Heaven and Hell...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I believe in an afterlife. There's gotta be more than this right? It's kinda sad if we just 'stop being'.

It's more than sad. It's immensely tragic. Which is why some guy a few thousand years back decided to create "Heaven and Hell". And I'm not talking about God.

Ozzy Osbourne?

That was only about 30 years ago, but yes.

[Ed Wood Caulfield 0]

I'm agnostic, so I'm undecided personally. I WANT to believe that there is a Heaven for us after we die. I don't believe that there is a Hell because it makes no sense that God would create a place for people to suffer for all eternity. He's suppose to be an all-loving, all-forgiving God right?

 

Like I said, I WANT to believe in God and a Heaven and I have had several experiences in my lifetime that supports the existence of a higher power. BUT, it just seems logically impossible for such a place to exist.

 

I remember hearing somewhere that Believing in God and an afterlife is the "Great Human Flaw": Believing in something that doesn't exist. Maybe that's true, but if so, then why is that flaw there?

 

And isn't Heaven what YOU want it to be? I remember hearing that from my Religion teacher back in 7th Grade that whatever you want Heaven to be, it is. And isn't it the same for Hell too?

Edited August 14, 2003 by Michael Joel Benoit

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

If Bill and Ted are to be believed, we get our own personal hell, and heaven is a bunch of floating metallic discs inhabited by famous dead dudes and wise scientists from other galaxies who can build good robot usses.

[Ed Wood Caulfield 0]

If Heaven is what you want it to be, then my heaven will be watching MST3K episodes all day long and playing Playstation 2 with Christy Romano. I would also ride roller coasters in between watching MST3K episodes. The best part is there would be no limit to how long I would play because there is no time limit in Heaven.

 

If hell exists, and it's your own personal hell, then my Hell would be being blind and forced to listen to 50 Suck songs for all eternity.

 

I wonder how that would work anyway. When you die, are you immediatley thrown into your own heaven/hell or do you meet God first who introduces you to your own personal heaven/hell?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Me and a gun.

[Guest Ten Ton Lid]

I remember hearing somewhere that Believing in God and an afterlife is the "Great Human Flaw": Believing in something that doesn't exist. Maybe that's true, but if so, then why is that flaw there?

Because otherwise we'd spend all our time hugging our knees, rocking back and forth and going "oh shit...oh shit...oh shit...", and we wouldn't be able to propagate the species.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

1)

and animals for some random reason, but without a soul, surely animals would be evil, right?

 

Having a soul does not automatically make you good - after all, many people are evil.

 

 

 

2)

Zoological science has shown that animals and humans are related and that if there is a soul, both have them.

 

I won't deny that humans are simply just a more intelligent type of creature - but how can ANYTHING show that if people have a soul, animals have one too? I really don't understand this.

 

 

 

3)

Religions older than Christianity believe all animals have souls.

 

So? As is my understanding, we're discussing the Christian Heaven and Hell. What difference does it make what other religons believe?

 

 

 

4)

Now, honest question - Are animals capable of abstract thought, or are they only capable to consider things that they know to exist (IE, where their food is)? Because if they're not capable, then that sets us apart.

 

 

 

5)

Also, somehow I doubt animals have a concept of good and evil - Again, set apart.

 

 

 

6)

Is it much of a difference? Probably not. Does that difference leave the potential for people to have souls, while animals don't? I'd say so.

 

 

 

7)

Oh and for the record, I've been browsing through the Bible (Like I said, Catholic home) and while I can't find anything specific, I can see that God "blessed" humans, which he didn't do to animals, and God also TOLD humans that we were to rule over the creatures of the land, sea, and sky.

 

Somehow, I can't see God telling us that we're allowed to boss around all animals if they, indeed, did have souls.

 

But then again, this Bible is all fragged up. Apparantly God created the animals twice...damned illogical Bible.

 

 

 

8)

But anyway, I stand by my original point - Because people have souls is no reason to assume that animals have souls, even if we aren't very different genetically.

 

Because while genetically we may be similar, in God's eyes, we're obviously two totally different things. And what He says goes, really.

1) While having a soul doesn't automatically make you good, absence of a soul (in theory) should make you automatically evil, as it takes away the ability to do good things. It's like the old stand-by of "a soul-less monster".

 

2) The only reason people would have a soul and not other animals is by using the theory of Creationism, where God created all animals. After studying palaeontology for the last 4 years, I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point.

