Heaven, Hell and Earthly Existence

[n9newunsixx5150]

I need to state from the start that this thread is aimed toward those who believe that one ends up either in an eternal, blissful "heaven" or an eternal, tormentful/destructive "hell."

I basically have two questions:

1) What necessitated my being in this earthly situation to begin with and, 2) What changes in the future that bars me from the option of earthly existence?

Asked another way, if I am currently experiencing this third option known as earthly existence, then why/how isn't this option available later? Certainly, whatever called for it in the first place can apply later on if nothing on my end has changed.

 

[Hutch]

I thought heaven and hell were temporary places for souls to stay, at least until the 'end of days'. Don't souls either go to heaven or hell based on the good/bad deeds the human has done in their lifetime, and shortly afterward returns to Earth to live a life befitting the deeds they performed in their previous life? Then, when the end is nigh, those who are on God's good side get an eternal place in heaven whereas those who were bad are left to fend for themselves. Heaven's rather subjective though, depending on which religion you subscribe to.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I thought heaven and hell were temporary places for souls to stay, at least until the 'end of days'. Don't souls either go to heaven or hell based on the good/bad deeds the human has done in their lifetime, and shortly afterward returns to Earth to live a life befitting the deeds they performed in their previous life? Then, when the end is nigh, those who are on God's good side get an eternal place in heaven whereas those who were bad are left to fend for themselves. Heaven's rather subjective though, depending on which religion you subscribe to.

I know what the general belief is, I just don't know how this answers my questions.

 

[FreedomLost]

I need to state from the start that this thread is aimed toward those who believe that one ends up either in an eternal, blissful "heaven" or an eternal, tormentful/destructive "hell."

I basically have two questions:

1) What necessitated my being in this earthly situation to begin with and, 2) What changes in the future that bars me from the option of earthly existence?

Asked another way, if I am currently experiencing this third option known as earthly existence, then why/how isn't this option available later? Certainly, whatever called for it in the first place can apply later on if nothing on my end has changed.

You will get some varied responses in here based upon different beliefs, no beliefs, self labels etc...

My belief is Jesus is God, so will answer accordingly. For now, I'll respond to the second question you posed. Jesus was asked if a current condition someone was facing had to do with an action from a past life. Jesus simply stated no. Because He left it at that, and didn't say anything about people not living more than one life here, I see there no reason to doubt the possibility of inhabiting a body here on earth more than one time. If the question was blasphemous, Jesus would have surely made it clear when the question was asked.

My apologies if that's not what you were asking, it's just how I interpreted your question.
.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

You will get some varied responses in here based upon different beliefs, no beliefs, self labels etc...

My belief is Jesus is God, so will answer accordingly. For now, I'll respond to the second question you posed. Jesus was asked if a current condition someone was facing had to do with an action from a past life. Jesus simply stated no. Because He left it at that, and didn't say anything about people not living more than one life here, I see there no reason to doubt the possibility of inhabiting a body here on earth more than one time. If the question was blasphemous, Jesus would have surely made it clear when the question was asked.

My apologies if that's not what you were asking, it's just how I interpreted your question.
.

No. You're good. I just know that your answer isn't standard for Christians. I ask my questions realizing their rhetoric nature, for those who subscribe to a world view consisting of eternal heaven and eternal hell are diametrically opposed to the idea that one can continue to have earthly lives. These two concepts are mutually exclusive. If there is the option of more earthly lives wherein there is the potential for salvation, then there is no place for an eternal hell. Still, this apparent third option of earthly life exists as evidenced by the fact that we are currently experiencing it. All things being equal, it would seem to make sense that one could remain in the status quo that afforded one this earthly existence to begin with. However, some insist that something changes to necessitate taking the third option away. I'd like to know what this is, if not to contradict an immutable God.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

This is an infinitely tangential question and obviously will change depending on worldview or religion.

