sins are individual cases. It would be wrong to say "everybody" or "nobody" when it comes to this matter.

All sin except disbelief in God is pardonable.


Of course, there is the separate case of the professed non-believer who lives with compassion and mercy, but their actions are of no interest to God because they do not venerate him. As you suggest one, 'can't get into heaven by being just good. You get into Heaven by believing in God and all the good deeds is a result of this belief.' Before I post any further, can you confirm that I have it right?

What you are saying here is partially true. The good acts of a non-believer may interest God and even be pleasing to him, but this does not make them free from the punishment they deserve as sinners. Only those who accept their sinful nature and confess to God that they are fallen beings and regret their sins and ask for forgiveness in Christ, can be forgiven. But you are right in that only those who believe in God will enter Heaven, and that good deeds is the result of salvation -- good deeds alone will not save you.

[papayahed]

I said that not believing in God is the unpardonable sin. And when I later claimed that no sin is worse than another sin, I was of course not talking about the unpardonable sin.

Then how come it's not on the top ten list?

[Dekarto]

Then how come it's not on the top ten list?

What are you talking about?

[MarkBastable]

What are you talking about?

i think the reference is to the Ten Commandments, and papayahed is suggesting that 'not believing in God' doesn't appear on the list.

Strictly speaking, she's right - though there is one about not having any other god. It doesn't, to be fair, say you're not allowed to have no god at all. He should have tied that down a bit - it's a possible loophole.

Then again. as there's no reason to pay any attention to the Ten Commandments unless you believe they're straight from God, then you could say that belief in him is a sine qua non of buying in, and so 'Thou'd just better believe in me, or else' is a kinda meta-Commandment.

Thing is though, Jesus offered a simplified or, if you like, a soundbite version of the Commandments that complicates the issue somewhat.

When asked by the Pharisees which was the greatest law he said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'"

This, combined with, 'no one enters the kingdom of heaven but through me' is the basis of Dekarto's argument.

I use the word 'argument' in its very loosest sense - that is, not the one that implies logical rigour instigated from a neutral starting point and applied without reference to any premises that aren't externally verifiable and broadly accepted.

[The Atheist]

All sin except disbelief in God is pardonable.

Which allows Jim Jones, David Berkowitz, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy to go to heaven but not Carl Sagan.

That sounds perfectly reasonable.

[MarkBastable]

Which allows Jim Jones, David Berkowitz, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy to go to heaven but not Carl Sagan.



Yeah, if Dekarto's right, it would appear that God didn't really think the process through. And that, it seems to me, is always the problem with the argument that Dekarto presents. Faced with that proposition, a reasonable person has to come to one of two conclusions- either Dekarto's mistaken or God's not too bright.

[The Atheist]

Yeah, if Dekarto's right, it would appear that God didn't really think the process through. And that, it seems to me, is always the problem with the argument that Dekarto presents. Faced with that proposition, a reasonable person has to come to one of two conclusions- either Dekarto's mistaken or God's not too bright.

I'd always seen it more as a massive vanity and insecurity.

If a god is powerful enough to create an entire universe, why would it want people singing its praises every Sunday? Why would it care if people worshipped another god? None of them are real, right?

[MarkBastable]

I'm with you. That thing about believing just seems so arbitrary and pointless. I mean, why not make the unforgivable sin - I dunno - running with scissors or whistling through your teeth. Why did the deity choose something so obviously self-referential and with no other useful purpose?

I'll tell you the answer to that one too, actually: no mortal can understand the mind of God, and it's pretty cosmically impolite to try to, okay, bub?

[JuniperWoolf]

All sin except disbelief in God is pardonable.

I know that this idea was cooked up by some ruler over a thousand years ago in an attempt to prevent people from straying away from the church, but I'll just tell you right now, for a kid it has the complete opposite effect. This was, above all things (the suffering in the world, the really bad track record that religion has piled up over the centuries, etc) the main thing that made me stop going to kid's church after school when I was eleven.

