Heaven/Hell

[unloadonme]

Putrefaction is the end,
of all that nature doth intend.

 

[conrad]

There are things which we can do nothing about; heaven and hell are not my immediate concern.

This life, the joys of relationship, are enough to fill my days. Whatever lies beyond this life is simply something I am willing to face, when the terms, Heaven and Hell, finally have some real meaning for me.

I am a Christian, but I have often noted that the whole of the Old Testament has little on either Heaven or Hell. It is hard for me to understand the fascination that heaven and hell have for some who call themselves Christian.

If I had been able to choose when I was in the womb I probably would not have wanted to leave that comfortable place. But, there were loving hands to receive me at birth: I will not waste time or energy worrying about what lies beyond this life.

The poet Whittier, expresses my approach: "I know not what the future hath of marvel or surprise, but this I know that life or death God's mercy underlies."

 

[Kyanimal]

conrad ...

FANTASTIC!!!

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

 

[Kulindahr]

Putrefaction is the end,
of all that nature doth intend.

Except that the way government regulations require burials to be done, if you get a standard funeral your remains won't even encounter nature for half a century.

Then he can make that happen, he is God.

God can't make things happen that are internally inconsistent. If certain conditions are required (by the way He set things up) for participation, He can't violate those.
In other words, God can't contradict himself any more than light can avoid having photons.

 

[Spensed]

If he's an all powerful God, of course, he can contradict himself.

He may choose not to do so in order to maintain the internal consistency and integrity of something or some system that he's created.

But choosing not to do something and not being able to do something are two very different things.

He, who makes the rules at will, can change them and make them consistent, or in conflict with each other, as he sees fit.

 

[Kulindahr]

God never contradicts himself, and neither does he violate our Free-will, even if we ask him too.

To play Aquinas for a moment--

God never contradicts Himself, because in God thought is equivalent to being, and the being of an individual cannot be contrary to itself.

 

[ANDORYUU]

They are a state of being, not actual places.

 

[conrad]

I keep thinking: why miss the beauty and the challenge of the present in worry about that which is far, far, beyond?

Or: Have the concepts of Heaven and Hell been used to control the "faithful" as a promise of reward and/or the fear of punishment ?

And: How in heck can such stuff be harmonized with the Good News of the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ?

Friends: I like the positive approach.

 

[Kulindahr]

They are a state of being, not actual places.

Or more likely, they're both.

 

[Chardius]

I love the fact that is being discussed on a porn forum. Fantastic.

 

[conrad]

Chardius, And why not? Human sexuality with all of the beauty and mystery that surrounds it is surely a fit subject for any thinking person.

Too many of the matters of faith which seem to trouble folks are, after all, with us through the perversity of those who have gone before us.

It takes a poet sometimes to put some things in proper perspective:
"I know not what the future hath of marvel or surprise,
But, this I know, that life or death,
God's mercy underlies."

 

[Kulindahr]

I love the fact that is being discussed on a porn forum. Fantastic.

Some of us are hardly aware there's any porn here -- to us, it's just a forum, and the porn is an inconvenience.

 

[Finnian]

I find the notion of a Heaven and - much worse - Hell not only ridiculous but barbaric and medieval. I can't understand parents can plant a belief in their children that there is a place where they would burn for all eternity if they misbehave. I'll make sure to protect my (at this point purely theoretical) kids from any such belief.

 

[The Yattering]

The eschatological notions of Heaven and Hell are myopically simplistic if regarded as literally existing states.

Consider: If one believes in a creator entity that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, that is, something that occurs without boundary or restriction, and that said entity is the first cause from which the foundational laws and processes of reality spring, then the Heaven/Hell dynamic is not only unnecessary, it is impossible.

To clarify, an omniscient being, by its very nature, must be instantaneously and absolutely aware of all things; every possible permutation of reality beyond any restrictions of time or space. It therefore is already intimately aware of every condition that its "creations" may, can and will conform to in every conceivable (and inconceivable "reality." Furthermore, if it is omnipresent, it is not bounded as we are by time and dimension; it already EXISTS in these permutations and possibilities, therefore the notion of "judgement" and subsequent condemnation becomes utterly redundant. In other words, a truly "perfect" being does not and can never require a means of "judgement" with regards to any particular state of reality, whether that relates to thinking, conscious entities or not, as it is already immediately AWARE of every way their existences will inevitably conform. Either that, or it cannot maintain its credentials as "perfect."

