Problems with the Heaven Concept

[Mageth]

There's really, really no reason to think any story about an afterlife is true. The best reasoning I have heard (from "experts") boils down to, "There must be an afterlife, because I really, really want there to be one, and it's going to be just the way I want it to be." Well that's fine. If we're going to play fantasyland, I'll stick with my surfer heaven. It's a heck of a lot better than bible heaven.

The sole basis for believing that there is a heaven is because the Bible speaks of it. Without the Bible, people would only be concerned with this life.

Ah, yes, we cannot depend on our reasoning and senses to determine what is true. Our sole basis for believing anything is - the Bible, which unfortunately we must use our reasoning and senses to read and interpret. Ah, but the Lord guides us in our reading of the Bible, so that it is not our own reasoning that discerns truth, but the Lord causes the truth to be revealed to us through our act of faith of reading the Bible. We know this to be true because - the Bible tells me so!

All those other people who believe in an afterlife who are not Christians are obviously mistaken about their ideas of the afterlife because - the Bible tells me so!

All those Christians who believe in various versions of the afterlife that are totally inconsistent with the one(s) described in the Bible - the Bible tells them so!

What would cause a person to believe in an afterlife unless they are given some basis for doing so? The Bible does this. Without the Bible, people would believe that they live and they die and that is all there is.

The Egyptians, among others, believed in an afterlife long before the Bible.

 

[rhutchin]

The sole basis for believing that there is a heaven is because the Bible speaks of it. Without the Bible, people would only be concerned with this life.

Here is obvious evidence that rhutchin suffers from narcissism, a particularly virulent form of it known as fundamentalist christianity.

Are you really truly honestly completely unaware of any other religion's afterlife stories?

Can you really be THAT unaware of the world around you!? Wow. Just, wow. The observant reader wonders, "what other incredibly obvious things rhutchin misses about the world around him? And what other false things does he believe without checking for truth or thinking even once about its veracity? perhaps the resurrection?"

I kinda though that the Bible was the only source of a heaven in which one resides with God. Guess I am just not up on other religions.

 

[rhutchin]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

It is entirely reasonable that God establish standards for entry into heaven. Failure to meet those standards means failure to enter heaven (and reside in eternal conscious torment). God has explained all this in the Bible. I don't see that there should be an issue with this - other than that people just don't like that system.

The fact that you see no problem with it speaks volumes about your moral character, and no, it is not good.

The problem here is that neither you no anyone else seems to be able to explain why it is a problem. You claim it is a problem, but cannot explain why that is. It certainly has nothing to do with my moral character - maybe you think it reflects on God's character - but why would that be an issue?

 

[Infinite Monkey]

What would cause a person to believe in an afterlife unless they are given some basis for doing so? The Bible does this. Without the Bible, people would believe that they live and they die and that is all there is.

Fear of death plus creativity equals many ideas on how one might escape death.

We observe that upon death, human bodies rot away, so the logical conclusion is that if we're to keep going after death, that afterlife must involve some aspect of a person that is not material, and undetectable. This leads to all manner of fantasy concepts like ghosts and spirits- based not on any sort of fact, but on a (understandable) desire not to die.

 

[Rhea]

I kinda though that the Bible was the only source of a heaven in which one resides with God. Guess I am just not up on other religions.

No, I guess you're kinda not.

Let's see what you do with that. Cower and walk away from learning that the world contains some huge things of which your religion kept you completely ignorant? Hide from reality?

Or are you going to embark on a journey to find out what is out there that you never knew existed before?

Let's see how you react to this news that the world contains lots of stuff that you didn't know about.

 

[Rhea]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

[...snip...]
The problem here is that neither you no anyone else seems to be able to explain why it is a problem. You claim it is a problem, but cannot explain why that is. It certainly has nothing to do with my moral character - maybe you think it reflects on God's character - but why would that be an issue?

But we have explained why it's a problem. many times.