Eleven year old me: "so we can't even ask questions because it might hurt the supreme ruler of the universe's feelings? Screw that, this is a crock. I don't even care if this place gives me snacks, I'm outta here."

[LMK]

I've just read an interesting article in the UK's Independant newspaper on the idea of Heaven.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/heaven-a-fools-paradise-1949399.html

It says that the Christian/ Jewish/ Muslim version of heaven is an invented idea - around 165BC, which it claims arose due to the insecurity of burial rituals during the Greek occupation of Jewish lands.


It quotes some stats:

83% of US citizens and 51% of UK citizens believe in heaven.

Of these 71% believe it's an actual place

41% of these think their cats and dogs etc will follow them there.

It doesn't say that belief in Heaven implies a belief in Hell. What do you think - does it?

Is the idea of Heaven wish fulfillment, and what about near death experiences?

Are ideas of heaven, and by implication hell, too woolly?

It is my hope that you are not asking if Heaven and Hell are real, but whether various forum members believe in them.

If you are really asking the question of real, I would be hard pressed to accept a single response seriously.

What one believes and what is real may not be the same. I may have faith that when I sit on the park bench it will have been engineered in such a way as to hold my average weight. However, if time, weather, tampering or error in construction, play a significant roll, then I may find myself sprawled on the ground, wondering, "What just happened?"

Faith that good (help) is greater than evil (harm) is a personal guide and those who truly have faith and live by that, I believe, are better for it.

Is Heaven and Hell real? I have no idea. I know what I think, what I believe, but to someone else's reality...I simply do not know.

I will suggest that if one believes in God, then heaven may be eternity in the presence of God and hell the eternal absence from God.

[The Atheist]

What one believes and what is real may not be the same. I may have faith that when I sit on the park bench it will have been engineered in such a way as to hold my average weight. However, if time, weather, tampering or error in construction, play a significant roll, then I may find myself sprawled on the ground, wondering, "What just happened?"

I do find it ironic that you create a very poor analogy like that, yet not realise that people's faith in heaven & hell are a lot weaker even than the kind of irrational faith that would cause someone to plonk down on a rusted and weatherbeaten seat. At least someone who irrationally believed that anything manufactured will last forever and be safe would have some kind of baseline for their stupidity - almost all of the time, the idea that manufactured goods are safe is correct.

Not to mention that men make park benches, not engineering. Engineering is a process, not a guarantee.

[Paulclem]

It is my hope that you are not asking if Heaven and Hell are real, but whether various forum members believe in them.

If you are really asking the question of real, I would be hard pressed to accept a single response seriously.

What one believes and what is real may not be the same. I may have faith that when I sit on the park bench it will have been engineered in such a way as to hold my average weight. However, if time, weather, tampering or error in construction, play a significant roll, then I may find myself sprawled on the ground, wondering, "What just happened?"

Faith that good (help) is greater than evil (harm) is a personal guide and those who truly have faith and live by that, I believe, are better for it.

Is Heaven and Hell real? I have no idea. I know what I think, what I believe, but to someone else's reality...I simply do not know.

I will suggest that if one believes in God, then heaven may be eternity in the presence of God and hell the eternal absence from God.

What do you mean by believe in them and real? If someone believes in heaven and hell, then don't they also think it is real.

I will suggest that if one believes in God, then heaven may be eternity in the presence of God and hell the eternal absence from God

This is not what people who are asked respond with. The article questions the ideas people have about heaven - and hell by implication. Heaven in the usual conception is thought of as a place where relatives and pets are re-united etc The article questions the development of this.

[LMK]

This is not what people who are asked respond with. The article questions the ideas people have about heaven - and hell by implication. Heaven in the usual conception is thought of as a place where relatives and pets are re-united etc The article questions the development of this.

I apologize if I have offended anyone by making a suggestion (offering an idea) in response to the title of the thread "Heaven and Hell - Are they for real?"

