Heaven, hell, and the afterlife

[bdypdx]

I think a whole bunch of gods/goddesses exist.

Why? The christian one sez.... "I am a jealous god." Now why would this one be jealous if there were not other gods? If the other gods didn't exist there would be no reason for it to be jealous.

Heaven or hell? If there is an afterlife, and a heaven and hell, I sure hope I don't wind up in the same place as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. For me, that would be hell. Hell would be having to watch Pat Robertson leg press 2000 pounds over and over and over......

These discussions seem to be about "god or not". What about a whole boatload of gods? Hindus have a bunch of gods, as did the Greeks and Romans, as did native americans, as did early Europeans... They all had ideas about "afterlife" and it wasn't all about heaven or hell.

Anyway, if there is a heaven, it's a gay orgy with all the guys I like. Hell is everlasting sermons by Jerry Falwell or the pope or some Muslim fanatic. Otherwise I figure that the C, H, O, and N I'm composed of will get recycled into the mix of the planet and universe.

[LCposter]

This is an interesting discussion. Having been brought up with Eastern spirituality rather than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic school of thought, I do believe in heaven/hell, but in a very different context. To me, heaven is nirvana, which occurs when the soul has reached a level of wisdom and purity to be able to rejoin with the universal/collective/original soul. Hell is then life on earth, with its pleasures and pains, in a series of reincarnation births until the soul can "graduate" to nirvana. Note in Buddhism, belief in eternal life and reincarnation are central and yet there is no belief in God (although Hindus, Jains, etc. equate the collective soul with God).

[bdypdx]

Exactly!

Christians, Jews and Muslims are more than happy to fight over their "one" god.

One god?

Why can't they agree?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> But given that he is responsible for the creation of our universe, it would seem reasonable that he has the power to create the universe in such a way where consciousness could continue to exist past biological death. </font>

Why does that follow? I guess what I'm asking is, what makes you think God is capable of granting after-life?

In your example, I'm sure the programmer could write a new problem if the original failed, but what if: This program spawned millions of other new programs and they in turn, spawned millions more programs... Now one of these spawned programs self destructs and ceases to exist. You as the programmer might not even notice the absence of this insignificant spawned program and even if you did, your main creation is continuing just fine. So...

First, God must have the capability of giving after-life and even if He does... He must now want to grant it. So I ask again with all due respect... Why are you assuming that these two things follow *if* God even exists in the first place? That seems to be a lot of assumptions.

[LCposter]

Even though I believe in reincarnation, I would like to understand the Christian perspective a little better. So the main assumption is that each individual has a single finite life, after which he/she spends an eternity in heaven or hell.

Presumably, the original critera was good=heaven, bad=hell. This model suffers from the problem of quantification. How many "goods" are needed to cancel out beating your kids or cheating on your wife?

Christian theology solves this problem - Do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior? Yes=heaven, no=hell. Now let me state my objections to this model. I'd be interested to hear a Christian (or even a non-Christian) rebut these points.

1) Heaven/hell seems too binary (like a legal system where for every trial, the only options would be to acquit or execute). It seems that fairness would require a nearly infinitely continuous spectrum of outcomes.

2) Being committed to an eternal fate for actions/decisions reached in a finite lifespan seems disproportionate.

3) By accepting the "believe in Jesus" criteria for entry into heaven one is condemning the majority of one's fellow earthlings to hell, which seems like a decidedly un-Christian thing to do.

4) Basing eternal fate on a single decision is tantamount to saying the sole purpose of life is to decide whether one accepts Christ or not. If that is the case, why would a benevolent and fair God give some people (those born into a Christian household) such a huge "advantage" over others (those born into a non-Christian household). This doesn't even account for those born before Christ, who we have to say are judged by different criteria or go to a different heaven/hell.

If you accept the single life hypothesis and presume a fair and benevolent God and an eternal afterlife, it seems like a fairer model would be that everyone eventually reaches heaven, but they spend some finite amount of time in purgatory to "cleanse them of their sins" so they are fit to enter heaven. It occurred to me that maybe a good way to implement purgatory would be that your life is replayed, but you now experience that life from the perspective of the people you interacted with. Thus, in a very direct way, you would feel pleasure when you did good to others, and pain when you did bad to others.

Anyway, I'd love to hear thoughts if people agree or disagree. This may all be basic stuff for someone who went to Sunday school or attends church, but the answers aren't apparent to me.

[bunny]

I wouldnt want to speak for orthodox christian theology, but my personal view is that judgement is based on how well you do with what opportunities you have. I cant imagine someone who never heard of Jesus being barred from heaven on that grounds. Similarly, if someone is unable to believe in God because of their nature, yet live a decent and good life I cant imagine them being punished for it. (So I think you're safe chezlaw [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
1) Heaven/hell seems too binary (like a legal system where for every trial, the only options would be to acquit or execute). It seems that fairness would require a nearly infinitely continuous spectrum of outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is any more binary than nirvana vs not-nirvana. If you posit the existence of something, it seems to me you automatically get the existence of not-that-thing as well.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Being committed to an eternal fate for actions/decisions reached in a finite lifespan seems disproportionate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see this - I think our time here, although finite is equally important (perhaps even more so) and I dont see why it should be otherwise. I think what makes life important are the choices we make, it doesnt matter to me that it is relatively short (infinitesimally so wrt eternity) it is still fundamentally important that we make good choices.

