Talk Elections

Arose on my Fate topic. I'm curious what people think of the various proposed "end points" to one's "life"

Do you go to Heaven/Hell? Are you born again? Do you turn to dust?

My personal belief is, partly, all of them. I think that in a way, hell is earth. I also think it is possible to go to Heaven, but that you can return to Earth.

I also have a working theory. Time is relative. This would mean that you could die, and be re-incarnated as your great grandfather. If that is true, it leads me to another theory... That all beings on this planet, if not the entire universe, are the same single 'life' reincarnated over and over and over, at each stage, growing just a little bit, until the final incarnation, which is God itself.

Ok hell in ancient Hebrew meant literally nothingness. So if you go to hell you cease to exist. It's not a place where you burn which is depicted in cartoons. And if you want to play the game and bring up the flames of hell from the Bible let's do that and talk about what the Bible WAS ACTUALLY SAYING!!! For those of you who have studied ancient Israel you have heard of Hinnam Valley which translates to Hell Valley. It was a valley where the Canaanites (non-believers) practiced child sacrifice to the god Molech. Children were burned as a sacrifice which is why a story like Isaac (who actually died in the original story) were so embedded in the minds of the Jews. Anyways, in Hinnam or "Hell" Valley, the non-believers were literally "burning in hell." So please do not think that there is a devil waiting for you in hell. I know that it's been misinterpreted throughout the centuries but please by all means do not think that. Oh and by the way in Hebrew Satan just means accuser or opposition.

As for heaven: Well instead of worrying about how to get into heaven, why don't we start making it happen here on earth? Maybe that's all Jesus wanted? I believe that Jesus died for our sins but regardless heaven can still be an idea or a state of mind. After all, when you're in heaven it's not like you would have any need to remember anything on earth since you'd be at peace with God.

Reincarnation is just silly.

Matter can not be created nor destroyed. we simply turn into a different kind of matter. we might be a human not and part of the air later. or a human now or a frog. or a human now then a worm. so to an extent yes reincarnation exists.
as for heaven and hell those are just ideas to give us something to keep us on the good road back when religion governed our lives. since religion is not just a big role in everyones lives and some don't even believe in it then it cant exist.

I myself believe in the first. matter is not created nor destroyed.

But are our souls matter?

souls consist of ideas. ideas are not tangible. i do believe that there is something that creates those ideas. yes our brain obviously. but there is something that makes us have a certain 'soul' so to speak.

Whether our consciousness continues to exist or not is something that really has not been determined. Humans may have simply invented the concept of an afterlife for comfort since most of us fear death to some degree. Concepts like heaven and hell where those who are seen as good are rewarded and those who are seen as evil are punished additionally satisfy us because it gives us more comfort in that no matter how cruel the world might seem we'll see those who wronged us get what's coming to them. I think this is most likely how the beliefs on our world developed, though there could still be some form of afterlife anyways. But if not I wouldn't worry about it too much, if there's no afterlife then there's no afterlife. I think this quote best sums up my feelings on that notion:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain (attributed, source unknown)

Humans may have invented the concept of an afterlife but as to whether or not there is an afterlife, that can only be created by something beyond our control. Unless you're talking about finding a cure for all diseases but even then you're not talking about "eternal" life.

We have clearly created something for ourselves after death. We're primates who understand our own mortality and feel 'cheated' that we have to die despite everything we have done, still have to do and because of what we leave behind. So we invent a continuation. Some inventions are more 'humane' than others; becoming nothingness, reincarnation (depends to what) or the concept of eternal worship of a supreme being.

As far as I am concerened the end point is death. The best way to prepare yourself for it is to live a fulfilling life.

I agree with living a fulfilling life, but there is scientific evidence that disputes us from descending from apes. First of all, there is the missing link. I know a couple months ago I posted about how it could have been aliens who came to teach us how to use tools. I'm not going to debate my religious beliefs on this particular thread but the fact that humans have always believed in an afterlife or at least a spiritual realm could have to do with aliens.

First of all the 'link' is hypothetically there based on what we have found and know know it is a pre-supposed link. The fact that we have not yet physically found all the inhabitants of that link does not negate it's highly probably likelyhood. On the issue of the use of primative tools any external 'guide' they must also have taught chimps, ants and some birds to use basic tools. Tool-making is quite wide in the animal kingdom; ours are just better.

Our's is better and what I'm saying is that there is an argument that can be made supporting aliens teaching us and that's why we're so much better than other animals. In fact we could be descendants of aliens.

"An argument can be made" and "could be" are not evidence, and as such there's no reason for the idea to be taken seriously. Find the evidence first, then take the idea seriously.

There is plenty of evidence to support me. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks what I'm saying.

Are you talking about aliens or god (or both)?

Both. Those are completely separate issues though.

The end is a wooden box and a bunch of worms.

I knew a pastor who used to joke about that. Our bodies are useless anyhow as they are made of material. I had another religion professor who used to say that if you really want to talk about the body of Christ all you need to do is come to church because as Christians we are the "body of Christ." It's an interesting interpretation.

Our bodies are all we have.  Once that's gone, we're gone.

The body is the prison house of the soul.

Thank you, Plato.

The soul is an invention to make us feel better, as is heaven.

Just to piggyback on this post:


It sums up how I feel about the afterlife, and theological discussions, or at least, the absence of theological discussion.

Reincarnation is an interesting idea; it's sort of cleverly cruel form of social control. Instead of driving home an idea of an eternal suffering elsewhere, it drives home that if you're bad, you wind up right back in your misery, or worse.

Not necessarily, what about the mind's awareness of itself. That is what constitutes existence. Can that thought be destroyed?

Just for the record, my personal belief is that the bible is a work of fiction, just as is the Koran, and Torrah; God is not an Author.