Why wouldnt one live two earthly lives? Arguing against that position is easy; it is the nature of everything we see around us. A fire is no longer a fire once it is doused. A duck becomes shit after I eat it.

Three possibilities:
1. My shit could magically congeal into a new duck after it goes down the toilet out of view (similar to the way Toy Story toys only activate once out of range of humans) - A big logical leap, highly unlikely.

2. The duck, having lost its life, could return into a life essence 'river' or 'source' from which it eventually emerges a new duck in a new body, place, or 'soul' - Also a big logical leap and highly unlikely given our knowledge of the physical world.

3. The duck, once dead, dies, and does not become a new duck. - Makes the most rational sense, repeatable and plausible.

1 and 2 involve presuppositions far out of the scope of the observable world. Using Ockham's razor, three makes the most sense.

If we live two physical lives, why have no memory of the previous life?

Everyone I know with a recollection of a 'past life' was something grand - "I was an Egyptian priestess. I was a Viking warrior. I was a revolutionary."

No one ever says "I was a janitor in a past life." "In a past life, I stuttered and had no friends." "I was an overweight, bossy wife to a frequently absent fisherman in a past life". This lends me to believe that people who believe in them are mostly losers opining over a magical, nonexistent past, similar to the way aged or unattractive women read ridiculous romance novels with fabricated men and impossible situations.

People who believe in heaven and hell don't believe in a recurring earthly existence simply because the life cycle spoke of by the major Abrahamic religions is sequential: birth->death->afterlife.

Why don't these people believe in reincarnation or a possibility of multiple earthly existences: Simple, they are not Hindu or they do not come from a religion that believes in reincarnation.

Whats like going to the UK and asking why most people don't root for the Golden State Warriors - they are from the UK.

916 your posts often try to put a sort of logical or structural bent on religion - the problem is that religion is not based on logic or an overarching structure. Religions evolve largely based on their region and the culture surrounding it, as well as the events of the world at the time, the character and flavor of those to whom it was revealed, etc.

Religions are not like math, and once one makes a logical statement or presupposition based on an observation of one belief or worldview, one cannot simply apply it to other religions.

In other words - why don't people who believe in Heaven and Hell believe in multiple lives - because their religious texts do not say so. I assume you come from a religion that does, so there you have it.

One question I didn't answer is if the mechanism was in place to live one earthly existence, why not two or more? The answer, once again, is simplicity. We see living things on the earth, plant, animal, or human, as having a definite beginning and an end. Simply because a new child is born, a new plant grows, or a new squirrel is born does not imply that the squirrel, the plant, or the person was previously alive.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

The problem with your assessment, White Devil, is that we're already assuming a world view that includes the existence of souls that endure beyond bodily death. So to approach these questions from a physicalist point of view is to be speaking entirely outside of the criteria of this discussion.

If we live two physical lives, why have no memory of the previous life?

Everyone I know with a recollection of a 'past life' was something grand - "I was an Egyptian priestess. I was a Viking warrior. I was a revolutionary."

No one ever says "I was a janitor in a past life." "In a past life, I stuttered and had no friends." "I was an overweight, bossy wife to a frequently absent fisherman in a past life". This lends me to believe that people who believe in them are mostly losers opining over a magical, nonexistent past, similar to the way aged or unattractive women read ridiculous romance novels with fabricated men and impossible situations.

These are all separate issues from the thread topic.

People who believe in heaven and hell don't believe in a recurring earthly existence simply because the life cycle spoke of by the major Abrahamic religions is sequential: birth->death->afterlife.

Why don't these people believe in reincarnation or a possibility of multiple earthly existences: Simple, they are not Hindu or they do not come from a religion that believes in reincarnation.

Whats like going to the UK and asking why most people don't root for the Golden State Warriors - they are from the UK.

