Hell

[MMI]

Why would He ruin perfection unless He were flawed Himself?

Perhaps the Zen sage was recognising this.

Or, perhaps, as I have observed before, God was the first Sadist, in which case, wouldn't Heaven be Hell?

[denuseri]

Or maby your idea of whats perfect doesnt exactly coincide with what was created.

If all was "good" would you have a way of distinguishing? Same-ness, without motion, all would be nothing. There would be no contrast by which to preceive nor would there be any need.

The perfection of imperfection, change, motion, contrast. From chaos a new way of preciveing order is revealed.

[Thorne]

If all was "good" would you have a way of distinguishing? Same-ness, without motion, all would be nothing. There would be no contrast by which to preceive nor would there be any need.

The perfection of imperfection, change, motion, contrast. From chaos a new way of preciveing order is revealed.

Yet doesn't this idea contradict the existence of heaven and hell? Heaven is supposed to be all goodness, no suffering, no evil. Same-ness, as you put it, without motion. No contrast. The same applies to hell. Constant suffering, unending, without change. Again, no contrast. So what's the point?

The truth is you can imagine an infinite number of variations on heaven and hell and any of them, or none of them, might be close to the truth. We do not, can not, know if they exist. All we have to go on is speculation and drug-induced visions. Not exactly credible evidence.

[denuseri]

The point of having hevan and hell may just be to point out that duality exisits. Every coin has two sides so to speak.

You can believe or not in oh say the "wind" for instance as you wish, it makes no difference to the wind, it will still blow upon you all the same.


(though personally it would be refreshing for a change if while debating such things you would refrain from calling everyone;who doesnt believe exactly as you do, stupid, deluded, crazy or on drugs just once, I can assure you that just becuase one disagrees with anothers views on sprituality, it is not a foregone conclussion that they are in any way dimminished in their capacity for logical thought or incapable of being insulted by such sophistry)

[Thorne]

The point of having hevan and hell may just be to point out that duality exisits. Every coin has two sides so to speak.

That's a good explanation for the idea of heaven and hell, but not for the actuality.

You can believe or not in oh say the "wind" for instance as you wish, it makes no difference to the wind, it will still blow upon you all the same.

That's true, but it's true for everyone. You can see evidence for the wind all around you when it blows. You can record that evidence. Others can see it with you. And we have scientific explanations for what it is and what causes it.

But what if you were born in a glass bubble, never having experienced the wind, or rain, or any of the normal experiences of a human being. As you sit in your glass dome watching the world around you, one day you see that the trees are moving, and bushes and shrubs, and things are flying through the air. If you have no other means of determining what is causing such a disturbance it wouldn't be surprising if you decided that some unseen being was blowing those things around. After all, the only way you can feel a breeze is by blowing air through your mouth.

This is similar to how the idea of gods originated. Intelligent men and women who saw things happening in the world and didn't know how to explain them. So they invented powerful beings who did these things. And they needed to believe that these beings looked just like them, could walk among them. And they developed all kinds of stories about the world these beings lived in.

We know better now, of course. We know why the wind blows, why the lightning flashes, why the Earth trembles. We don't need gods to explain it any more. It's time we let them go.

[Thorne]

(though personally it would be refreshing for a change if while debating such things you would refrain from calling everyone;who doesnt believe exactly as you do, stupid, deluded, crazy or on drugs just once, I can assure you that just becuase one disagrees with anothers views on sprituality, it is not a foregone conclussion that they are in any way dimminished in their capacity for logical thought or incapable of being insulted by such sophistry)

This comment upsets me, denuseri. I've always tried to go out of my way to make sure I don't call people here names or try to denigrate them in any way. I've said repeatedly that people are free to believe what they want, I have no quarrel with that. And I most certainly don't consider them to be stupid because of their beliefs.

If someone talks to God she's praying, a devout person, perhaps a true believer. I might believe she was being silly but I wouldn't come right out and say it.

If someone tells me that God talks to him, I'm likely to believe he's deluded. I probably won't say it, but I'll think it. He may believe what he says, but that doesn't mean he's right. It doesn't mean I'm right either, but you can decide where you would place your bet.

If someone tells me that God not only talks to him but wants him to kill non-believers, I have to think he's crazy. And I'll say so. Loudly. To anyone who'll listen.

As for the drugs comment, which I believe is what may have set you off, I was referring to the practice of primitive "holy men" to fast for long periods, or to use mind-altering drugs, to stimulate visions which would fuel their belief in a spiritual world. It was in no way meant to imply that one had to be a drug-crazed loony to believe in such things. But let's face it: anyone who has read the Book of Revelations has to believe that John was using something pretty potent to have such visions. Or, like any good writer of fiction, he was making it up as he went along.

