The flaw in the concept of heaven

Post Reply New Topic

I had a Christian Hebrew instructor break down the old testament. It is very cool.

Having a biased person break it down is not the same as actually reading it.

This is certainly a full-on dilemma. I think the flaw is more in black and white thinking (as expressed by Janissy) than the concept of heaven. Surely there is a way this woman can adjust her thinking patterns to make her life more tolerable, and less like hell.

Don't Christian people have a belief that Jesus forgives their sins provided they accept Jesus into their heart? If so, perhaps the mother could find some consolation with the thought that perhaps her son prayed to Jesus as he was dying - thus rescuing him from the hell that would normally result from suicide? Sure it wouldn't soothe her sorrows from the loss of two sons - but IMO it would make a great deal of difference. If I believed someone I loved was in an eternal hell it would certainly be most unbearable.

Religious texts can't possibly contain relevant information for all scenarios that we encounter throughout life. So our ability to reason - to find a suitable thought pattern which is harmonious with our beliefs and creates peace in our minds is very important.

From what I understand, the reason Christians bother to continue living in this far-from-perfect existence is to spread the word of God/Jesus to help others reach the state of heaven (in accordance with their belief). As others have stated, I doubt they consider suicide as a reliable pathway to heaven. Although I am concerned by the group who anticipates some sort of rapture/armageddon thing.

I appreciate this logic, Vince. I would also add that a person could commit the act of murder and then repent the sin, feel that they have been forgiven, thus making them feel as though there are no negative consequences.

The same could be applied to the buddhist belief in karma. If someone commits a negative action it is considered that they will experience a negative effect - however, it is believed that all negative karma can be purified with regret and the application of countering positive actions. Therefore an act of murder could be committed with the thought that the negative consequence could also be avoided.

These could certainly be considered as flaws in the belief systems. However, the principles involved with teaching people correct moral actions are more involved than that. (Unfortunately I'm more than a little confused by the Christian support for capital punishment - and I think they are as well!) But generally religions teach people not to murder - not only out of fear of negative consequences - but out of consideration for the wellbeing of others. It is my understanding that people are taught how each one values their own life and to use that as enough reason to refrain from harming them. There are several techniques used to reinforce this principle. But I think that if a person commits murder or other senseless harmful actions - it can be said that they are going against the values taught to them in their religion.

I think the fear of negative consequences can be combined with a concern for one's fellow sentient beings to best ensure morality in our actions. Fear of negative consequences alone is not sufficient.

The cockeyed logic here is that the universe adjudicates morality. As witnessed as recently as the earthquake in Haiti there is some weird assumption that only the bad people suffer like that Leslie Nielson comedy where the rescuing soldiers surprised a bunch of Nazis with innocent captives and the rescuer rakes the crowd with his machine gun and only the Nazis got shot. It certainly doesn't take much intellect to realize the universe has no morality whatsoever. To impose human standards on the random horrors daily doled out by time is worse than stupid.

I don't think your ideas are redundant at all Magnus. Although I had to cringe when I saw the term 'hallucination' used to establish the possibility of something existing! Especially to a bunch of skeptics! lol

But I'm open to the possibility there is some truth in what you say. If we analyse the way we observe phenomena in the dualistic way that we do - we can see that each of us are hallucinating in everyday life. Each time we don't see the illusory nature of all phenomena it can be considered an hallucination. This doesn't actually require faith to see this - just analysis of the way we observe things.

Furthermore - science has no idea as to the subtle workings of our brain and nervous system to be able to say with any certainty that there is not some aspect of it that continues after the body has died. Yogis who can actually manipulate the channels and winds of the subtle body and anyone who has experienced the awakening of kundalini energy which is like countless upon countless orgasms occurring up and down one's spine and throughout the entire body - knows that science is a long way from explaining this phenomenon.

The buddhist belief is that the subtle mind is inseparable from a subtle body composed of wind - and it is this subtle mind which is activated when we sleep and it leaves the gross body and mind at the time of death. Of course, I can't prove this - but as Magnus said - there are enough people who have had extraordinary experiences which science cannot yet provide an explanation for.

So yeah, there are some people that consider the mind and the brain to be separate things. This is not to say that cognitive processes and emotions don't occur in the brain. It's just considered that there is a subtle mind that doesn't depend on the brain for it to exist. The buddhist belief in a subtle body and mind is very similar to others' idea of a soul - it is a continuous stream of consciousness that is carried from life to life. This, to me, makes more sense than the idea that we came from nothing and when we die there's nothing. Also it is considered that all animals, including the microscopic worms in our intestinal tract have this subtle mind and body as well.

Thanks for explaining that further SporadSpartan.

I believe the mind and brain are separate. That is, I believe in the collective unconscious theory.

But what would be the point of believing if you're going to be saved regardless?

Believing is supposed to be intrinsically good and good for the believer.

I think most universalists are against the perspective of where people need to get religion because otherwise they'll burn.

Sorry if this has been mentioned by anyone else. I'm particularly fond of acerbic, misanthropic humor directed towards religion- the Bill Hicks's, the George Carlin's, etc.

"If you really believe that death leads to eternal bliss, then why are you wearing a seatbelt?" - Doug Stanhope

I find the concept of "eternal bliss" formidably frightful. What makes life interesting and fun is being presented with problems that are ultimately solvable. An existence with no problems devoted to total subservience to some sort of superbeing sounds to me more like hell than heaven.

There's a possibility of another existence entirely that's beyond the 5 senses. I'm sure somebody's gonna try to argue with this though, but I don't care.

Aside from the fact that we have more than 5 senses there are other existent species that have senses outside those in humans. So what? The universe has all sorts of energy forms we do not detect without instruments but it is the same universe we all exist in. Energy itself is neither consciousness nor a sense of self and it continuously transforms from one form to another. This has nothing to do with living consciousness except it is merely one necessary component.

So, instead of the straw man you are giving us an off-topic anecdote... People feel sad when loved ones die and sometimes they feel so sad they kill themselves I don't think heaven had anything to do with it?

---

Probably one of the best metaphors I've heard in quite some time. It's so perfect I can't even deconstruct how perfect it is.




Two things. First off, yeah, there are other ways of figuring out the universe. The main one you're thinking of is cognition. Unfortunately, you're talking about emotionally-driven cognition, not rationally-driven cognition.

Secondly, saying that there's something 'beyond' the limits of the senses, the limits of intellect, and the limits of human experience, is the same thing as using the word 'faith'; it's just a buzzword that means "well, I've found this string of verbal utterances that counter what you're saying without actually providing a counter-argument, so I'm good on this'. It has absolutely no validity other than to prove other buzzwords, such as 'spiritual' and 'energy'. It's a short-circuit in the logic centers of the brain.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0V6KBzIhu4[/youtube]

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Sheldrak.htm