 

If you believe humans have a soul, but no other animals, where do you draw the line? Do primates, our most closely related ancestor, have souls? If not, why not? If you believe in evolution, how did humans evolve souls? If you believe in Creationism, why didn't God give other animals souls? Is he a bastard?

 

3) Christianity is, by and large, based on other religions. While we may be discussing a Christian Heaven and Hell, this is a discussion about souls which are, I believe, not a Christian concept but an older one. It's very likely that the people who wrote the Bible, already believed in souls as common knowledge, not through Christianity.

 

4) Abstract thought on a large scale does indeed set us apart from other animals, but it doesn't mean it's not there on a smaller scale. If you're asking whether animals have the abolity to believe in things they don't know, then no. But neither do humans. Everything that a rational human being believes in is something he has seen, heard, touched or has been led to believe exists. Same as any other animal.

 

Humans and all other animals can only believe what they see. Animals may not be able to create, but the major difference between us is that humans have the morphological adaptations to be able to be creative (e.g hands, voices etc). It could be argued that the ability of some primates or elephants to use tools is being creative, but that's up to you.

 

5) Define a concept of good and evil. if you tell a dog or cat off, it won't do it again. It could be argued that's a concept of good and evil, not too far set apart from humans. Look at kids, the only way they can understand what is good and bad is by telling them, rewarding them for doing good, punishing them for doing bad. Just like pets.

 

Don't forget that most animals don't have the same need to differentiate between good and evil as humans. If we do something nice, we don't have to worry about being killed as a result: most aniimals do.

 

6) I really don't think there is enough of a difference between humans and other animals to justify us being set apart from them.

 

7) If you were writing the Bible, especially in a less enlightened time, would you say that we are on the same level as other animals? Or would you say that we are better than them, and that we are their masters. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you must realise that The Bible is not His true word, it is the word of sycophantic believers.

 

8) And there lies the problem. If you believe The Bible, then you believe that humans are set apart from other animals, that we are special, that we are God's chosen ones. It's like nationalism for the human race. If any other group believed that over another, it would be prejudice. The fact is that we are not inherently different from other animals. We're the same as them, just way better on many levels.

[Guest El Satanico]

This same Bible often puts women on the same level as animals.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Think about that the next time you think your religion being the one true way, and the millions of people that died and continue to die because of it.

Not to mention the millions of people that died and continue to die for it.

 

"Hey! Something I can eat!" = Action 1

"Hey! Something I can fuck!" = Action 2

"Hey! Pain!" = Action 3

"Hey! Known source of pain!" = Action 4

And where exactly do you place the ability to contemplate the existence of heaven and hell on your structure?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

If you believe humans have a soul, but no other animals, where do you draw the line? Do primates, our most closely related ancestor, have souls? If not, why not?

 

That's kind of a silly question, as you should've been able to get my response from what I said before. Primates aren't people. Are they close? Yes. People? No. And thus, no souls, because they're not people. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, my friend.

 

If you believe in Creationism, why didn't God give other animals souls? Is he a bastard?

 

Because animals were not made in His image. Why weren't they? Because He didn't want them to be. And yes, I KNOW it's really irritating to try and debate stuff like this when one person constantly resorts to "Because God says so", but honestly, that's the only reason I can give you for it - He didn't want to.

 

Also, for the record, I don't really believe in creationism.

 

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you must realise that The Bible is not His true word, it is the word of sycophantic believers.

 

Actually, I think it's one of the fundamentals of the Christian religon to take, as part of your faith, that the Bible was written by people who were divinely inspired by God, and thus, it IS His flawless word. Not that *I* believe that, but I do think that's the offical line on it.

 

Everything that a rational human being believes in is something he has seen, heard, touched or has been led to believe exists.

 

Everything that we BELIEVE in, yes. But what I was trying to get at with abstract thought was that we can conceive things that don't exist in any real way. We can, as humans, think up a LOT of different shit, and I'd try to give an example of what I mean here, but then again, I AM talking about totally abstract thought, so an example thereof would be kinda hard...

 

But, you said it yourself - You don't think there's enough difference between us and animals to set us apart. I think that there is. I also think that no amount of points from either of us is going to make the other take their viewpoint. I also think that I'm nowhere NEAR well-versed enough in religon, nor am I religous enough, to intelligently continue this debate much farther without repeating myself over and over.

 

So I think we're going to end up having to just agree to disagree before too long...or Spicy can take over for me, or something. He seems better at this then I am, somehow...

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you must realise that The Bible is not His true word, it is the word of sycophantic believers.

Yes and no.