So I'm sorry if I implied any such things about anyone here. It's not my intention to belittle anyone for their beliefs. But if they profess those beliefs in an open forum they have to expect to be called on them. If your faith isn't strong enough to withstand such discussions, perhaps you should reexamine that faith.

I've spent my whole life letting people make outrageous claims without evidence. I've reached a point in my life now where I'm willing to stand up and call their bluffs. The world is getting crazy out there, and religious fanatics are among the craziest. Muslim crazies flying planes into buildings, or killing and maiming young girls for the "sin" of going to school; so-called Christian crazies picketing at the funerals of American soldiers; Christian leaders claiming that God is punishing the people of Haiti because their ancestors had the audacity to cast off the shackles of slavery; pedophiles hiding in the churches behind the robes of their leaders. The time for ignoring such nonsense is over. We have to fight these ideas, and these people. Or we'll all be dragged down into the darkness of fundamentalism.

[MMI]

You do, and I believe I do too, cast disparaging remarks about belief in the supernatural: All we have to go on is speculation and drug-induced visions. Not exactly credible evidence, for example. Perfectly true from our perspective and, frankly, unanswerable. But believers work on a fundamentally different set of precepts from those you and I follow, and science, to them, is deficient in its ability to recognise the divine. It is we who are to be pitied for our gullibility in trusting everything to science, reason and logic.

[Thorne]

You do, and I believe I do too, cast disparaging remarks about belief in the supernatural: All we have to go on is speculation and drug-induced visions. Not exactly credible evidence, for example. Perfectly true from our perspective and, frankly, unanswerable. But believers work on a fundamentally different set of precepts from those you and I follow, and science, to them, is deficient in its ability to recognise the divine. It is we who are to be pitied for our gullibility in trusting everything to science, reason and logic.

Yes, to some extent. But my comment about "speculation and drug induced visions" was not aimed at believers, as such, but at the preachers and church leaders who determine what a particular faith actually involves.

There has been scientific study, and some evidence, regarding the propensity for the human mind to accept the supernatural, as a survival mechanism. (See here about this, too.) So believing in the supernatural is apparently the way we are wired. But when we have evidence which counters the supernatural, such as the mechanisms of weather, or the actions of volcanoes, holding to these superstitions would seem to me to be surrendering your reason in favor of fantasy.

After all, we no longer believe that Vulcan works at his mighty forge beneath Mt. Etna, do we? We no longer feel the need to place coins on the eyes of the dead to pay the ferryman on their journey, do we? So why must we hold so tenaciously to the myths of Yahweh, or Allah, or any other gods?

[thir]

After all, we no longer believe that Vulcan works at his mighty forge beneath Mt. Etna, do we? We no longer feel the need to place coins on the eyes of the dead to pay the ferryman on their journey, do we? So why must we hold so tenaciously to the myths of Yahweh, or Allah, or any other gods?

It is only the dogmatic religions that make so much trouble, in that they can create fundamentalists and command them.

As for the rest, I do not see the harm in that. Why should it upset you so much?

[Thorne]

It is only the dogmatic religions that make so much trouble, in that they can create fundamentalists and command them.

As for the rest, I do not see the harm in that. Why should it upset you so much?

I would suggest that you read some of these.

Then ask, "What's the harm!"

[denuseri]

Thats just like arguing for the abolishment of all science becuase people have been harmed by some of it's fruits Thorne.

[13'sbadkitty]

It is as elitist in my opinion to feel that anyone who doesn't agree with oneself is either crazy, silly or dangerous. People have been killing people for all sorts of crazy reasons throughout time. Religion can be used just like money or property.
I think that all things are paradoxical. Its too easy to say it has to go because there are bad people in the world who do hurtful things and use something as the justification of it. Being respectful doesn't just mean that you don't say to someone they are deranged or silly for religious belief, it means you don't assume they are deranged or silly for having belief. I agree with you that there are evil people that should be fought against. Thats not even close to a reasonable proportion of people with those beliefs. There is nothing silly about people feeling like something gives direction or purpose to their lives. As a parent there is a deep spiritual connection to my kids. To me when I saw the sunrise this morning took my puppy out for a walk the world was quiet and covered with snow. I knew that i wanted to post the pictures i took here on this thread as it was a moment i knew a connection with something bigger than myself that wasn't to comfort pain or make someone else feel small. it was just beauty

[Thorne]

Thats just like arguing for the abolishment of all science becuase people have been harmed by some of it's fruits Thorne.