Put quite simply if a person believes in God and believes in Heaven and Hell (and that should not be an assumption), couldn't that person believe that God is all things, and further if God is all things and Heaven is being in the presence of all things then might it mean to that person that they would be reunited to all who have gone before them (all things)?

Or, perhaps that being in the presence of God, no longer requires those things that were needed prior to death in this world.

There are many more thoughts (ideas) to explore on this, but given the censure from Paulclem, perhaps I will stop here.

[Paulclem]

I apologize if I have offended anyone by making a suggestion (offering an idea) in response to the title of the thread "Heaven and Hell - Are they for real?"

Put quite simply if a person believes in God and believes in Heaven and Hell (and that should not be an assumption), couldn't that person believe that God is all things, and further if God is all things and Heaven is being in the presence of all things then might it mean to that person that they would be reunited to all who have gone before them (all things)?

Or, perhaps that being in the presence of God, no longer requires those things that were needed prior to death in this world.

There are many more thoughts (ideas) to explore on this, but given the censure from Paulclem, perhaps I will stop here.

I thought I was asking a serious question not censuring you. I was referring to the repondants according to the article who don't spreak of being in the prescence of God, but describe heaven in more concrete terms such as a place where relatives are reunited and their pets now live. It might be a description that reflects the relative unfamiliarity of nominal Christians with what it actually says in the bible, but I couldn't say for sure.

I can assure you that I was not intending to insult or censure you, but prompt debate.

[Lacra]

The topic of this thread is "Heaven and Hell - Are They for Real?" I will just add my thoughts here related to this issue.
People in both old and modern times have engaged themselves in studying and defining the Heaven and the Hell. Thus, we now have various points of views on the Hereafter.
However, you don't need to study or to be a scholar in order to believe in the reality of these two unseen spiritual locations. The religious feeling is original in Man at any time or age and whatever the degree of his culture. I am not sure if it is religious instinct rather than a feeling but I know that it is deeply rooted inside humanity's soul. There doesn't exist old civilisation without the belief in Heaven and Hell: all of them had this double system.
For me, Heaven and Hell are more real than this world. They are actual places, not a mere state of mind or a spiritual entity. They exist at the present time and will continue to exist forever. They will never pass away and their inhabitants will remain there forever.
It is not a hope to live in Hereafter but it is a certitude, I am certain that after the wordly life comes to an end, I will be following one of two ways of life prepared for us in the afterworld. :)

[Paulclem]

Heaven and Hell -Are they for real?
I've just read an interesting article in the UK's Independant newspaper on the idea of Heaven.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-1949399.html

It says that the Christian/ Jewish/ Muslim version of heaven is an invented idea - around 165BC, which it claims arose due to the insecurity of burial rituals during the Greek occupation of Jewish lands.


It quotes some stats:

83% of US citizens and 51% of UK citizens believe in heaven.

Of these 71% believe it's an actual place

41% of these think their cats and dogs etc will follow them there.

It doesn't say that belief in Heaven implies a belief in Hell. What do you think - does it?

Is the idea of Heaven wish fulfillment, and what about near death experiences?

Are ideas of heaven, and by implication hell, too woolly?

Hi Lacra. I have quoted the original post above. The article from where my question originated stems from the assertion by the author that the idea of heaven and hell as we conceive it today has not existed for very long. It can be traced back to a particular biblical time, but it bears little resemblance to modern conceptions.

[Lacra]

I wanted to read the article, Paul, but it didn't want to open, seems that the posted link is broken, can you please post it again? Thank you. :)

[Redzeppelin]

I will suggest that if one believes in God, then heaven may be eternity in the presence of God and hell the eternal absence from God.

They're both real and this is the correct answer in terms of what their "composition" is.

The only caveat I would add is that whether one "believes" in God or not does not change the fact that s/he ends up in one of these two destinations.