Torture is wrong. Torture with no avenue for redemption is sick. What do you and your god even GET out of someone being in pain? The person is there for ETERNITY, so there's nothing to be gained from it at all. They can mend their ways, but it won't stop the torture or allow their rehabilitated self back into society. Nothing is repaired or fixed. It's just suffering for the sake of having more suffering. What kind of sick monster thinks that is a good reason to cause suffering? Seriously, don't you realize how that makes people look at you? You are a monster who does not understand why keeping someone alive longer just to make sure they experience pain is wrong.

There is NO POINT to eternal suffering for the damned. NJone. They can't learn from it, grow from it, repair, apologize or make restitution. There is NO POINT other than the person inflicting the pain - your god and by approval, you - to gain some sort of pleasure from the screams and howls of others.

That's fucking sick. And anyone who does not understand why that is fucking sick is a scary monstrous indiviual.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I don't go along with 'scary and monstrous' simply because I think most people who chant the old orthodoxy accept it in a storybook fashion while they carry on their daily mundane tasks alongside us freethinkers. Yes, they really do think their cast of invisible characters (deities, saints, whatever) are real, but they often accept the lunatic 'reasoning' of theology in the abstract. That said, everything in Rhea's post about the non-redemption of hell is spot-on, but remember, Rutch has already signed on to a "Love God" who kills off the whole planet in Genesis, slaughters thousands of children as they sleep, in Exodus...you know the rest. If all these actions can still conform to Love and Mercy and Concern for 'His' Children, why not hell? But you better be careful, Rutch... hell is for strictly doctrinal error, as well, and your fellow Christers have cheerfully burned and beheaded each other over the centuries and consigned each other to hell over differences in all sorts of dogmas and definitions. Chick Comics will ship you off to hell for the idolatry of Roman Catholicism. Catholicism (at least used to) assert dogmatically that its church is the only path to salvation. Silly fictions, all of them --- very lame that these old folk traditions are still with us after 1500 or 2000 years.

 

[rhutchin]

I don't go along with 'scary and monstrous' simply because I think most people who chant the old orthodoxy accept it in a storybook fashion while they carry on their daily mundane tasks alongside us freethinkers. Yes, they really do think their cast of invisible characters (deities, saints, whatever) are real, but they often accept the lunatic 'reasoning' of theology in the abstract. That said, everything in Rhea's post about the non-redemption of hell is spot-on, but remember, Rutch has already signed on to a "Love God" who kills off the whole planet in Genesis, slaughters thousands of children as they sleep, in Exodus...you know the rest. If all these actions can still conform to Love and Mercy and Concern for 'His' Children, why not hell? But you better be careful, Rutch... hell is for strictly doctrinal error, as well, and your fellow Christers have cheerfully burned and beheaded each other over the centuries and consigned each other to hell over differences in all sorts of dogmas and definitions. Chick Comics will ship you off to hell for the idolatry of Roman Catholicism. Catholicism (at least used to) assert dogmatically that its church is the only path to salvation. Silly fictions, all of them --- very lame that these old folk traditions are still with us after 1500 or 2000 years.

You confuse that which the Bible says with that which people say and do. The bible is a collection of accounts in history collected for us to peruse and consider. Whether those accounts are true is a matter of faith.

 

[Mageth]

You confuse that which the Bible says with that which people say and do. The bible is a collection of accounts in history collected for us to peruse and consider. Whether those accounts are true is a matter of faith.

Faith does not and cannot establish truth.

 

[dockeen]

You confuse that which the Bible says with that which people say and do. The bible is a collection of accounts in history collected for us to peruse and consider. Whether those accounts are true is a matter of faith.

Faith does not and cannot establish truth.

There is in fact a world of difference between saying:

"Whether those accounts are true is a matter of faith."

and

"Whether one accepts that those accounts are true is a matter of faith."

To me, an event either happened, or it didn't. Whether one believes it happened or not is completely irrelevant.

Now, one can ask if rhutchin is trying to imply that if one does not believe a flood happened, then for that individual, it did not.

 

[atrib]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

It is entirely reasonable that God establish standards for entry into heaven. Failure to meet those standards means failure to enter heaven (and reside in eternal conscious torment). God has explained all this in the Bible. I don't see that there should be an issue with this - other than that people just don't like that system.