Not quite. Most of the examples in that link happened because people used religion to justify doing harm to others, or at least to justify not helping others. But in some cases it is an entire religion which is harming people. The Catholic Church recently told the Catholics of Africa that use of condoms was forbidden because it helps to spread AIDS when in reality the opposite is true. Condom use significantly reduces the spread of AIDS. The Church, however, is more concerned with the possibility of the condoms promoting promiscuity. It's irrelevant to them that hundreds of thousands will die of AIDS, as long as they don't fuck anyone before they do it. That's not only harmful, it's criminal.

Yes, people can abuse science, too. No question. But there is no concerted effort by scientists to harm people, no twisting of scientific truth to keep people ignorant. Doctors aren't heading into Haiti to kidnap children, or to distribute solar powered bibles.

[Thorne]

It is as elitist in my opinion to feel that anyone who doesn't agree with oneself is either crazy, silly or dangerous.

I agree. Unless they actually DO something crazy, silly or dangerous.

People have been killing people for all sorts of crazy reasons throughout time.

Again, I agree. But very few have been as effective at it as the Catholic Church or the Muslim jihadists.

Religion can be used just like money or property.

I'm not sure I understand this one. How can you use religion to buy food? In fact, if you could buy food with prayer there wouldn't be any hunger in the world.

Being respectful doesn't just mean that you don't say to someone they are deranged or silly for religious belief, it means you don't assume they are deranged or silly for having belief.

Not even if their belief is silly? Or deranged?
I'm not talking about individual people, here, but entire organizations which are leading their followers down these paths of irrationality.

There is nothing silly about people feeling like something gives direction or purpose to their lives.

I agree with you again. I've said so many times. As long as they use it for their own lives and don't try to force it upon my life or the lives of innocent children.

And let's not forget Martin Luther's attacks on the use of reason to make our lives better.

[denuseri]

Yes, people can abuse science, too. No question. But there is no concerted effort by scientists to harm people, no twisting of scientific truth to keep people ignorant. [/URL].

Will we just ignore the whole methadology behind the science used by the nazi's to justify their uses of science on the jews and others then shall we?

Not to mention some of the crap our own country has done to minorities in the past in the name of science.

[denuseri]

Again, I agree. But very few have been as effective at it as the Catholic Church or the Muslim jihadists.

We will just forget the whole atheist driven communist progons and resultant wars in russia, china and southeast asia then too?

Where btw with the aide of "science" in a few short years more people were tortured and killed than in all of the crusades, inquisitions and jihads of history combined.

[Thorne]

Will we just ignore the whole methadology behind the science used by the nazi's to justify their uses of science on the jews and others then shall we?

Not to mention some of the crap our own country has done to minorities in the past in the name of science.

I'm not saying we should ignore such things. I'm not saying they were right.

But think about the reasons why such atrocities could be committed in the first place. Jews were persecuted for centuries because of their denunciation of Jesus. And the Church was a leader in these persecutions. This set the stage for the rampant anti-semitism of the Nazis.

The American minorities, primarily African-Americans, were kept in slavery and regarded as less than human by pious men quoting the Bible, such as Leviticus 25:44-46

[Thorne]

We will just forget the whole atheist driven communist progons and resultant wars in russia, china and southeast asia then too?

Where btw with the aide of "science" in a few short years more people were tortured and killed than in all of the crusades, inquisitions and jihads of history combined.

While the leaders of the communist movement may have been atheist, such atheism had little or nothing to do with their actions. Their whole purpose was to control the very minds of their subjects. To do this they had to remove any other controlling forces, such as religion. It was greed and the lust for power that drove those men, not atheism. And not science. The only use the communists had for science was in trying to keep up with western advances in armaments.

Can we say the same of those killed for the sake of religions?

An interesting list here, too.

[13'sbadkitty]

Money and land as an excuse to kill has killed as effectively if not more than any other excuse. Why was the genocide of the Native Americans perpetrated? It certainly had everything to do with what was perceived as a rich place to put their stuff, no? Because the Catholic Church commits atrocities against the people with regard to anything, i agree its wrong completely and if there is a hell i hope the first in line are the fundamentalist few who cause harm in Gods name. American politicians let how many die from aids because it was considered a good way to clean up the homosexual and addict problem? Ronald Reagan died a hero here as he intentionally allowed and encouraged this? As he colluded with the Catholic Church for political gain? For what ever excuse is used to justify bad behavior, religious or otherwise, isn't greed at heart?
I think that many things are silly or deranged in this world, yet i usually know deep within that i don't get to pronounce those titles though without being judgmental. Deranged meaning crazy is sometimes a legit to call other times its a "this is out of my experience" and there for i am not accepting it. There are many things i agree with you about, the basic difference to me being that i don't feel i have the right to judge other peoples experience. i sometimes wonder, if when people want to seek out information to support their view it isn't too easy to ignore what doesn't.