[Paulclem]

I wanted to read the article, Paul, but it didn't want to open, seems that the posted link is broken, can you please post it again? Thank you. :)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/heaven-a-fools-paradise-1949399.html

If this doesn't work, then the link on the first page works. :smile5:


They're both real and this is the correct answer in terms of what their "composition" is.

The only caveat I would add is that whether one "believes" in God or not does not change the fact that s/he ends up in one of these two destinations.

The article questions whether the common view of heaven or hell is merely a modern construct with no basis in the bible.

[Redzeppelin]

The article questions whether the common view of heaven or hell is merely a modern construct with no basis in the bible.

Thanks for the clarification.

[NikolaiI]

Heaven is real - Hell is not real. Many people in this world think this is the only world, but there are many worlds. There are infinite worlds, infinite dimensions, as life is infinite, as there is infinite existence. There is only one reality, which is infinite. This world is most-finite - the only finite. This universe seems infinite but our universe is just the most-finite point of the infinite. The one and only reality is infinite peace, bliss, knowledge, and existence - this world, this reality is just an illusion. The only hells that exist are illusion, and temporary - they are not reality. Certainly not a permanent, eternal physical place. That's a false idea, nothing like that exists.

[Paulclem]

Heaven is real - Hell is not real. Many people in this world think this is the only world, but there are many worlds. There are infinite worlds, infinite dimensions, as life is infinite, as there is infinite existence. There is only one reality, which is infinite. This world is most-finite - the only finite. This universe seems infinite but our universe is just the most-finite point of the infinite. The one and only reality is infinite peace, bliss, knowledge, and existence - this world, this reality is just an illusion. The only hells that exist are illusion, and temporary - they are not reality. Certainly not a permanent, eternal physical place. That's a false idea, nothing like that exists.

The OP contains the article from the Independant. The contention is that the usual formulation of Heaven hell does not tally with biblical texts.

One of the points made is that hellish conditions exist on earth - fire, flood, earthquakes, war, oppression. If you beleive in a hereafter, or reincarnation, then the possibility exists of hell after this life.

As to your post:

this reality is just an illusion


Illusion or not - pain and suffering can still be experienced. Presumably then, the same goes for heaven and hell?

[Alexander III]

"I, also, see it difficult how any reasonable person could disagree with the conclusions reached.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1)."


My grandpa told me something like this when I was 8, except it went like this

The fool says in his heart, “There is no Santa Claus”

Boy was I in for a surprise...

I also love the fact that no one responded to the athiest's Scotsman's fallacy link. Funny how logic and reason scares people away.

But in all seriousness, let us follow the bibbles logic.

Live as an atheist and there is no god, you die and become nothing

Live as a christian and there is no god, you die and become nothing

Live as a christian and there is a god, you die and go to heaven

Live as an atheist and there is a god, you die and go to hell for eternal suffering


So logically just before you die, believe in god, so your good. As was pointed out on this thread earlier it doesn't matter how you live as long as you believe before you die, so making peace with god just before death, just incase seems the best option to me. And God, according to the Bible, finds it fine to, rape, kill, whatever, just believe in him.

[Paulclem]

Hellish states certainly exist for some people on earth. It's more a question of do they exist in a hearafter? If you believe in some kind of life after death - then the possibility of there being hellish conditions exists. If you don't, then there is just the hell on earth idea.

Heaven is a bit more problematic. Does anyone live a heavenly life? Some possibly - but this woud be very much down to the definition of the one expereincing. So if heavenly states exist on earth, then if you beieve in some kind of life after death, the possibility of heaven also presents itself.

[Serena03]

Both Heaven and Hell exist as earthly states of mind in which we all have experienced at some point. IMO it is actually rather selfish to use your own moral doings throughout life for the benefits of a glorified afterlife. The act of good will for the sake of humanity is one of man's greatest nobilities, but only if it can be separated by the natural impulse of greed and self-pride. Life is its own big endowment, and death is only necessary. I would rather not attend either such place anyway, the overbearing dominance of total perfection or total brutality would be too overwhelming. Reincarnation sounds like a much more gratifying alternative to be; however, truth of it shall never be reached so long as you are earthly conscious.