Now imagine that one had provided a logical reason as to why people in the UK should root for the Golden State Warriors. Then your analogy would be complete.
"After" life is a relative concept. Today is my afterlife in relation to yesterday. And since this day is a logical extension of the one before it, why should that change at some arbitrary point in time?
I understand that the followers of the Abrahamic religions tend to believe a certain way. However, that won't stop me from asking them to provide an explanation. I mean, they do believe that God is just, after all.

916 your posts often try to put a sort of logical or structural bent on religion - the problem is that religion is not based on logic or an overarching structure. Religions evolve largely based on their region and the culture surrounding it, as well as the events of the world at the time, the character and flavor of those to whom it was revealed, etc.

I think you underestimate religion. Internal consistency is still important. I agree that there is a sense in which religions evolve to reflect various peoples of various times, places and circumstances. However, I do not conclude from this that there aren't certain unchanging, especially metaphysical, truths in religion.

Religions are not like math, and once one makes a logical statement or presupposition based on an observation of one belief or worldview, one cannot simply apply it to other religions.

One can apply it so long as the other religion is working off the same premises. If I encounter a religion that claims the existence of an all-knowing God, but then later asserts that God doesn't know what is inside the center of a tootsie pop, then I will present this logical discrepancy.

In other words - why don't people who believe in Heaven and Hell believe in multiple lives - because their religious texts do not say so. I assume you come from a religion that does, so there you have it.

But notice that this is not how I am approaching this issue. If I were simply asking, "why don't people who believe in Heaven and Hell believe in multiple lives?" then I could understand your answer, "because their religious texts do not say so." Instead, I am asking a question that regards the cogency of what many of the followers of a certain religious tradition believe. For better or for worse, this means that those who hold these beliefs to be true have to address their own understanding and try to provide an answer based on their ability to reason.

One question I didn't answer is if the mechanism was in place to live one earthly existence, why not two or more? The answer, once again, is simplicity. We see living things on the earth, plant, animal, or human, as having a definite beginning and an end. Simply because a new child is born, a new plant grows, or a new squirrel is born does not imply that the squirrel, the plant, or the person was previously alive.

Once again, this is a case of misplaced physicalism. This discussion entertains a world view wherein souls exist beyond the duration of the physical body.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

I believe I slightly misread your original post. I will re-respond later.

 

[NovaFire]

No. You're good. I just know that your answer isn't standard for Christians. I ask my questions realizing their rhetoric nature, for those who subscribe to a world view consisting of eternal heaven and eternal hell are diametrically opposed to the idea that one can continue to have earthly lives. These two concepts are mutually exclusive. If there is the option of more earthly lives wherein there is the potential for salvation, then there is no place for an eternal hell. Still, this apparent third option of earthly life exists as evidenced by the fact that we are currently experiencing it. All things being equal, it would seem to make sense that one could remain in the status quo that afforded one this earthly existence to begin with. However, some insist that something changes to necessitate taking the third option away. I'd like to know what this is, if not to contradict an immutable God.

Heres my take on your question

From what im understanding, your saying that in a given religion there is a heaven and a hell. When you pass away you either go to one or the other. But if you can keep on reliving life until you get it right, then why is there a need for hell to begin with?
and if so then, shouldnt we be able to choose an earthly existence over a spiritual one?

It depends on how you view our earthly existence.
If you see life on earth as one of pure senses, than anything that pleases the senses is good, and so it should be your right to enjoy life to the physical fullest.
On the other hand you can look at it as a spiritual show of worth. A temporary state of being that forces us to make tough choices with limited knowledge and human frailty, and so show our true colors, then it is a show of faith and sacrifice.

if the first is true, then by choice you are chosing the physical over anything eternal. Nothing wrong with it, but you should also meet the same fate as anything else physical and fade away into none existance, whatever that may be
iIn the second, the worth is proven and the eternal part is either on its way to heaven or on its way to hell.

