Heaven and Hell -Are they for real?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynne Fees

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

...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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

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.

No they aren't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.")

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.