Hell

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I remember reading once that the Christian conversion of the pagan Anglo Saxons went so smoothly because they reckoned they were swapping a cold, icy mist ridden Hell for a warmer one.

Heaven and Hell are just religious versions of the carrot and stick and aren't to be taken seriously. Look at the mental contortions that have to be made to explain them. Good behaviour whether from a religious or an ethical standard should be followed because it is the right thing to do not because of some mystical consequence.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Heaven and Hell are just religious versions of the carrot and stick and aren't to be taken seriously.

But Tosh, many people here DO take those concepts seriously. Their beliefs need to be respected, particularly in this forum. Just as your beliefs to the contrary need to be respected.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Look at the mental contortions that have to be made to explain them.

The mental contortions are what made me question them in the first place. To believe that A) god is loving and that B) a loving god would create a place of punishment for not worshipping him seems uncharacteristically egotistical and childish-- sure these are human qualities that I am projecting onto the divine, but so is love.

[Alatar]

I would agree that the Heaven and Hell preached by "Fire and Brimstone" preachers probably do not exist, and those versions are the ones that were taught to my parents generation, perhaps because they were less sophisticated than the current generation? Hell and Heaven as a concept is another issue. Many say that Hell is simply eternity deprived of Gods presence and that is one I can grasp. Lets also remember that the Hell of the Old testament and the Hell of the new are not exactly the same. What does the Jewish faith tell us about Hell?

Whatever Heaven and Hell are, its unlikely our human minds can comprehend them, so anything we imagine is purely an extrapolation of our experiences of what we fear most and love most.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

If I recall correctly, jews don't believe in hell, but I might be wrong.

[Whistler]

Heaven and hell are not (in my Christianity) places of reward and punishment in the simplistic, childish sense in which we use those terms. They are simply the inevitable results of the choices we make in life.

Heaven is where God's influence is present; hell is where it is not. And whether we experience that influence after death is determined by whether we desired it before death.

I have always found it odd that people who spend their lives seeking to rid themselves of God are deeply offended by the notion that someday they will succeed.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

I have always found it odd that people who spend their lives seeking to rid themselves of God are deeply offended by the notion that someday they will succeed.

I agree. It would be damned hypocritical to get offended that you'd end up in hell (away fromg god) after denouncing god (that is if the christians are right after death).

[The Watcher]

Heaven and hell are not (in my Christianity) places of reward and punishment in the simplistic, childish sense in which we use those terms. They are simply the inevitable results of the choices we make in life.

Heaven is where God's influence is present; hell is where it is not. And whether we experience that influence after death is determined by whether we desired it before death.

I have always found it odd that people who spend their lives seeking to rid themselves of God are deeply offended by the notion that someday they will succeed.

So in essence, both groups get what they want? The religious believers hope to get to a place to be closer to God, and those that have chosen not to go to a place (if any) without God.

I still find it odd that an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent divine would (a) single out mankind in the vast regions of the universe for special treatment, and (b) basically be judging us based on our beliefs. So, milllions and millions of believers in other faiths go - where? Does God set up seperate heavens for every faith? Why is where human beings go after we die of such special consideration? Wouldn't the creator of the universe be concerned with everything and every being in the universe? Dogs, whales, Antarians, whatever? If the Antarians do not accept their worldly incarnation of God, do they also suffer the ultimate fate of wrong or non-belief? Is there a seperate Antarian heaven?

I am not making light of these sentiments, I merely find them all too fallable to rules that mankind itself makes in terms of what is "true" or not. In other words, nearly ALL religions claim exclusivity on the truth, and obviously due to major contradictions contained within most of them, by default, not all of them can therefore be true in terms of orthodoxy and dogma.

What a surprise for all of the Christians if they find out that the Buddhists had it right all along, for example.

[JewelSong]

Well, Buddhism and Christianity are not exclusive. You can be a practicing Buddhist and still be a Christian.

At least, as I understand it.

Ahem. Carry on!

[truehobbit]

Whatever Heaven and Hell are, its unlikely our human minds can comprehend them, so anything we imagine is purely an extrapolation of our experiences of what we fear most and love most.

