Would anyone want to really go to heaven?

KeithAFC

As an agnostic, im on the fence with religion to a degree but would anyone seriously want to go to heaven and how long would you be in heaven for. Would you want to sit in heaven with god all 'day' and just talk to him?

Its like when they say about burning in hell for thousands of years, i mean just how long can you burn for. The concept of hell and heaven, both ideas seem to like a complete nightmare and not places you would want to go to after death.

What would be the point of them? Sit around doing nothing forever?

Blikes

I don't think it's quite 'sitting around' as we know it here, but i get your point.

Also, Hell isn't a place of fire and brimstone, it's apparently, a complete separation from God.

Darlughda

Well, I'm thinking heaven is a place of bliss.

In a way what heroin addicts talk about when they need a fix. I reckon it is a some kind of sublime feeling of all being well with you and the world and there is no need to change it.

antiskeptic

KeithAFC wrote: »

As an agnostic, im on the fence with religion to a degree but would anyone seriously want to go to heaven and how long would you be in heaven for. Would you want to sit in heaven with god all 'day' and just talk to him?

Its like when they say about burning in hell for thousands of years, i mean just how long can you burn for. The concept of hell and heaven, both ideas seem to like a complete nightmare and not places you would want to go to after death.

What would be the point of them? Sit around doing nothing forever?

Your 'agnosticism' would appear to be of the self-inflicted variety - in the sense of your not having taken the time to carry out even a cursory inspection of the terrain.

MagicMarker

If there is a heaven then I hope it's something like the holodeck.

candy-gal1

Blikes wrote: »

I don't think it's quite 'sitting around' as we know it here, but i get your point.

Also, Hell isn't a place of fire and brimstone, it's apparently, a complete separation from God.


I never fully get this statement tbh, so if thats the case shouldnt this be hell?

Waking-Dreams

No, this isn't hell, as some believers would tell you, because some think god talks directly to them, communicates with them (in "mysterious ways") and watches over them. Replace the word god with aliens, dead relatives, angels, etc. All are as probable as the other.

It's wishful human thinking, a bit like when we reminisce over a beloved relative who is dead and imagine that they are possibly watching over us, due to our emotional connection to them when they were alive.

Max Power1

Heaven, as a concept, has never been defined to me by anyone afflicted by religious belief, in anything other than religious wishy-washy mumbo jumbo.

The most prevalent response from christian theists when questioned is "heaven is a place that you see god".

.....

and that is your eternity! Frankly better off avoided IMO.

Max Power1

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

No, this isn't hell, as some believers would tell you, because some think god talks directly to them, communicates with them (in "mysterious ways") and watches over them. Replace the word god with aliens, dead relatives, angels, etc. All are as probable as the other.

It's wishful human thinking, a bit like when we reminisce over a beloved relative was is dead and imagine that they are possibly watching over us, due to our emotional connection to them when they were alive.

+1

Its this reason, more than any other, that religion as a concept is still around.

People are more receptive to comforting falsehoods that tell them a nice warm lie, than they are to the cold hard truth.

checkyabadself

No one can say that they want to go to heaven. All they can admit, is that they don't want to die and if they must, which they inevitably will, a place called heaven fills the void of uncertainty and allows them solace in this life. Some people are uncapable of "not knowing", despite claiming to have "great faith".

When I die, I'm assuming that my life will end and my consciousness with it. This may not be the case, and there might possibly be an afterlife, but until that day, I'm not going to live this life pretending to know something I couldn't possibly know.

Pushtrak

I don't need to believe in any life after this one. It's probably the most asshole thing about me, but I kinda would like there to be something of an intermission just after dying where believers are in a state at which they can be honest and say just how much they believed/didn't believe/doubted/felt like a gullible fool or whatever.

In other words, some justification for the "Who needs evidence?" school of (un)thought in an environment where they might as well just talk reality.

candy-gal1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Heaven, as a concept, has never been defined to me by anyone afflicted by religious belief, in anything other than religious wishy-washy mumbo jumbo.

The most prevalent response from christian theists when questioned is "heaven is a place that you see god".

.....

and that is your eternity! Frankly better off avoided IMO.