Furthermore, the notions of Heaven and Hell make the "experiment" of reality redundant; since god must by definition be intimately aware of every conceivable way in which the reality it perpetuated might and will conform, and already exists within those states (being omnipresent), he need not have created in the first place a process by which certain elements of reality (in this instance, human beings) might be "tested" or "proven" with regards to some abstract notion of worthiness, simply because he MUST by definition already be aware of every way such entities might conform in terms of the various possibilities that their thoughts, feelings and subsequent actions suggest.

The "eternal" nature of these states also makes the concept of "life," and certainly conscious life utterly, utterly redundant from a divine "creator's" perspective. Assuming that the states exist, for now, God must by definition must already be aware precisely to what state each individual soul is condemned (not being bound by time or dimension), so may as well not bother with the whole "trial" of cradle to grave; it may as well simply condemn the souls it has a mind to condemn from the get go, save the souls it has a mind to save and be done with it. Furthermore, it is mindlessly, barbarically, moronically cruel to punish anything, particularly a conscious entity, eternally for an ultimately finite crime. And taking into account eternity, all crimes arer finite; even the most vile, hateful life of slaughter, rape, cruelty etc does not warrant eternal, endless suffering. A more productive and enlightened system would be oen that allows self discovery and enlightenment; a redemptive process if you like that may well involve pain and pennance, but offers possibility of improvement, evolution and potential redemption.

I would also argue that in terms of "eternity," it doesn't matter to which state one is ultimately condemned; heaven or hell; bliss or torment, ones existence is still arbirtrary and meaningless if all it is pre-determined to come to is a stagnant, unending, unchanging existence in one or the other. It is the very definition of existence for existence's sake, without goal, direction or purpose.

I contest that a truly "perfect" entity would be indistinguishable from nothing at alll (or from reality at large), as, being perfect, self sufficient and boundless, it would require nothing, desire nothing; think or feel nothing (all of these processes being products of limitation; expressions of a need to travel from point A to point B and thereby alter one's state in some way). It would be invisible, inert and certainly wouldn't give a flying toss whether or not anyone believes in it or behaves in a particular manner. Those are finite, human concerns, and the most profound evidence in my eyes that the VERY needy, finite, linear and emotional gods of all traditional religions/mythologies are reflections of humanity; not the other way around.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can't understand parents can plant a belief in their children that there is a place where they would burn for all eternity if they misbehave. I'll make sure to protect my (at this point purely theoretical) kids from any such belief.

Well, since there's no such place taught by the Bible, you're in good company.

The Hell of the Bible was made for the rebellious angels; people end up there by choosing to.

 

[Kulindahr]

The eschatological notions of Heaven and Hell are myopically simplistic if regarded as literally existing states.

Consider: If one believes in a creator entity that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, that is, something that occurs without boundary or restriction, and that said entity is the first cause from which the foundational laws and processes of reality spring, then the Heaven/Hell dynamic is not only unnecessary, it is impossible.

To clarify, an omniscient being, by its very nature, must be instantaneously and absolutely aware of all things; every possible permutation of reality beyond any restrictions of time or space. It therefore is already intimately aware of every condition that its "creations" may, can and will conform to in every conceivable (and inconceivable "reality." Furthermore, if it is omnipresent, it is not bounded as we are by time and dimension; it already EXISTS in these permutations and possibilities, therefore the notion of "judgement" and subsequent condemnation becomes utterly redundant. In other words, a truly "perfect" being does not and can never require a means of "judgement" with regards to any particular state of reality, whether that relates to thinking, conscious entities or not, as it is already immediately AWARE of every way their existences will inevitably conform. Either that, or it cannot maintain its credentials as "perfect."