The fact that you see no problem with it speaks volumes about your moral character, and no, it is not good.

The problem here is that neither you no anyone else seems to be able to explain why it is a problem. You claim it is a problem, but cannot explain why that is. It certainly has nothing to do with my moral character - maybe you think it reflects on God's character - but why would that be an issue?

You don't understand why it is a bad thing to punish finite crimes with infinite torture? You don't understand why burning someone for all eternity is a monstrous idea? Really?

 

[atrib]

I don't go along with 'scary and monstrous' simply because I think most people who chant the old orthodoxy accept it in a storybook fashion while they carry on their daily mundane tasks alongside us freethinkers. Yes, they really do think their cast of invisible characters (deities, saints, whatever) are real, but they often accept the lunatic 'reasoning' of theology in the abstract. That said, everything in Rhea's post about the non-redemption of hell is spot-on, but remember, Rutch has already signed on to a "Love God" who kills off the whole planet in Genesis, slaughters thousands of children as they sleep, in Exodus...you know the rest. If all these actions can still conform to Love and Mercy and Concern for 'His' Children, why not hell? But you better be careful, Rutch... hell is for strictly doctrinal error, as well, and your fellow Christers have cheerfully burned and beheaded each other over the centuries and consigned each other to hell over differences in all sorts of dogmas and definitions. Chick Comics will ship you off to hell for the idolatry of Roman Catholicism. Catholicism (at least used to) assert dogmatically that its church is the only path to salvation. Silly fictions, all of them --- very lame that these old folk traditions are still with us after 1500 or 2000 years.

You confuse that which the Bible says with that which people say and do. The bible is a collection of accounts in history collected for us to peruse and consider. Whether those accounts are true is a matter of faith.

Not if many of said accounts can be demonstrated to be false. Like the great flud, or the age of the universe, or how the universe and life on this planet came to be, or talking snakes and burning bushes for example.

By the way, we are still waiting on you to provide us with references in the scientific literature (specifically in the geological sciences) where the researchers have concluded that the entire planet was covered by a flood of water tens of thousands of feet deep in the last few thousand years. We know you got nothing, so we are not holding our breath.

 

[Mageth]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

It is entirely reasonable that God establish standards for entry into heaven. Failure to meet those standards means failure to enter heaven (and reside in eternal conscious torment). God has explained all this in the Bible. I don't see that there should be an issue with this - other than that people just don't like that system.

The fact that you see no problem with it speaks volumes about your moral character, and no, it is not good.

The problem here is that neither you no anyone else seems to be able to explain why it is a problem. You claim it is a problem, but cannot explain why that is. It certainly has nothing to do with my moral character - maybe you think it reflects on God's character - but why would that be an issue?

You don't understand why it is a bad thing to punish finite crimes with infinite torture? You don't understand why burning someone for all eternity is a monstrous idea? Really?

It's pretty clear from what rhutchin wrote that he believes it's actually a good thing because God says so. To rhutchin, Might Makes Right . We're make moral judgments based on our moral sense of what is right and wrong, while rhutchin's judgments are based on fiat - what God says defines what's good or bad, and fuck you, you're fucked if you think otherwise.

 

[jonJ]

What would cause a person to believe in an afterlife unless they are given some basis for doing so? The Bible does this. Without the Bible, people would believe that they live and they die and that is all there is.

Unless, you know, your all-powerful God who can do anything effortlessly took the trouble to get off his butt and provide some more convincing evidence than an out-of-date, self-contradictory, rambling anthology of puff pieces which is demonstrably wrong in many, many ways.

GOD: "Why won't people save themselves?"
JESUS: "Because they don't believe you exist."
GOD: "Why don't they believe I exist?"
JESUS: "Because you act like you don't exist."
GOD: "What do you want me to do? Go on Oprah?"
JESUS: "Well, now that you mention it..."

 

[bilby]

What would cause a person to believe in an afterlife unless they are given some basis for doing so? The Bible does this. Without the Bible, people would believe that they live and they die and that is all there is.