And by that I can see how easy it is to make up to suit, the whole religon thing. "seeing God" can mean a lot of things tbh same as "Hell".

Waking-Dreams

Where were you all before you were born?

We know the universe has existed for billions of years but most of us didn't experience much of anything up until a few decades ago when we opened our human eyes.

That's what I imagine await us, and to be honest, I was fine with being nothing for the first few billion or so years, so I think I'll be grand to return to dreamless sleep once again.

Max Power1

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Where were you all before you were born?

We know the universe has existed for billions of years but most of us didn't experience much of anything up until a few decades ago when we opened our human eyes.

That's what I imagine await us, and to be honest, I was fine with being nothing for the first few billion or so years, so I think I'll be grand to return to dreamless sleep once again.

We didnt exist!

Which is why I have no problem accepting my return to said state of decaying nothingness after my time ends.

seamus

Personally I would have to say that the concept of heaven is a lot less appealing than simply staying on earth.

I posed a question on the Christianity forum before, and the overall idea was that you "become one" with God. As opposed to it being a place where everyone is running around having their own fun, you become part of one uber-consciousness, where you gain a full understanding of the universe and live out eternity in this "bliss".

Sounds like hell to me - one consciousness, who knows *everything*, doing nothing by itself for eternity. How boring would that be? Of course a Christian will tell you that this consciousness transcends boredom. But not bliss oddly, it seems that when you know everything you can pick and choose what emotions you feel.

I would personally prefer to stay here for eternity and spend my time actually working out how the universe works. At least that would give me something to do for all that time.

legspin

If I was guaranteed 72 virgins, probably. Mind you, I would much prefer 3 skanky whores with minds as dirty as my own.

Dades

Thread running a similar theme here. (FYIs).

eire2009

Really depends on what you experience on this earth .. Its possible to live in hell or heaven on this earth so seen as we only know this planet and living its quiet plausible that when we die we could experience the same whether you can derive the concept or not.
When you die even if there is no after life you still live on in the hearts and minds the people you left behind. That could be your only existence hopefully it will be pleasant.

Stercus Accidit

For a human being to enjoy eternity, they would need to be a totally different person to the one they are on earth.

Greedy, insecure, easily bored, always wanting more.

To remove those things would make a blissful heaven, but you wouldn't be human anymore, you wouldn't be yourself.

As such, why judge the greedy insecure human on earths validity for heaven if they wont be that person upon arrival?


Stupid concept, eternal bliss, sounds like some sort of simpsons esque re-nedification.

Shenshen

seamus wrote: »

Personally I would have to say that the concept of heaven is a lot less appealing than simply staying on earth.

I posed a question on the Christianity forum before, and the overall idea was that you "become one" with God. As opposed to it being a place where everyone is running around having their own fun, you become part of one uber-consciousness, where you gain a full understanding of the universe and live out eternity in this "bliss".

Sounds like hell to me - one consciousness, who knows *everything*, doing nothing by itself for eternity. How boring would that be? Of course a Christian will tell you that this consciousness transcends boredom. But not bliss oddly, it seems that when you know everything you can pick and choose what emotions you feel.

I would personally prefer to stay here for eternity and spend my time actually working out how the universe works. At least that would give me something to do for all that time.

I'm with Terry Pratchett on this one... you can't feel any emotions at all if you no longer have any glands.

How boring would neverending existence without emotions be? I imagine an Eastenders Omnibus and nobody's screaming or shouting....

antiskeptic

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

For a human being to enjoy eternity, they would need to be a totally different person to the one they are on earth.

Greedy, insecure, easily bored, always wanting more.

If your prepared to go the whole hog and sum this up as utterly self-centred you'd have a central claim of Christianity right there in a nutshell.

To remove those things would make a blissful heaven, but you wouldn't be human anymore, you wouldn't be yourself.

Unless of course, you desire to be rid of your self-centredness. In which case you'd be wanting 'yourself' to be changed into being another self - with the bit of self that wants this being ahead of the posse - so to speak.

As such, why judge the greedy insecure human on earths validity for heaven if they wont be that person upon arrival?

The person would be judged on the decision of that little bit of themselves that was in a position to decide whether they wanted to abandon their ship. Or whether they wanted to go down with all hands.