Furthermore, the notions of Heaven and Hell make the "experiment" of reality redundant; since god must by definition be intimately aware of every conceivable way in which the reality it perpetuated might and will conform, and already exists within those states (being omnipresent), he need not have created in the first place a process by which certain elements of reality (in this instance, human beings) might be "tested" or "proven" with regards to some abstract notion of worthiness, simply because he MUST by definition already be aware of every way such entities might conform in terms of the various possibilities that their thoughts, feelings and subsequent actions suggest.

The "eternal" nature of these states also makes the concept of "life," and certainly conscious life utterly, utterly redundant from a divine "creator's" perspective. Assuming that the states exist, for now, God must by definition must already be aware precisely to what state each individual soul is condemned (not being bound by time or dimension), so may as well not bother with the whole "trial" of cradle to grave; it may as well simply condemn the souls it has a mind to condemn from the get go, save the souls it has a mind to save and be done with it. Furthermore, it is mindlessly, barbarically, moronically cruel to punish anything, particularly a conscious entity, eternally for an ultimately finite crime. And taking into account eternity, all crimes arer finite; even the most vile, hateful life of slaughter, rape, cruelty etc does not warrant eternal, endless suffering. A more productive and enlightened system would be oen that allows self discovery and enlightenment; a redemptive process if you like that may well involve pain and pennance, but offers possibility of improvement, evolution and potential redemption.

I would also argue that in terms of "eternity," it doesn't matter to which state one is ultimately condemned; heaven or hell; bliss or torment, ones existence is still arbirtrary and meaningless if all it is pre-determined to come to is a stagnant, unending, unchanging existence in one or the other. It is the very definition of existence for existence's sake, without goal, direction or purpose.

I contest that a truly "perfect" entity would be indistinguishable from nothing at alll (or from reality at large), as, being perfect, self sufficient and boundless, it would require nothing, desire nothing; think or feel nothing (all of these processes being products of limitation; expressions of a need to travel from point A to point B and thereby alter one's state in some way). It would be invisible, inert and certainly wouldn't give a flying toss whether or not anyone believes in it or behaves in a particular manner. Those are finite, human concerns, and the most profound evidence in my eyes that the VERY needy, finite, linear and emotional gods of all traditional religions/mythologies are reflections of humanity; not the other way around.

If you're dealing with a two-dimensional being, your arguments might have some merit. But what you're setting out here are the sort of things my mathematician brother used to howl with laughter at, as being incredibly simplistic and limited.

Your model is essentially static, not dynamic; additionally, you're making of God a singularity. Both of those are arbitrary assignments that leave nowhere to go -- so the results of your discussion are little more than what you start with: definitions that require there be nothing worth examining.

 

[The Yattering]

If you're dealing with a two-dimensional being, your arguments might have some merit. But what you're setting out here are the sort of things my mathematician brother used to howl with laughter at, as being incredibly simplistic and limited.

Your model is essentially static, not dynamic; additionally, you're making of God a singularity. Both of those are arbitrary assignments that leave nowhere to go -- so the results of your discussion are little more than what you start with: definitions that require there be nothing worth examining.

To the contrary, my own definition of "perfection" in application to a creator entity (or any entity for that matter) functions outside of dimension or parameter. that is the essential thrust of my position; in order to qualify as "perfect," it must by necessity function outside of such limitations, and certainly the limitations its adherents, being finite beings themselves, ascribe to it. Sadly, no "God" that exists in traditional religion or mythology exhibits these properties; they are linear beings, bounded by time; beings that exhibit processes that are products of limitation such as thought, emotion; progression from one state of being to another, and extremely human reactions when circumstances don't conform as they expect.

What your brother would "howl with laughter at" is immaterial unless you address the specific points and explain to me why your particular preconception of a purportedly perfect creator deity does not exhibit traits of perfection that are utterly necessary to the description. It is a barely concealed appeal to authority and ridicule that has no place in any legitimate discussion.

So I ask: is God perfect? If so, how does he exhibit the qualities of perfection? Does he at all? And if your particular God does not (and the biblical God is as far from "perfect" as any of the various pagan gods and goddesses christians routinely lambast), where does that leave said preconception?