[The Atheist]

Both Heaven and Hell exist as earthly states of mind in which we all have experienced at some point. IMO it is actually rather selfish to use your own moral doings throughout life for the benefits of a glorified afterlife. The act of good will for the sake of humanity is one of man's greatest nobilities, but only if it can be separated by the natural impulse of greed and self-pride. Life is its own big endowment, and death is only necessary. I would rather not attend either such place anyway, the overbearing dominance of total perfection or total brutality would be too overwhelming. Reincarnation sounds like a much more gratifying alternative to be; however, truth of it shall never be reached so long as you are earthly conscious.

Well said and great avatar & address!

[NikolaiI]

Both Heaven and Hell exist as earthly states of mind in which we all have experienced at some point. IMO it is actually rather selfish to use your own moral doings throughout life for the benefits of a glorified afterlife. The act of good will for the sake of humanity is one of man's greatest nobilities, but only if it can be separated by the natural impulse of greed and self-pride. Life is its own big endowment, and death is only necessary. I would rather not attend either such place anyway, the overbearing dominance of total perfection or total brutality would be too overwhelming. Reincarnation sounds like a much more gratifying alternative to be; however, truth of it shall never be reached so long as you are earthly conscious.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I will only suggest to you something and I'll ask you to keep it in mind for life. It's only this. I've experienced a reality beyond this one - which is equally described by many, and adequately described by Black Elk, the medicine man, as the spirit world, where everything is spirit; that world is more real than this one. I know this is little evidence, but I've got a bit more to say, but I'm almost done. The only words I can use to describe it are infinite peace, bliss, and existence. I never believed in the soul or spirit or God as a kid, in fact the opposite - I believed for sure they did not exist, as surely as the Atheist here. But at some point I began a path which one day led me to experience the divine. As I said I cannot give you any more description than the words infinite peace, bliss and existence. Many people who are absolutely convicted atheists will argue forever and say that what I experienced was not true. And they may argue while I step out and do something more healthy. But in reply to what you said about the overbearing dominance of total perfection, I can tell you this is not what I felt when I experienced divine consciousness. It was like waking up, and suddenly realizing that I'd come from an infinite peace, will return to one, and was never separate from the source, the ground of reality. I know this has gotten a bit more verbose - all I want to do is let you know what I know to be there, within, without. Logic does not dictate that we are not connected to all life, that we are not part of the source of reality, and that there is not an infinite existence to which we are connected. It's only our language that tells us this - language which is both helpful and limiting in both surviving and understanding (reality and ourselves).

[Paulclem]

Both Heaven and Hell exist as earthly states of mind in which we all have experienced at some point. IMO it is actually rather selfish to use your own moral doings throughout life for the benefits of a glorified afterlife. The act of good will for the sake of humanity is one of man's greatest nobilities, but only if it can be separated by the natural impulse of greed and self-pride. Life is its own big endowment, and death is only necessary. I would rather not attend either such place anyway, the overbearing dominance of total perfection or total brutality would be too overwhelming. Reincarnation sounds like a much more gratifying alternative to be; however, truth of it shall never be reached so long as you are earthly conscious.

Is it good to be so sure, or is an open mind better? When you say you'd rather not attend such a place - I don't think there's a choice. It depends who's right.:D


I'm fortunate that the Buddhist view doesn't have the qualifying for heaven/banished to hell for etenity conundrum.

According to the teachings, Karma is a natural law which determines where you will be reborn etc according to the positive or negative actions performed in life. Buddhism does have a notion of heaven and hell, and whether they are psychological states or actual realms is a moot point in the West. Its not moot according to the teachings though. THey're not an eternal state.