They say only a fool would choose to take the journey of life.
i think what it all comes down to is choice.
If you love the physical than you should meet the same fate as any other physical entity. If you feel life is more than our sorroundings, than you should recieve what you so digilently held dear. Like anything else in life, its not in the circumstances, but in what we do when we find ourselves in them.
thats my take on it.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Heres my take on your question

From what im understanding, your saying that in a given religion there is a heaven and a hell. When you pass away you either go to one or the other. But if you can keep on reliving life until you get it right, then why is there a need for hell to begin with?

This follows from what I am saying, yes. If the option of earthly existence is there in the future, then there would be no need for the eternal condemnation we call "hell."

and if so then, shouldnt we be able to choose an earthly existence over a spiritual one?

Sort of. It needn't necessarily be a matter of making a conscious choice to go to hell or remain on earth. Someone might argue that we didn't choose to be here on earth to begin with, and therefore we don't have the choice to remain or return here. I disagree that we aren't here due to our own choices, but I'll entertain this idea since it is usually what the Abrahamic followers believe. Rather than my argument having to do with conscious choice for afterlife, it has to do with the availablity of earthly existence as a possible situation in the future, especially for the unsaved. I'd like to add that by "earthly existence" I mean any similar situation and not necessarily this planet we call earth.

It depends on how you view our earthly existence.
If you see life on earth as one of pure senses, than anything that pleases the senses is good, and so it should be your right to enjoy life to the physical fullest.

I don't know if I'd call it a right, but I agree that one who is attached to material sense experience logically should remain in the world of material sense experience.

On the other hand you can look at it as a spiritual show of worth. A temporary state of being that forces us to make tough choices with limited knowledge and human frailty, and so show our true colors, then it is a show of faith and sacrifice.

I'd argue that what is true is eternal and what is eternal are godly qualities. Therefore, a short duration of earthly life doesn't always reveal a person's true colors since we don't all develop those qualities within this one lifespan. Sometimes people can perform selfish, heinous acts and then later on get saved and develop those godly qualities. So which is their true colors? And if it takes a person, say, 50 or 60 years of their life before they get saved, why wouldn't it be possible for someone to do it in 500 or 600 years, or even 5, 6-million? These are all equally arbitrary amounts of time.

if the first is true, then by choice you are chosing the physical over anything eternal. Nothing wrong with it, but you should also meet the same fate as anything else physical and fade away into none existance, whatever that may be

I disagree that indentification would or ought to change one's inherent nature. Just because someone identifies with physical existence doesn't mean they will or should "fade away" as you put it. It just means that that person should remain where their conception of existence suits them. We are already assuming the existence of eternal souls. Also, if we say that an omniscient God created individuals who He must have known would fade into nonexistence, then we are saying that God creates some sentient beings for no real, eternal purpose.

iIn the second, the worth is proven and the eternal part is either on its way to heaven or on its way to hell.

I don't agree. Worth is proven when one develops worthy qualities. Therefore, setting an arbitrary time limit to it is nonsensical.

They say only a fool would choose to take the journey of life.
i think what it all comes down to is choice.
If you love the physical than you should meet the same fate as any other physical entity. If you feel life is more than our sorroundings, than you should recieve what you so digilently held dear. Like anything else in life, its not in the circumstances, but in what we do when we find ourselves in them.
thats my take on it.

Once again, this idea that we inherently change our nature due to identification is nonsense. If we are eternal beings, then there is no chance of nonexistence. If we are beings prone to nonexistence, then there is no chance for eternity. Identifying with that which is temporal just means that we will remain amongst those things. If anything, we'll simply be under the illusion of our impending nonexistence. And that is what we see now. Those who believe they are merely physical bodies that have popped into existence also tend to believe that they will cease to exist upon bodily death. This sort of thinking fits a typical atheistic world view. Part of the theistic world view is that we are all eternal in relation to the eternal God. If this weren't the case, then theism would be pointless as it would have no practical application.

 

[NovaFire]

This follows from what I am saying, yes. If the option of earthly existence is there in the future, then there would be no need for the eternal condemnation we call "hell." .

thats true, so long as the earth keeps on rotating.