[Thorne]

Money and land as an excuse to kill has killed as effectively if not more than any other excuse. Why was the genocide of the Native Americans perpetrated? It certainly had everything to do with what was perceived as a rich place to put their stuff, no? Because the Catholic Church commits atrocities against the people with regard to anything, i agree its wrong completely and if there is a hell i hope the first in line are the fundamentalist few who cause harm in Gods name. American politicians let how many die from aids because it was considered a good way to clean up the homosexual and addict problem? Ronald Reagan died a hero here as he intentionally allowed and encouraged this? As he colluded with the Catholic Church for political gain? For what ever excuse is used to justify bad behavior, religious or otherwise, isn't greed at heart?

Greed and power are the two prime motivators, I would say. And religion and politics are the two biggest methods for gaining the money and the power. But in politics, at least in this country, they have to at least appear to be trying to please the people in order to get elected. In religion, the leaders are appointed, sometimes even self-appointed, and generally claim a divine right to perpetrate their crimes. And when religion and politics get into bed with one another, things get way out of hand.

I think that many things are silly or deranged in this world, yet i usually know deep within that i don't get to pronounce those titles though without being judgmental. Deranged meaning crazy is sometimes a legit to call other times its a "this is out of my experience" and there for i am not accepting it.

Religions are quite good at doing just this. Look up Intelligent Design, or Creationism, especially. Their basic precept seems to be, "I can't imagine that his could happen all by itself, therefore God did it." They don't need to provide evidence, don't even want to look for evidence. God is the answer to everything they don't understand. I need something more.

There are many things i agree with you about, the basic difference to me being that i don't feel i have the right to judge other peoples experience. i sometimes wonder, if when people want to seek out information to support their view it isn't too easy to ignore what doesn't.

I try not to judge individuals on their beliefs or their experiences. I'm sure many of them are devout and sincere in their beliefs. It's only when they try to force those beliefs on everyone, by forcing them into schools or into the law, that I get up in arms. And as I've said, if someone wishes to discuss their beliefs, all I ask for is evidence to show why they think they're right. I will try to show evidence for why I think they're wrong. No personal attacks, no ridicule, no judgement. Just an honest discussion of facts.

[thir]

People have been killing people for all sorts of crazy reasons throughout time.

Again, I agree. But very few have been as effective at it as the Catholic Church or the Muslim jihadists.

Djengis Khan? Nazis? Japaneese medieval warfare? First world war?

In the (to me) very understandable outrage over the way religion can be abused, let us not forget that people kill in great numbers for all other kinds of reasons - greed, powerlust, or to make the world a better place

[thir]

While the leaders of the communist movement may have been atheist, such atheism had little or nothing to do with their actions. Their whole purpose was to control the very minds of their subjects. To do this they had to remove any other controlling forces, such as religion. It was greed and the lust for power that drove those men, not atheism. And not science. The only use the communists had for science was in trying to keep up with western advances in armaments.

Can we say the same of those killed for the sake of religions?

?
So if you kill by way of religious intolerance, it is worse that to kill for lust for power?
The dead are just as dead.

[denuseri]

As interesting as a side bar on religion vs other methodologies for going to war can be.....perhaps its time we shifted the focus back to the topic. Personally, I don't believe its all that nessesary for every single thread on theological topics to be turned into a bully pulpit / soap box for religion bashing.

Especially when it continues to be derogatory in nature despite professed efforts to the contrary.

That topic being if I recall answering the following paraphrased questions:

Who presented the idea of hell and why?

Does hell exist?

Does there have to be a hell to make us behave?

What is good behaviour?

What role does the concept of hell or no hell play in our being capeable of living with injustice in this life?

[Thorne]

Who presented the idea of hell and why?

I can't say who first presented it, but I would wager that the reason was to frighten people into behaving themselves.

Does hell exist?

There's certainly no evidence for it. But you can never prove a negative, so the best we can say is, probably not.

Does there have to be a hell to make us behave?

I certainly don't need it, but if that's all that keeps someone from going out and raping or killing people, then by all means let them keep believing.

What is good behaviour?

Good behavior is treating others with the same courtesy and respect with which you would like to be treated.

What role does the concept of hell or no hell play in our being capeable of living with injustice in this life?

Again, I don't think hell has anything to do with it. We should fight injustice regardless. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

[Thorne]

As per denuseri's request, I've started a new thread. I welcome any points of view. Just keep it civil, please.