Stupid concept, eternal bliss, sounds like some sort of simpsons esque re-nedification.

Hopefully, arrival at this as a logical conclusion has been interrupted

Shenshen

legspin wrote: »

If I was guaranteed 72 virgins, probably. Mind you, I would much prefer 3 skanky whores with minds as dirty as my own.

Here's something to think about... will those 72 virgins remain virgins, as in restore themselves somehow? Otherwise you need to be fairly economical to make those 72 last for all eternity, no?

Stercus Accidit

antiskeptic wrote: »

If your prepared to go the whole hog and sum this up as utterly self-centred you'd have a central claim of Christianity right there in a nutshell.

People follow christianity because they are self centred(at least instinctively self preserving), they desire eternal life, to be reunited with people they miss, to avoid the naughty corner (hell).

Unless of course, you desire to be rid of your self-centredness. In which case you'd be wanting 'yourself' to be changed into being another self - with the bit of self that wants this being ahead of the posse - so to speak.

Our personalities are defined by how we control our base urges, or not, and to say that everything which makes us a human, an animal with self preserving instincts, is to be removed, what on earth actually goes to heaven? A blank slate? A 'soul'? If the soul isn't us with our personality flaws and all, it is just some thing along for the ride and the real person dissapears after death anyway.

The person would be judged on the decision of that little bit of themselves that was in a position to decide whether they wanted to abandon their ship. Or whether they wanted to go down with all hands.

Maybe its the head cold but this analogy doesn't make sense with regard what you have quoted. What part of the person is judged and what part gets into heaven?

Hopefully, arrival at this as a logical conclusion has been interrupted

Distracted, not interupted.

aidan24326

KeithAFC wrote: »

What would be the point of them? Sit around doing nothing forever?

I think alot of people who are religious and/or claim to believe in an afterlife don't really stop to think through the full implications of what eternity actually means. Effectively there would be no escape from your own existence. Ever. That's a nightmarish concept tbh.

Blikes wrote: »

Also, Hell isn't a place of fire and brimstone, it's apparently, a complete separation from God.

This is one of those really really wishy washy descriptions of heaven, that is difficult if not impossible to refute as you don't really know what it is you're trying to refute in the first place (and in truth neither does the other side). Typically vague and open to any interpretation that takes your fancy. This religion stuff is clever if nothing else.

seamus wrote: »

Personally I would have to say that the concept of heaven is a lot less appealing than simply staying on earth.

Personally I wouldn't consider either very appealing. Granted I wouldn't mind staying on earth for a bit longer than the lousy 70-odd years that we get, but staying here for ever would be as big a nightmare as heaven or hell. The earth wasn't a particularly appealing place to be for most of the time that humans have existed, and who knows what an awful place it could be in the future.

Valmont

aidan24326 wrote: »

Effectively there would be no escape from your own existence. Ever.

Not unless they have LSD in heaven, which I'm sure they do, given that it's paradise and all that. Why else would God create psycedelic drugs?

legspin

Shenshen wrote: »

Here's something to think about... will those 72 virgins remain virgins, as in restore themselves somehow? Otherwise you need to be fairly economical to make those 72 last for all eternity, no?

I don't know. If they're anything like the girls I knew as a a younger man you'd have to ply them with so much drink beforehand just to loosen them up they'd be comatose. They'd expect you to call the next day. I'm fairly sure as well that they would want a wedding ring before you could explore theirs... I'm beginning to think that it all may be more trouble than it's worth and the skanky hoes really is the way forward.

antiskeptic

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

People follow christianity because they are self centred(at least instinctively self preserving), they desire eternal life, to be reunited with people they miss, to avoid the naughty corner (hell).

I only found out Hell exists on the day I found out I'm not going there. Can your logic modify to accomodate?

Our personalities are defined by how we control our base urges, or not, and to say that everything which makes us a human, an animal with self preserving instincts, is to be removed, what on earth actually goes to heaven? A blank slate? A 'soul'?

What you call human, Christianity calls fallen human. Hence the possibility for two types of response to base urges: deny/permit. It isn't humanity that choses base urges, it is sub-humanity (or falleness) that choses so. To be 'saved' is to press the ejector button on the sub-human element of ourselves.