 

Basic Catholic Biblical literature teaches that the Bible contains historical and scientific error but is free from religious error.

 

Also, if you're going to believe in God... you should believe, as MM said, that the Bible was divinely inspired and that the Holy Spirit protects it's religious message from corruption.

[Guest Ten Ton Lid]

"Hey! Something I can eat!" = Action 1

"Hey! Something I can fuck!" = Action 2

"Hey! Pain!" = Action 3

"Hey! Known source of pain!" = Action 4

And where exactly do you place the ability to contemplate the existence of heaven and hell on your structure?

My using "Hey! Something I can fuck!" kind of sacrificed detail for impact. Re-writing that as "Hey! Pleasure!" it falls under the ability to fictionalize the one thing that scares us most (see my previous post), and when you really break it down, it falls under "Tactile pleasure" and "known source of pain" in the contemplation itself. For example, we know what fire is, and how it feels, so it (along with concepts we can't really grasp tacked on (someone earlier in the thread mentioned this), like infinite intensity or duration, this becomes our vision of hell. Everything breaks down into animal considerations of pleasure and its pursuit and pain and its avoidance. Stories about eternal reward or punishment set up basic (although abstract) cause-and-effect relationships, and those who believe them see their actions attached to the (alleged) outcomes accordingly. 99% of the "human difference" is the ability to create cute stories and the arrogance to believe that they reflect reality. If you really break it down (to the subconscious motivations), it's still just considerations of pleasure and pain. "Hell will hurt me!" - "Action X = Hell" - "Avoid Action X". As humans, we do have a grasp of cause and effect, and that has been taken advantage of in telling people that certain effects (like going to Hell) are causally connected to certain actions. "Contemplation" is mostly show.

Edited August 14, 2003 by Ten Ton Lid

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

If you believe in Creationism, why didn't God give other animals souls? Is he a bastard?

 

Because animals were not made in His image. Why weren't they? Because He didn't want them to be. And yes, I KNOW it's really irritating to try and debate stuff like this when one person constantly resorts to "Because God says so", but honestly, that's the only reason I can give you for it - He didn't want to.

 

Also, for the record, I don't really believe in creationism.

Sorry to just point out one part of your post, but how the hell can you believe God created humans in his image and all that stuff, and not believe in Creationism.

 

Also, if you don't believe in the creationist aspect of Christianity and you also believe that The Bible is totally God's word, how can you believe in Christianity?

[Guest Retro Rob]

Can't say I do. One reason being what Tom said. I mean if "GOD" really loved everyone, why would he eternally damnate anyone? Then on a more personal level, it's just too out there for me to believe. I wouldn't even want to spend an eternity in heaven. Do you have any idea how boring that would probably be? Once I'm dead I'd like to stay that way.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, my friend.

No, it counts in nuclear war, too.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point.

What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Sorry to just point out one part of your post, but how the hell can you believe God created humans in his image and all that stuff, and not believe in Creationism.

 

Simple. It's a personal belief of mine that when they say God created the earth in 7 days, it's not to be taken literally. I look at it this way: What is a day to God? Personally, I think that over the years, through many different translations and re-tellings, things got jumbled, so that NOW it says it took Him 7 days. I think it's quite possible that God created the earth, and tinkered with it for many millions of years, then thought "Well, why don't I put some creatures on it?"

 

So He made some, then got bored with them, and thought, "Well, maybe I'll make these creatures better" and thus, He made them evolve. Eventually, this would lead to God creating human beings from primates, then setting us apart with *ding* souls.

 

Why do I believe this? Because Creationism as it stands makes no sense to me, so I came up with my own theory.

 

Also, if you don't believe in the creationist aspect of Christianity and you also believe that The Bible is totally God's word, how can you believe in Christianity?

 

I didn't say I believed that the Bible was God's flawless word. I said that was the offical line on it.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution.

Symbiosis

The Peppered Moth

Equine skeletal structure.

The fact that we share over 90% of the genetic data as chimps.

 

Those are just a few examples..Evolution as a biological phenomenon is fact. We've watched it at work before.

[EricMM 0]

If we're going to argue creationism take it to another thread please. If necessary we will link to the roughly four other times we proved creationism wrong as a basis for the thread but creationism and heaven/hell are not linked.

 

Next, Heaven/hell is a faith based argument and nothing more. There is no physical proof to disprove or prove it. The bible is not proof, and neither is the fact that one cannot identify heaven, hell, or souls. I believe in an afterlife, but I don't know for sure if it'll be like heaven, purgetory, or just reincarnation. Who knows? There's no way to tell.