Sort of. It needn't necessarily be a matter of making a conscious choice to go to hell or remain on earth. Someone might argue that we didn't choose to be here on earth to begin with, and therefore we don't have the choice to remain or return here. I disagree that we aren't here due to our own choices, but I'll entertain this idea since it is usually what the Abrahamic followers believe. Rather than my argument having to do with conscious choice for afterlife, it has to do with the availablity of earthly existence as a possible situation in the future, especially for the unsaved. I'd like to add that by "earthly existence" I mean any similar situation and not necessarily this planet we call earth. .

Im not saying we are here by choice, im saying since we are here, we have to make choices with limited knowledge. But to get into what your saying, if the choice of earthly existance was possible, who would make it? considering how every human being through one form or another aims to escape from the physical and touch the sublime. If you had a choice between a Geo and a Benz what would you go with?

I'd argue that what is true is eternal and what is eternal are godly qualities. Therefore, a short duration of earthly life doesn't always reveal a person's true colors since we don't all develop those qualities within this one lifespan. Sometimes people can perform selfish, heinous acts and then later on get saved and develop those godly qualities. So which is their true colors? And if it takes a person, say, 50 or 60 years of their life before they get saved, why wouldn't it be possible for someone to do it in 500 or 600 years, or even 5, 6-million? These are all equally arbitrary amounts of time..

Well your right to some extent, mentaly healthy people who are selfish know they are selfish, and yet chose to keep doing what they are doing. So again whatever choices one makes is what determines your colors.
As for time, you ask a good question. Thats tough to say, but ill say this, people can change instantly, whether they chose to is another matter.

I don't agree. Worth is proven when one develops worthy qualities. Therefore, setting an arbitrary time limit to it is nonsensical..

Then that could leave the question of worthyness unanswered if it is left to eternity

Once again, this idea that we inherently change our nature due to identification is nonsense. If we are eternal beings, then there is no chance of nonexistence. If we are beings prone to nonexistence, then there is no chance for eternity. Identifying with that which is temporal just means that we will remain amongst those things. If anything, we'll simply be under the illusion of our impending nonexistence. And that is what we see now. Those who believe they are merely physical bodies that have popped into existence also tend to believe that they will cease to exist upon bodily death. This sort of thinking fits a typical atheistic world view. Part of the theistic world view is that we are all eternal in relation to the eternal God. If this weren't the case, then theism would be pointless as it would have no practical application.

If we are eternal beings, then we have choice to become nonexistance. Free will gives us this option. and if we are not eternal beings, then what we do only matters in context to future generations.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

thats true, so long as the earth keeps on rotating.

Something like that. Or some other planet. God is in control. So it isn't like we would depend on the planet situation, per se.

Im not saying we are here by choice, im saying since we are here, we have to make choices with limited knowledge. But to get into what your saying, if the choice of earthly existance was possible, who would make it? considering how every human being through one form or another aims to escape from the physical and touch the sublime. If you had a choice between a Geo and a Benz what would you go with?

What I am saying is, it isn't a direct choice. We aren't directly saying, "I want to be on earth" necessarily. Sure, everyone wants the sublime, but what we each consider sublime may differ. For those who are attracted to material pleasures, they will take shelter in this material world. They think this is sublime. Others realize the transient nature of such pleasures and seek out something eternal. For the materialist, the idea of eternal pleasure is unreal. He goes for the Geo because it is immediately available to his senses.

Well your right to some extent, mentaly healthy people who are selfish know they are selfish, and yet chose to keep doing what they are doing. So again whatever choices one makes is what determines your colors.
As for time, you ask a good question. Thats tough to say, but ill say this, people can change instantly, whether they chose to is another matter.

Right. People can change instantly or people can change later on. They can and they do. Therefore a person's "colors" can change. God is inexhaustible. So there is no excuse to make a time limit.