So when you say reincarnation may be more gratifying, it may not be when you consider the possibility of being reborn as an animal, a ghost, or in hell. It's not an easy - everything will be lovely - concept in Buddhism, but needs work on oneself to progress into positive rebirths - ideally as a human. As a human a being can commit terrible atrocities and acts of great bravery/ compassion. There's no predestination, and so it's up to you. There is the idea of accumulated positive and negative Karma which can ripen.

As for knowledge of reincarnation - you're right - an ordinary person like myself can't perceive other lives - but some can - The Buddha and other realised teachers. There are instructions to find out.

[Serena03]

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I will only suggest to you something and I'll ask you to keep it in mind for life. It's only this. I've experienced a reality beyond this one - which is equally described by many, and adequately described by Black Elk, the medicine man, as the spirit world, where everything is spirit; that world is more real than this one. I know this is little evidence, but I've got a bit more to say, but I'm almost done. The only words I can use to describe it are infinite peace, bliss, and existence. I never believed in the soul or spirit or God as a kid, in fact the opposite - I believed for sure they did not exist, as surely as the Atheist here. But at some point I began a path which one day led me to experience the divine. As I said I cannot give you any more description than the words infinite peace, bliss and existence. Many people who are absolutely convicted atheists will argue forever and say that what I experienced was not true. And they may argue while I step out and do something more healthy. But in reply to what you said about the overbearing dominance of total perfection, I can tell you this is not what I felt when I experienced divine consciousness. It was like waking up, and suddenly realizing that I'd come from an infinite peace, will return to one, and was never separate from the source, the ground of reality. I know this has gotten a bit more verbose - all I want to do is let you know what I know to be there, within, without. Logic does not dictate that we are not connected to all life, that we are not part of the source of reality, and that there is not an infinite existence to which we are connected. It's only our language that tells us this - language which is both helpful and limiting in both surviving and understanding (reality and ourselves).

Well, it is probably needless for me to go on about near-death experiences explained, many cases have been described similar to this one. I don't think anyone really 'knows' the truth behind their experiences, they usually are merely conditional. However, what has been explained is also indeterminate to complete justification as it does not contain all the answers. But for the answers that are still pending, it does not necessarily mean that a deity or divine force wins by default. It may be difficult to perceive exactly what was experienced, but nonetheless serves no complete justification as they cannot be completely understood without language or visual evidence being the carrier.

"Total perfection" may be subjective to each individual, but it still usually pertains to an individual's idea of 'absolute bliss' like as what you seemingly described. Nevertheless both the nonspiritual and spiritual worlds as we 'know' them has still shared common compatibilities of the same aspirations and encompassments of goodness, peace, love and truth that will at least let us meet each other half way.

[Serena03]

Is it good to be so sure, or is an open mind better? When you say you'd rather not attend such a place - I don't think there's a choice. It depends who's right.:D


I'm fortunate that the Buddhist view doesn't have the qualifying for heaven/banished to hell for etenity conundrum.

According to the teachings, Karma is a natural law which determines where you will be reborn etc according to the positive or negative actions performed in life. Buddhism does have a notion of heaven and hell, and whether they are psychological states or actual realms is a moot point in the West. Its not moot according to the teachings though. THey're not an eternal state.

So when you say reincarnation may be more gratifying, it may not be when you consider the possibility of being reborn as an animal, a ghost, or in hell. It's not an easy - everything will be lovely - concept in Buddhism, but needs work on oneself to progress into positive rebirths - ideally as a human. As a human a being can commit terrible atrocities and acts of great bravery/ compassion. There's no predestination, and so it's up to you. There is the idea of accumulated positive and negative Karma which can ripen.

As for knowledge of reincarnation - you're right - an ordinary person like myself can't perceive other lives - but some can - The Buddha and other realised teachers. There are instructions to find out.


In this case, there are no choices as 'hell' is really the only choice. For even "perfection" is not perfect. Even Karma cannot fully determine which life of each creature is either loathsome, mediocre or most noble for the lives and 'emotions' of each cannot be fully understood. When I said "may be more gratifying," this does not necessarily mean that it will be gratifying. But at least you could return to Earth with more of a counterbalance of good and evil that can be logistically bearable.