 

(surprisingly the Ayes have overtaken the nays (is there a plural for yes?))

Edited August 14, 2003 by EricMM

[Guest Eagan469]

No.

 

To say there's a happy place up in the sky with all our dead relatives is just stupid. Ditto for the evil guy sticking pokers in your ass if you're bad.

 

I hate how in school they teach us that past civilizations were polytheistic and that they were wrong in believing that.

 

Who the fuck are WE to laugh at their beliefs? 95% of the world follows a book of stories that is most likely bullshit.

 

When you die, you simply cease to exist. And THAT is what scares the shit out of me. Not some fictional place made up to maintain order within our world.

[Guest SP-1]

Ah, the oft perpetuated belief that the Bible puts Women down. THAT is one of my favorite myths.

[EricMM 0]

It doesn't?

 

Women should be happy to serve their husband as their god?

[Anakin Flair 0]

I believe ther is a heaven and a hell, and when I get down there, I'm taking over.

That's all I got to say about that. :chers:

[caboose 0]

95% of the world follows a book of stories that is most likely bullshit.

I hope you don't think 95% of the world follows the bible.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point.

What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution.

Evolution is very poorly understood, even by the experts. However, there is a lot of data present that backs up the theory. In addition to the aforementioned facts, there is the following two:

 

* Evolution has frequently been observed over geological and historical time-scales. For example, palaeontologists are gradually finding more and more links between birds and dinosaurs, forst skeletal similarities, then Archaeopteryx, then recently feathered dinosaurs in China.

 

* Genetic mutations or cross-breeding have been shown to create morphological change. This is the same theory as evolution, with genetic changes proving difference in morphology and following on from that speciation.

 

Evolution on it's basic level can be described as morphological or genetic change over time. Leaving aside speciation, this has been seen over time. Evolution has been proved as much as it possibly can be. I don't know what proof you need, but there's enough out there to be getting on with.

 

I would be interested to know why you're a Creationist. Every single creationist arguement I've encountered has been based on either the lack of concrete evidence or falsities as opposed to an actual reason for creationism. So, anyone got an answer?

[Guest JMA]

No. I don't believe in Heaven and/or Hell. I believe they were created from the jumbled myths of different religions. Mostly from the Greek view of the afterlife. I tend to mostly agree with what Tom said. Concepts like Heaven and Hell were just created for social control. Without the fear of Hell, or the reward of Heaven, there would be FAR less believers, IMO.

 

Oddly enough, Heaven and Hell aren't mentioned that much in the Bible. Sure, they're in some parables told by JC, but the concept is rarely mentioned in the OT. Another funny thing about the Bible is this: Mary Magdeline was never identified as a prostitute. She was given that label because ancient religious organizations didn't like having a woman in a position of power.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point.

What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution.

Evolution is very poorly understood, even by the experts. However, there is a lot of data present that backs up the theory. In addition to the aforementioned facts, there is the following two:

 

* Evolution has frequently been observed over geological and historical time-scales. For example, palaeontologists are gradually finding more and more links between birds and dinosaurs, forst skeletal similarities, then Archaeopteryx, then recently feathered dinosaurs in China.

 

* Genetic mutations or cross-breeding have been shown to create morphological change. This is the same theory as evolution, with genetic changes proving difference in morphology and following on from that speciation.

 

Evolution on it's basic level can be described as morphological or genetic change over time. Leaving aside speciation, this has been seen over time. Evolution has been proved as much as it possibly can be. I don't know what proof you need, but there's enough out there to be getting on with.

 

I would be interested to know why you're a Creationist. Every single creationist arguement I've encountered has been based on either the lack of concrete evidence or falsities as opposed to an actual reason for creationism. So, anyone got an answer?

I'd tend to agree that some form of evolution must go on. However, I don't feel that it goes beyond what the peppered moth study showed. The human heart, for example, seems far too complex to have evolved over millions of years from a single cell. Also, many of the routines (I don't know the scientific term off the top of my head) that plants go through (photosynthesis) seem like they couldn't have evolved piece-by-piece - to me, they had to have been created to be able to do photosynthesis.

 

Also, your genetic mutations theory seems to be far too far-fetched to me. I have yet to see a genetic mutation that helped a specie on the whole.

 

I will admit, of course, that some creatures evolve minor things - the peppered moth is an example of that. However, I find that with the complexities of the human body - and for that matter, most animals - there had to have been a designer.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point.