Then that could leave the question of worthyness unanswered if it is left to eternity

Even if that is the case, God is inexhaustible. I, however, do not believe that this would be the case with anyone. That which makes one evil or ineligible for salvation is attraction to the material nature in ignorance of God. I do not believe that God creates beings who are inherently and incessantly ignorant of God. Actually, I don't believe God creates living entities at all. I entertain the idea that He creates souls because many other theists subscribe to this idea. But in the case that souls are coeternal with God, their original position is spiritual. Then, somehow or other, some of them fall into the material nature. So none are inherently evil regardless if they are created or are properly eternal.

If we are eternal beings, then we have choice to become nonexistance. Free will gives us this option. and if we are not eternal beings, then what we do only matters in context to future generations.

I disagree. If we are eternal beings, then nonexistence is not an option. Our free will is limited in this way. Limits don't negate freedom. This means understanding ontological versus practical freedom. If eternity is "up in the air," so to speak, then there is no eternity.
Forgetfulness is an option and it happens all the time. This practically serves the same purpose as nonexistence. We have no idea who we really are at the moment. Even the aggregate of a million material lifetimes won't tell us that. And when we wake up, all those past identifications are nonexistent. Still, we are existing.

 

[ThaG]

I need to state from the start that this thread is aimed toward those who believe that one ends up either in an eternal, blissful "heaven" or an eternal, tormentful/destructive "hell."

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-existence-of-god-and-coutiers-reply.html

 

[HERESY]

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-existence-of-god-and-coutiers-reply.html

Once again, you enter a thread completely ignorant of what it's about and what the thread starter is looking to accomplish. Is your life so barren that your sole purpose is to attack religion, more specifically, railroad religious threads on the siccness at first glance? While I don't care to give my opinion on the subject, I do enjoy reading what is being presented by those partaking in it.

And before you reply back and say you don't do exactly what it is I just said you do, go to this link.

http://siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=314497&page=2

Here it is they're talking about "god" or "God" not Evolution vs I.D. or creationalism, but what do you do? Post a long ass jpeg in hopes of derailing things. Moreover, in that thread, you were called on it and provided us with one of the most comical replies you've ever had the pleasure of typing. I guess it was another bait tactic, but it didn't work.

Stick to the topic at hand or leave these people alone, very dimple Fhag.

 

[ThaG]

it hurts, I know

 

[ThaG]

 

[HERESY]

it hurts, I know

No, it's borderline spamming. People can't even discuss what they want without misfits like you resorting to unruly shenanigans.

Let them discuss what they are discussing. You obviously don't fit the criteria for the thread so leave them alone.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

The problem, ThaG, is that you want all discussions about God to boil down to the question of whether or not God exists. Some of us are simply beyond that question.

No one in here is arguing fashion in order to try and get anyone to believe in the emperor's clothes. That blog you linked to is simply irrelevant. This isn't a discussion where theists try to convince atheists or vice versa. But you take all religious discussion as if that is what it is about.

If you want to discuss whether God exists or not, make a new thread.

 

[ThaG]

The problem, ThaG, is that you want all discussions about God to boil down to the question of whether or not God exists. Some of us are simply beyond that question.

No one in here is arguing fashion in order to try and get anyone to believe in the emperor's clothes. That blog you linked to is simply irrelevant. This isn't a discussion where theists try to convince atheists or vice versa. But you take all religious discussion as if that is what it is about.

If you want to discuss whether God exists or not, make a new thread.

Huh, what's the point of discussing the properties of something that does not exist??? It is insane, just as insane as the prime example of this type of pseudo-intellectual activity pictured in my previous post was

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Huh, what's the point of discussing the properties of something that does not exist??? It is insane, just as insane as the prime example of this type of pseudo-intellectual activity pictured in my previous post was

You've decided that it does not exist. Not everyone agrees with you and not every discussion has to be about trying to convince each other.