It's more in depth than that though. It's clearly referring to events that happened and matches up not literally but figuratively with other myths of ancient times whether it be Greece, Rome, Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Canaan, or Sumerian. The problem today is that people don't understand the thought process or understanding of someone who lived 3,000 years ago. For example, people ask why the Bible is full of stories that are cut up and woven together. Were the priests trying to confuse people? No, that's nonsense. People didn't have the thought process of A, B, C, and D. The Bible is a very complex document and it was never imagined that it would be in the homes of every Christian and Jew ever. The priests would preach and teach from it. It was meant to be heard, not read. Yes now if we read it we can see what they were actually referring to and with a little knowledge of Hebrew and Greek we find many translations at odds. Like how the word virgin meant young woman in ancient Hebrew. So you see it's not simply "made up" but was "fact" for the time that it was written. What mattered wasn't how accurate a story was but how it was told. And believe me if you told a story wrong everyone would correct you in those times.

No, you don't.

Through observing thought (and actions as a result of thought) it is apparent that it is intrinsicly linked with matter; we need a brain to think, we need electrical pulses to drive 'the thinking'. That's what we know, other methods may not be impossible but they have not been demonstrated. Do thoughts exist outside the material? More than likely not; they can 'exist' if they are shared with others, but the passing on and receipt of an idea from one human to another requires the brain.

I cannot see how any essence can exist beyond the death or destruction of the material body or indeed exist before the creation of the material body

Curiously, for those who think that before the 'Big Bang' there was a god to kick start it off, if there was no matter before the creation of matter how could this god 'think' and therefore create?

You're viewing God as finite. God is not limited to what we know to be matter or anything necessary for creation.

Do you have evidence for this?

Easily, with a good whack on the head a person can have no awareness of himself.  Thought and awareness is a system of chemical reactions in our brains.  A little jostle of that organ and we're worse off than most other animals.

No because I'm finite. You keep insisting that everything can be understood from the finite point of view and it just can't. We'll never know all the answers and that is part of being human. If God could be limited then by definition that would not be God and we're back to finding God.

Then why do Christians (and people of most religions) claim to be right?  If we can't possibly understand what's going on, then how come you claim to?  And tell us we're wrong about it?

That's their religions and religions are taken very seriously. Most people do not look into things like you, me, and the other people on this forum. Some will tell you that you're wrong because they believe that with their beliefs they will be saved. Many religious people do not know the entirety of what they believe in. I don't know that it's such a bad thing to be religious either though. It has clearly helped with individual success and made people live better lives. Religion has alot of positive things to offer. Does it really matter if they're right or wrong?

That's...exactly what I'm saying.  People approach religion as if they're undeniably correct, yourself included, then say that God is infinite and cannot be understood.

How have I approached religion that way? I have my theories and views that I've developed through years of research. I don't hold my views because I was taught to never think otherwise. I hope you have read my views on here in regards to creation, Moses, Jesus, the disciples, and gnosticism.

Research in...the Bible.  Your own way of thinking.  I'm not talking about telling other Christians about how right or wrong they are about Christianity, I'm talking about religion in general.

I've studied other religions too. Religion really is geographically based. Either way I don't think that God would have to have a religion. God would be above religion.

Aaaaaaand you still don't get it...surprise!

What is there to get? Now you're off topic.

wow

What?

So do you think it matters if we're right or wrong?

See my VERY FIRST post on the matter.

You think we get eaten by worms? Well our bodies do.

"By definition" seems to be all you have to say, but you have no basis for that definition - where exactly did this definition come from? Some religions have defined gods as not being infinite, so why is that somehow less valid than what you're saying? Who the hell made you the final arbiter of determining what is and what isn't a god?


You don't. That's quite clear seeing as you don't seem to give a damn about evidence.

If they have different gods who aren't infinite then that can't be a true God. I still feel like you're imagining God to be this masculine figure in the clouds.

Says you. They would disagree. Neither of you can prove your view right. Why should I think your definition is any more correct than anyone else's?


You feel incorrectly. It could be some nebulous energy being or an invisible pink unicorn for all I care. My problem is that you keep making this definition based on what you'd like God to be like - for all you know there was a god but it burned itself out creating the universe. You can yell "infinite" until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. Where's the evidence that a god must be infinite?

What does that have to do with the question?

How about this? Are you reading? You envision God as an invisible pink unicorn and I'll envision God as the first mover.

Isn't that your first post on here about the topic?

I'm reading, you clearly aren't. Your inability to comprehend even the most simply written sentences shows that.

cop out

No, what you said is a cop out. It was in no way a valid response to any of the points I made - essentially it was you giving up because you know you can't argue for crap. How about you actually respond instead?

What on earth?  Are you a goldfish?  You asked me if I think being "right" is important and in my very first post that's exactly what I said.

So you think it does or doesn't matter if we're right? I can't seem to find it.

I quite obviously don't, but that has nothing to do with the issue.  The issue is that you do while also claiming your God is infinite and can't be understood (like I said from the very beginning).  How can you be right about something you yourself can't understand?

I like this evolution in you, acting like we're the ones shying away or not answering questions.  It's funny.

It wouldn't be my God, it would be God. I'm a scholar not a scientist. My goal is to research and argue ideas based on what is written with the foreknowledge that the events may have happened in some way or another. I demythologize and then re-mythologize. As for God my belief resides in the fact that something cannot just come out of nothing. In order to argue that there is no God you must be able to prove that something can come from nothing. How can I be right about something that I don't FULLY understand? That doesn't matter according to you. Now does it matter to me? Somewhat, but since I have yet to see that there is concrete evidence supporting that something can come from nothing, I am still in the belief that there is a God and that God must be infinite as a first cause.