If god is NOT perfect, if he does not exhibit characteristics such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, then what is he/it? And where does that leave purportedly "lesser" beings such as ourselves that, bizarrely, exhibit similar limitations (and capacities)?

This a position I have argued with theists of every stripe many times, yet haven't ever recieved an answer that is not evasive, defensive or deliberately ignorant of the essential implications.

 

[bankside]

Yes, we've heard Kulindar's argument before: "of course god is illogical if you will only allow n dimensions when there are really n+1 dimensions." But don't ask about n+2 dimensions. Don't ask where god's god is hiding.

 

[Kulindahr]

To the contrary, my own definition of "perfection" in application to a creator entity (or any entity for that matter) functions outside of dimension or parameter. that is the essential thrust of my position; in order to qualify as "perfect," it must by necessity function outside of such limitations, and certainly the limitations its adherents, being finite beings themselves, ascribe to it. Sadly, no "God" that exists in traditional religion or mythology exhibits these properties; they are linear beings, bounded by time; beings that exhibit processes that are products of limitation such as thought, emotion; progression from one state of being to another, and extremely human reactions when circumstances don't conform as they expect.

I don't know where you're getting this, because the God of the Bible isn't bounded by time, isn't linear, does not "progress from one state of being to another", and knows ahead of time what circumstances are going to arise. I think you should study your subject matter more thoroughly before making claims.

What your brother would "howl with laughter at" is immaterial unless you address the specific points and explain to me why your particular preconception of a purportedly perfect creator deity does not exhibit traits of perfection that are utterly necessary to the description. It is a barely concealed appeal to authority and ridicule that has no place in any legitimate discussion.

I don't grasp the mathematics involved -- nor do I have any preconception involved here. You're the one coming to the subject with preconceived notions, setting up definitions pulled from your own imagination and then asking whether God conforms to them. You might as well do science by deciding what the universe ought to be like, before studying it -- which is how the Ptolemaic system came about, with its preconceived requirement for circles... which of course it had to exhibit, because only circles partake of the attribute of "perfection".

So I ask: is God perfect? If so, how does he exhibit the qualities of perfection? Does he at all? And if your particular God does not (and the biblical God is as far from "perfect" as any of the various pagan gods and goddesses christians routinely lambast), where does that leave said preconception?

The pagan gods aren't even in the running, since they're nothing but part of creation just like everything else.

If god is NOT perfect, if he does not exhibit characteristics such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, then what is he/it? And where does that leave purportedly "lesser" beings such as ourselves that, bizarrely, exhibit similar limitations (and capacities)?

The only time in the Bible that God does not exhibit your three attributes is when God the Son becomes the Son of God, and takes on mortal limitations.

This a position I have argued with theists of every stripe many times, yet haven't ever recieved an answer that is not evasive, defensive or deliberately ignorant of the essential implications.

You're not going to get an "answer", when you're defining the terms of the argument in such a way as to exclude the actual data offered. What you're doing amounts to demanding that a mathematician describe a tesseract to you using only two dimensions, and then claiming that there can't be any such things because the properties ascribed to a tesseract just don't work in two dimensions.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, we've heard Kulindar's argument before: "of course god is illogical if you will only allow n dimensions when there are really n+1 dimensions." But don't ask about n+2 dimensions. Don't ask where god's god is hiding.

We don't know how many dimensions there are, nor does it need to be defined -- n-dimensional geometry uses just that, "n" dimensions, where n is unknown.

The question about "God's god" is nonsense; God is the Creator, and by definition has none. From the point of view of one medieval argument concerning this, God is the source from which all emerges, the origin beyond which infinite regression ceases (those aren't the terms which were used, but they're a darned good rendition in today's terms).

"Don't ask about n+2 dimensions" is also an empty statement; one assumes as many dimensions as needed to explain a matter -- and there are no matters concerning the God of the Bible, to which mathematics apply, which do not admit of explanation using even a finite number of dimensions.

For example, omnipresence can be described mathematically by using two sets, which in relation to one another are both one-to-one and onto, one of which consists of but one point (zero dimensions). Since such an attribute can be described mathematically in such a brief way, there is no point to claiming that God can't have such an attribute.