People believed in an afterlife long before the Bible was written - the guys who built the pyramids never heard of the Bible, but they clearly believed in an afterlife. So the Bible is not necessary for such belief.

Regardless of the source of this belief, the more important question is "Is belief in an afterlife a good thing?".

I would say that it is not - unless the afterlife exists as described.

There is no afterlife; the Bible is therefore a bad thing, because it persuades people to believe something untrue, and to waste their one and only life in pursuit of a lie.

 

[bilby]

I am sure as shit going to be surprised if there is a judgement.

Unpleasantly surprised presumably - but not ignorant of the possibility. The question is whether you will pout and cry and go ballistic at that time.

Given that the source of my surprise would be my rock solid certainty that the whole religion thing is pure fiction, your assumption that I am aware of the possibility is badly flawed.

When rock solid certainty proves false, great is one's surprise.

No shit, Sherlock.

Am I supposed to be scared of the threat that if I turn out to be immortal, I might have to reconsider my position on some issues?

How could that possibly be worse than wasting my short life in pursuit of an immortality that turns out to be fictional?

Sure, you won't be shocked or surprised to find out that you are wrong; but that's because you will be dead. Decapitation is a 100% effective cure for neuralgia, but there is a reason why it is rarely chosen over Aspirin.

 

[dockeen]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

It is entirely reasonable that God establish standards for entry into heaven. Failure to meet those standards means failure to enter heaven (and reside in eternal conscious torment). God has explained all this in the Bible. I don't see that there should be an issue with this - other than that people just don't like that system.

The fact that you see no problem with it speaks volumes about your moral character, and no, it is not good.

The problem here is that neither you no anyone else seems to be able to explain why it is a problem. You claim it is a problem, but cannot explain why that is. It certainly has nothing to do with my moral character - maybe you think it reflects on God's character - but why would that be an issue?

You don't understand why it is a bad thing to punish finite crimes with infinite torture? You don't understand why burning someone for all eternity is a monstrous idea? Really?

Or to punish infinitely those who believed the "wrong" things?

And none of this addresses the morality of the decision to create, knowing that the creation necccesitated the inclusion of an eternal torture chamber. Whoreshiping a god who says,
in some sense, "I want what I want, and I don't care who has to suffer for me to get it" does not speak to much in the way of personal integrity, but meerly a desire to suck up to
power and get the goodies.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think Rutch is trying to imply that without God, we have no real moral code, thus we cannot justify calling anything in The Books 'bad.'
He's saying we can't explain why eternal torment is bad, without first establishing a godless morality foundation and proving that it's worth a shit.

 

[dockeen]

I think Rutch is trying to imply that without God, we have no real moral code, thus we cannot justify calling anything in The Books 'bad.'
He's saying we can't explain why eternal torment is bad, without first establishing a godless morality foundation and proving that it's worth a shit.

Ed loved to fall back on that argument.

 

[funinspace]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

It is entirely reasonable that God establish standards for entry into heaven. Failure to meet those standards means failure to enter heaven (and reside in eternal conscious torment). God has explained all this in the Bible. I don't see that there should be an issue with this - other than that people just don't like that system.

I think the "issue" with your eternal torment for the masses is that most people find the construct rather vile and depraved, not that people can't see the construct (as one of several possible interpretations) within the Christian Bible.

There are a lot of people who think God just saves everyone just because he ought to. Obviously, anyone who objects to being held accountable for their actions and then to have their actions judged would think that such judgment is vile and depraved. God describes such people as vile and depraved. So, I guess it depends on one's perspective.

Anywho, it seems you still have quandaries regarding 2 constructs within your theology (not that either one devastates general Christian theology, as there are many sects that don't think your way).