[Paulclem]

In this case, there are no choices as 'hell' is really the only choice. For even "perfection" is not perfect. Even Karma cannot fully determine which life of each creature is either loathsome, mediocre or most noble for the lives and 'emotions' of each cannot be fully understood. When I said "may be more gratifying," this does not necessarily mean that it will be gratifying. But at least you could return to Earth with more of a counterbalance of good and evil that can be logistically bearable.

From the Buddhist perspective, it's not about choice. That's our problem - we act in ignorence of the results of our actions which can lead to an unfortunate rebirth. Karma means action.

You're right that Karma doesn't determine a being's life. There's no predestination, but choice dissipates when a being is born into an unfortunate realm. They are too taken up with the sufferings of that state.

Being human offers great potential. It's not about being atheist or not believing anything - it's about the morality of intentions. Intentions are not initially pure an the sense that there's no self interest in actions, but you have to start somewhere, and it can be improved.

[NikolaiI]

Well, it is probably needless for me to go on about near-death experiences explained, many cases have been described similar to this one. I don't think anyone really 'knows' the truth behind their experiences, they usually are merely conditional. However, what has been explained is also indeterminate to complete justification as it does not contain all the answers. But for the answers that are still pending, it does not necessarily mean that a deity or divine force wins by default. It may be difficult to perceive exactly what was experienced, but nonetheless serves no complete justification as they cannot be completely understood without language or visual evidence being the carrier.

"Total perfection" may be subjective to each individual, but it still usually pertains to an individual's idea of 'absolute bliss' like as what you seemingly described. Nevertheless both the nonspiritual and spiritual worlds as we 'know' them has still shared common compatibilities of the same aspirations and encompassments of goodness, peace, love and truth that will at least let us meet each other half way.

Oh, no this was nothing about a near-death experience.

[panel123]

It cannot be proven either way. How do we know that heaven and hill is true?

It's just an only a superstitious belief..

[Paulclem]

It cannot be proven either way. How do we know that heaven and hill is true?

It's just an only a superstitious belief..

It depends on your point of view/ beliefs etc, but there are hellish conditions that exist on earth. If a person believes that there is an afterlife of some kind, then doesn't the possibility of hell also exist?

[Scheherazade]

It cannot be proven either way. How do we know that heaven and hill is true?

It's just an only a superstitious belief..I beg to differ!

Hills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill) are a geological and geographical fact! Their existence cannot be denied!!!

[Paulclem]

I beg to differ!

Hills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill) are a geological and geographical fact! Their existence cannot be denied!!!

Eee I missed that - or am I of the green marking pen brigade?

[blazeofglory]

This heaven and hell stuff is never ending. I do not think, in fact few think today, they exist physically. Does God too exist physically? Is God substantial? I mean God is made up of the substances we are made up of?

God is a concept, not a physical entity at all. We cannot beleive Greek Gods, millions of Hindu Gods, Christian Gods.

God is an idea, a product of our thought. The idea God is not God. This is an imagination. Yet the Universal God, the Impersonal God, the source all of us outsource to for our energies is a different issue I cannot deny.

Here most are groping for a way in the dark and fighting with another without realization

[Paulclem]

Yet clearly some people experience hellish and heavenly conditions on earth. Unfortunately I think hellish conditions are more common - whether that is a mental hell, as in certain mental health problems, or hellish physical conditions.

Having said that, your post seems to concur with the original point of the article in the OP. This was that the common western conceptions of heaven and hell has no basis in the christian scriptures or the Koran.

[Propter W.]

Yet clearly some people experience hellish and heavenly conditions on earth. Unfortunately I think hellish conditions are more common - whether that is a mental hell, as in certain mental health problems, or hellish physical conditions.

Having said that, your post seems to concur with the original point of the article in the OP. This was that the common western conceptions of heaven and hell has no basis in the christian scriptures or the Koran.