Very well said, Alatar, I quite agree.

I don't see any mental contortions - maybe something that is a contortion for one person is crystal clear and obvious for another.

I agree though that right should be done for its own sake.

[Pearly Di]

I agree though that right should be done for its own sake.

So do I.

[Maria]

I found the whole concept of Hell hard to believe in from an early age. Eternal Damnation never synced well with my image of the God of Love.

I thought Aphrodite was the Goddess of Love...











.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Why should right be done for its own sake? Does it make you feel better to do right for its own sake than for the divine's sake? Punishment seems to be one of the main factors for people doing right. If I don't do right (or legal), I get punished. Therefore, if I don't want to be punished, I must do right (or legal).

[Primula Baggins]

That's why children behave. But that's because they're just learning.

Adults are supposed to have more mature motivations, including doing the right thing because it's the right thing (even if there is no reward at all or even a punishment).

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

That reasoning is circular. What other motivations should adults have and what makes them valid reasons for doing right?

[Primula Baggins]

It's not circular if you accept some external standard of right and wrong. Religious teachings, for example.

The point is to get beyond "What's in it for me?"

[The Watcher]

That reasoning is circular. What other motivations should adults have and what makes them valid reasons for doing right?

One of those reasons is the betterment of society as a whole. A group of people refusing to cooperate and learn to live together is going to have a much tougher time surviving overall than one that does.

Humans ARE social animals. No matter if one subscribes to evolution or not, we are not naturally designed to be lone operating predators, even in earliest times, we have tended to live in groups.

Another reason is survival of the species. We tend to nurture and biology encourages the preservation of traits that encourage nurturing by allowing more of these offspring to survive and further reproduce. Rather like domestication, over time, some traits encourage better odds of successful offspring.

Such things as loyalty, taboos against killing within the group, lust, theft, slander, etc. all would grow out of such behaviour over time.

Humans are cognizent, self-aware. It is postulated that this may be the very reasons that we search for answers and form religions, it provides comfort to us with our awareness of uncertainty, the passage of time, and our own mortality. Combine this trait with the above two, and it is very obvious at least to me why we have motivations to "behave." I do not see circular reasoning at all. It is survival, if not self-interest or group interest.

And, when I refer to these types of traits, they obviously for the most part apply in a type of heirarchy. Family, then village, then tribe/cultural group in the vicinity, then entire ethnic group, then nation, etc. The further away one gets, the more ambiguous and tentative those loyalties and group preservation traits are going to be.

So, I may have strong qualms about killing or raiding someone within my own group, tribe, clan, etc. But, chances are that those same actions against an "enemy" are going to hold little sway.

edit for way too many typos!!

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Right for its own sake isn't external, though. It's an internal standard.

I agree that you have to get past the selfish point about reward or punishment, but that's only if the selfish points are not valid reasons to do right. Is it better that someone does right for its own sake as to opposed to doing right for his own sake. Either way, the person is doing right.

[Primula Baggins]

I would have to argue that yes, it is better for a person to do right for selfless rather than selfish reasons. Selfishness can turn people into monsters. Perhaps in one moment selfishness motivates the person to do right, but what if in the next moment he sees a selfish act that harms others that he can get away with?

Integrity and adherence to some external standard of decency, on the other hand, would make a person pass up that selfish act even if it would profit him.

[The Watcher]

Right for its own sake isn't external, though. It's an internal standard.

I agree that you have to get past the selfish point about reward or punishment, but that's only if the selfish points are not valid reasons to do right. Is it better that someone does right for its own sake as to opposed to doing right for his own sake. Either way, the person is doing right.

That I cannot answer. I certainly believe in such things as maternal, and to a lesser degree, paternal instincts. There are also such attributes as fondness, love, security, which lend to altruistic behaviours. I do not see such things as necessarily deriving from God, although I certainly understand why so many people would choose that answer.

I also tend to look at things over a long time historical context. In reality, how "altruistic" have human societies been prior to the last two hundred years at best? Even biblical prohibitions and commandments have often been interpreted as being applicable only to members within a certain group, and not at all applicable to those outside the group.