Hellfire and brimstone for the masses: Your God will have to give humans some form of lobotomy, in order for humans not to mourn, cry, or be in emotional pain by knowing/seeing their loved ones (mothers, or fathers, or sons, or daughters, or brothers, or sisters, or grandchildren) are suffering within eternal conscious torment. Can you honestly tell me that you have no relatives (or have Christian friends that would face this) that you suspect won't make the cut within your own theological construct? Yeah, maybe 60 or 70 years ago, most everyone at least pretended to be Christian, as social pressures would make it difficult to not at least pretend. So either, you and all your saved brethren, will need extensive lobotomies to radically change how humans think/behave, or your "eternal torment for the masses" construct is flawed. I really don't see another way out of this theological box considering Rev 21:4.

Rev 21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

With OSAS: You still need to have a host of people either be liars (no I’m not asking you to get into trouble on the board for calling myself or any others a liar) in how they describe their lengthy and fervent Christian past. Atheos has described his past of being a preacher/minister on this board, is another example beyond my details of post #65. Or your construct requires such people to be capable of fooling themselves for even decades. But that would make a mockery of the notion of assurance of salvation, as people would then not be able to even trust their own feelings and thoughts. That aspect really doesn't help your theology much. Of course, you could also modify your OSAS dogma to just let those who walked away from faith, still getting that fabulous E-ticket; or even just dump the OSAS notion all together. Wouldn't that be a crack up, having people arriving at the pearly gates that spent later decades scoffing at the God notion? Of course we would be getting the same required lobotomy, so we'd also being happy singing kumbaya for the 4,882,390,388,449,538,299,288 time.

Or God can allow those in heaven to see those in hell as He sees them. No lobotomy necessary; just the opening of a person's eyes to see others as they really are.

Some have already pointed out the issue of infinite punishment for a finite crime. Most people have little or no problem with being held accountable for their actions; we do it all the time with fines, restrictions, prisons, and even sometimes a quick execution. But to infinitely torment someone for simply not believing in a fable, is hardly accountability.

A tale I created on the old board that I thought was fitting…
Say you have 2 sons. The good son is Bob. He got good grades in school; did his chores w/o being reminded much; went to college; found a nice wife; and now has provided you with 2 cute grand children.

The bad son is Sid. He got very mediocre grades in school; got caught using drugs; got a girl pregnant and dumped her; didn't go to college; only has periodic work; bummed money off of you and didn't pay it back; he finally went to another city after telling you to F-off; you suspect he also now deals in drugs; and now you haven't spoken to him in 10 years.

You have a inheritance of say $4,000,000 that you want to will out, as you don't believe your heart will last a whole lot longer, 5 years after your triple bypass. Do you give it all to the good son Bob and his family? Do you cut off your worthless son Sid? Yeah, something like that might be understandable.

HOWEVER, what I don't expect that you would do is take half the inheritance, and hire a team to go out and hunt down your bad son Sid. Nor would your team be paid to merely snuff him out. Nooooooooo!!! That would be far too nice. Your team takes him back to an old house in the woods, where you have set up a special basement. And there you have hired a guy named Lucifer to make sport of Sid's pathetic life. This basement has all sorts of item to torture Sid, but also medical equipment to try and keep him alive. So Lucifer manages to spend 10 years torturing your son Sid, and monthly sends you DVD's so you can see that you got your money's worth...

Even with the above cringe worthy tale, it still pales when compared to the new and improved eternal Auschwitz your loving father has prepared for the masses, based upon the theology you cleave upon. How do you call this construct of yours, a "loving father"? Many words come to my mind, but "loving" ain't even in the ball park!

Could you really hire someone to torture your son Sid? Could you even hire someone to kill your own son, let alone any other human that merely wanted nothing to do with you? I could understand your willingness to hire someone to kill someone like Hitler. But that is still probably just a few minutes of intense pain, and then nothing. Could you even hire someone to torture a person like Hitler? Could you do it yourself? Somehow I guess that all your answers to my questions in this paragraph are an easy "NO WAY". Funny how you seem to have no problem cleaving to a theology that purports to do far more than you could ever imagine yourself doing...but ah, your God will open your eyes so somehow this will all magically be just peachy…yeah right.

I could fathom a "loving god/father" putting seriously bad/evil people to a permanent sleep/death. And many Christians have this as part of their theology, as they cannot balance "loving father" with "eternal suffering".