What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution.

Evolution is very poorly understood, even by the experts. However, there is a lot of data present that backs up the theory. In addition to the aforementioned facts, there is the following two:

 

* Evolution has frequently been observed over geological and historical time-scales. For example, palaeontologists are gradually finding more and more links between birds and dinosaurs, forst skeletal similarities, then Archaeopteryx, then recently feathered dinosaurs in China.

 

* Genetic mutations or cross-breeding have been shown to create morphological change. This is the same theory as evolution, with genetic changes proving difference in morphology and following on from that speciation.

 

Evolution on it's basic level can be described as morphological or genetic change over time. Leaving aside speciation, this has been seen over time. Evolution has been proved as much as it possibly can be. I don't know what proof you need, but there's enough out there to be getting on with.

 

I would be interested to know why you're a Creationist. Every single creationist arguement I've encountered has been based on either the lack of concrete evidence or falsities as opposed to an actual reason for creationism. So, anyone got an answer?

I'd tend to agree that some form of evolution must go on. However, I don't feel that it goes beyond what the peppered moth study showed. The human heart, for example, seems far too complex to have evolved over millions of years from a single cell. Also, many of the routines (I don't know the scientific term off the top of my head) that plants go through (photosynthesis) seem like they couldn't have evolved piece-by-piece - to me, they had to have been created to be able to do photosynthesis.

 

Also, your genetic mutations theory seems to be far too far-fetched to me. I have yet to see a genetic mutation that helped a specie on the whole.

 

I will admit, of course, that some creatures evolve minor things - the peppered moth is an example of that. However, I find that with the complexities of the human body - and for that matter, most animals - there had to have been a designer.

Ah, this is the struggle between Macro-evolution and micro-evolution, which is basically a debate over how large scale changes occured. Even experts in this field can't agree on this, so I'm not gonna say how it happens.

 

However, large scale evolutional paradoxes such as the human hearts, or eye, are generally unsolved because the fossil record doesn't show it, either to a lack of soft tissue parts or a gap in the fossil record (i.e. punctuated equillibrium) more than anything else. It is feasible that the human heart evolved, first as a muscle to pump blood (or whatever it was at that time) through the body, evolved into a single chamber (because this allowed greater efficiency) and then evolved into a double chamber (because it also allowed greater efficiency). All it takes is for a double chambered heart to evolve once in a form that allows greater functionality (an on the genetic blueprint, so that it can be passed down through succesive generations) for it to take a hold upon a population.

 

It's important not to get too caught up with the word "mutations", because that suggests drastic changes. Evolution is, generally, caused by smaller changes. For example, height. The human population is, in the U.K. at least, getting taller. This is for a variety of reasons, diet, health care and genetic disposition. Now, presume that women prefer taller blokes to shorter ones. Then, taller men will be more likely to breed, and the average child will be more likely to have that "tall gene". Therefore, the average height of the population goes up. The same could be said of breast size. If you compare this to, for example, China, where height and breast size were less of a concern than the Western world for many years, you can see a marked difference in height and breast size. That's evolution.

 

The main problem I have with Creationism is that I have not yet heard one single decent arguement as to why God created animals, apart from criticisms of Evolutionary theory, which are due more to a lack of data than a hole in the theory. Again, I'll ask any Creationist's out there to give a reason why Creationism is more probable than evolution.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

It is feasible that the human heart evolved, first as a muscle to pump blood (or whatever it was at that time) through the body, evolved into a single chamber (because this allowed greater efficiency) and then evolved into a double chamber (because it also allowed greater efficiency). All it takes is for a double chambered heart to evolve once in a form that allows greater functionality (an on the genetic blueprint, so that it can be passed down through succesive generations) for it to take a hold upon a population.

Indeed, but my question is how the double chambers come about in the first place, and in such a way so that the valves can selectively allow blood in or out.

 

As for your later question, about God creating animals, my theory has been that he created them to see how humans would interact with lesser beings - some humans are kind to animals, some humans are cruel to them. I've heard from many people that the true mark of a man is not how they treat their equals but how they treat their inferiors, and I'd assume that the human interaction with animals is essentially God's way of putting us to that test.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

I believe in an afterlife. There's gotta be more than this right? It's kinda sad if we just 'stop being'.

It's more than sad. It's immensely tragic. Which is why some guy a few thousand years back decided to create "Heaven and Hell". And I'm not talking about God.

Ozzy Osbourne?

That was only about 30 years ago, but yes.

You totally cut down my old man joke.