[ QUOTE ]
3) By accepting the "believe in Jesus" criteria for entry into heaven one is condemning the majority of one's fellow earthlings to hell, which seems like a decidedly un-Christian thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I think this depends on exactly what hell is. Also, see my opinion regarding doing the best you can - I dont believe people ignorant of Jesus will be punished for not accepting him.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Basing eternal fate on a single decision is tantamount to saying the sole purpose of life is to decide whether one accepts Christ or not. If that is the case, why would a benevolent and fair God give some people (those born into a Christian household) such a huge "advantage" over others (those born into a non-Christian household). This doesn't even account for those born before Christ, who we have to say are judged by different criteria or go to a different heaven/hell.

[/ QUOTE ]
See above.

[ QUOTE ]
If you accept the single life hypothesis and presume a fair and benevolent God and an eternal afterlife, it seems like a fairer model would be that everyone eventually reaches heaven, but they spend some finite amount of time in purgatory to "cleanse them of their sins" so they are fit to enter heaven. It occurred to me that maybe a good way to implement purgatory would be that your life is replayed, but you now experience that life from the perspective of the people you interacted with. Thus, in a very direct way, you would feel pleasure when you did good to others, and pain when you did bad to others.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly this is fair, I dont know. My belief is that God is just so the way he did it is the fairest possible. I dont require an answer for every question - I am more concerned that my beliefs allow the possibility for an answer to exist.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I'd love to hear thoughts if people agree or disagree. This may all be basic stuff for someone who went to Sunday school or attends church, but the answers aren't apparent to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty ignorant about it - most of my views are "home-grown". I have a question of my own - what makes you think there is reincarnation? (I hope this isnt a hijack - it seems to just be broadening the topic rather than changing it).

[LCposter]

Thanks for the response. The first reason I believe in reincarnation is that I was exposed to it in my upbringing, and it is a belief shared by many people I care about and whose opinion I respect (including my wife, parents, relatives, etc). But there are some philosophically satisying propositions that result from reincarnation which have strengthened my belief. I'll list a few in no particular order:

1) It can help explain the inequity of the world. When an innocent child dies of starvation or cancer, perhaps it's a karmic consequence of a sin from a previous life. Or maybe that's a fate we all have to suffer in some life, to learn to cope with a seemingly "unfair" death. Indeed, through the cycle of karma and rebirth it is possible to obtain perfect justice (here on earth) if this is an important philosophical objective.

2) To me the purpose of life is not only to know and love God and fellow humanity but to also learn and grow. Each lifetime is but a day in the soul's education. Just as it takes many years for a student to become proficient in his area of study, I believe it takes many lifetimes (and different life experiences - man, woman, rich, poor, etc.) for a soul to become wise and pure enough to rejoin God.

3) It allows for infinite redemption. One is never damned but is forever capable of attaining salvation/nirvana. This seems mandatory for my conception of a benelovent God. Indeed the purpose of reincarnation is really rehabilitative rather than punitive.

4) The ideogoly that results is inclusive. Under this belief system, anyone is capable of obtaining nirvana regardless of religious belief (maybe even lack thereof). I cannot reconcile a fair and benevolent God with an eternal judgment based on a single religious decision, especially when this God presumably has allowed such a multitude of religious options to develop.

5) This model reframes the purpose of life as evolving towards self-actualization and enlightenment, rather than a "test" by God to decide how you are to be judged.

I haven't done too much reading on the subject - I'm sure there are other philosophical appeals to the reincarnation belief but these are some that I've thought about in the past. I didn't mean to make it anti-Christian, but most of these arguments are framed in response or contrast to Christianity because I've had to occasionally defend these beliefs (to them or myself) when someone has tried to directly or indirectly convert me.

[Matt R.]

Lestat,
I'm not saying it logically follows from the assumption that God exists. On the contrary, based purely on logic my answer can only be "maybe" to the question of an afterlife. I'm simply saying that it is not logically impossible or inconsistent to say that if God exists he may be merciful to his creation and wish to grant an afterlife, and he is powerful enough (given his ability to create a universe with life) to create an afterlife.

And to the programmer analagy -- the programmer not even noticing if one of his millions of spawned programs ceases to exist. The universe is of course infinitely more complex and beautiful (among other things) in comparison to anything we as humans have created -- such as the most complex computer programs. I would think it likely that a being with the power to create the universe would be infallible or much closer to infallible than any human, and such mistakes would seem unlikely.

Just to clarify, my faith is what dictates that my answer goes from "maybe" to "yes, probably" to the question of an afterlife. I have reasons for choosing my faith, but I doubt the reasons would be acceptable to most atheists.

[Peter666]

The amount of evil one can get away with in life would make anyone with a reasonable sense of justice go mad if there is no punishment after death.

Eg. Stalin, Hitler, Zedong. Pol Pot died peacefully in his sleep. It is incredible to think how one person is able to ruin the lives of millions of people.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The amount of evil one can get away with in life would make anyone with a reasonable sense of justice go mad if there is no punishment after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be one evil [censored], then. Not that I have any doubt you think I belong in hell, Petey.