Why the "yet"?

[Paulclem]

Why the "yet"?

To contrast with Blaze's post when he says heaven and hell do not exist physically - when the conditions for these do exist on earth.

[Propter W.]

To contrast with Blaze's post when he says heaven and hell do not exist physically - when the conditions for these do exist on earth.

Ah, I see. But "hellish" or "heavenly" conditions on earth have nothing to do with the concepts of hell or heaven, imo. Sometimes people define god as nature, but we don't need a mystical term to describe something like that.

Anyway, my brain's shutting down... Sorry for the feeble reply. Perhaps I'll be able to express myself more clearly in the morning!

[The Atheist]

Yet clearly some people experience hellish and heavenly conditions on earth. Unfortunately I think hellish conditions are more common - whether that is a mental hell, as in certain mental health problems, or hellish physical conditions.

No doubt in my mind which one there's more of here - the hellish.

Heavenly conditions exist occasionally for the majority, but in such small increments as to be negligible against the enormity of lifelong hell that some endure.

[Paulclem]

No doubt in my mind which one there's more of here - the hellish.

Heavenly conditions exist occasionally for the majority, but in such small increments as to be negligible against the enormity of lifelong hell that some endure.

That's right.

[Skia]

Why do people search for Heaven and Hell?
You can already find it here.

[Paulclem]

Why do people search for Heaven and Hell?
You can already find it here.

The OP was about modern conceptions of heaven and hell and how they are inconsistent with the Bible and the Koran.

[Skia]

Like I said.
Either in the bible or the Koran, You can find heaven and hell on earth if you look hard enough...

[Paulclem]

Like I said.
Either in the bible or the Koran, You can find heaven and hell on earth if you look hard enough...

You're right, and you don't have to look too hard. We were talking about the possibility of the existence of heaven and hell. If you believe in an afterlife, and you can see hellish conditions on earth, then the possibility of heaven/ hell existing in the hearafter increases.

[NikolaiI]

There are hellish conditions... perhaps there are hell worlds. Who knows? I don't think of it often. I'm really inclined to say there's no permanent reality called hell. Buddhist cosmology states that there are many hell worlds and innumerable heaven worlds. Taoist, and actually every single spiritaul culture has found that there's a union of opposites. It's a really sacred truth humanity has had for millinnea. It's just a quiet knowing.

[MrJ]

If I could provide evidence would any of you believe in either? These aren't physical locations that are evident by physical proof-- SO these things can only be proven through Spiritual tests (such as prayer and study in texts provided by whichever supreme creator that you think "most likely" real). Its all determined by feeling and spiritual confirmation. Sounds nutty but at the same time, if it IS nutty, then testing it out should come easy to you all.

[YesNo]

What kind of evidence do you have?

[MrJ]

Cause and effect.

[MrJ]

What kind of evidence do you have?

Valid question.

[YesNo]

The evidence that I would use for heaven or hell is what people who have had near death experiences tell us about it.

[MrJ]

The evidence that I would use for heaven or hell is what people who have had near death experiences tell us about it.

Yes, but if you are going to believe them then you might as well just believe what the scriptures teach... as long as we're gonna take someones word for it.

[YesNo]

I prefer taking someone's account of their experience more seriously than texts that might have been written by someone who had no experience in the matter but was articulating a theory.

Besides near death experiences one could include shared death experiences, after death communication and out of body experiences that might give some relevant information.

One of the things one can learn from these near death experiences is that anyone can have them. They don't have to be members of a specific religion who promote a specific sacred text. Now, that's good news.

[MrJ]

I prefer taking someone's account of their experience more seriously than texts that might have been written by someone who had no experience in the matter but was articulating a theory.

Besides near death experiences one could include shared death experiences, after death communication and out of body experiences that might give some relevant information.

One of the things one can learn from these near death experiences is that anyone can have them. They don't have to be members of a specific religion who promote a specific sacred text. Now, that's good news.

true true