It's not that there will be no choice 'in heaven', it's just that there will be no option to chose between sub-human options.

If the soul isn't us with our personality flaws and all, it is just some thing along for the ride and the real person dissapears after death anyway.

I don't see how removing flaws in anything results in it not being itself (or even more itself). Is a battered BMW which is repaired, reupholstered and resprayed not more of a BMW rather than less?

Maybe its the head cold but this analogy doesn't make sense with regard what you have quoted. What part of the person is judged and what part gets into heaven?

The greedy aspect to yourself is something that you can either come to loathe about yourself. Or it is something you can come to make excuses for (so as to permit it to continue functioning). If coming to loathe then salvation beckons - which will involve you being rid of that aspect of yourself (see BMW analogy)

If on the other hand you love your greed (albeith finding it disquieting at times) and don't come to loathe it then the 'you' doing the loving will be Judged. Judged as greedy that is. And as greedy, will be of no use in the Kingdom of God. And so, will be discarded.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how removing flaws in anything results in it not being itself (or even more itself). Is a battered BMW which is repaired, reupholstered and resprayed not more of a BMW rather than less?

But that would require these flaws to have been introduced after the soul was created. By whom?

What I mean is that if the BMW rolls off the line with intentional dents and flaws which you later correct, then no, you don't have the same car that rolled off the production line.

On the other hand, if you create the BMW perfectly, then batter it with a baseball bat, only to repair it again, then that's just plain weird...

clived2

To me,

the concept of heaven is baffling,

Scenario: You have a lovely wife and 3 kids, You get killed in a car crash
and go to "heaven" I can assure you, it is not heaven, if i am not with my family, no matter whats there

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

But that would require these flaws to have been introduced after the soul was created. By whom?

On the other hand, if you create the BMW perfectly, then batter it with a baseball bat, only to repair it again, then that's just plain weird...

By the soul itself. This BMW can drive itself around the place. It was told to stick to the paved roads for which it was designed ... but wasn't prevented from taking to the dirt track if it so choose.

Canis Lupus

clived2 wrote: »

I can assure you, it is not heaven, if i am not with my family,

I'd gamble there are a few men who would disagree with that :P

munsterdevil

I'm going to use the following quote from Mark Twain to answer the original question:

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.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

I'm going to use the following quote from Mark Twain to answer the original question:

Mark clearly wasn't an empiricist

Stercus Accidit

antiskeptic wrote: »

I only found out Hell exists on the day I found out I'm not going there. Can your logic modify to accomodate?

It already has, ignore the hell bit, look at the benefits I listed.

What you call human, Christianity calls fallen human. Hence the possibility for two types of response to base urges: deny/permit. It isn't humanity that choses base urges, it is sub-humanity (or falleness) that choses so. To be 'saved' is to press the ejector button on the sub-human element of ourselves.

The "sub-human" element as you call it is part and parcel of being human, it defines a person as much as their ability to resist it. A man who controls his urges for whatever reason has made a big part of himself the ability to resist those urges, in their absense, he loses the character trait of self control, again, losing part of himself.

It's not that there will be no choice 'in heaven', it's just that there will be no option to chose between sub-human options.

Sounds like a hell to me.

I don't see how removing flaws in anything results in it not being itself (or even more itself). Is a battered BMW which is repaired, reupholstered and resprayed not more of a BMW rather than less?

Much less. It is then a bmw like any other that came out of the factory, and the car that led a hard life and showed its scars no longer exists, it is now one of many bland bmws, like any other, its personality is gone.

The greedy aspect to yourself is something that you can either come to loathe about yourself. Or it is something you can come to make excuses for (so as to permit it to continue functioning). If coming to loathe then salvation beckons - which will involve you being rid of that aspect of yourself (see BMW analogy)

Low self esteem and self loathing seem to be christian traits alright, original sin? Guilt for natural traits such as desires?

If on the other hand you love your greed (albeith finding it disquieting at times) and don't come to loathe it then the 'you' doing the loving will be Judged. Judged as greedy that is. And as greedy, will be of no use in the Kingdom of God. And so, will be discarded.

Self loathing and insecure need only apply, I prefer the idea of hell.

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark clearly wasn't an empiricist

The chances are he was, but clearly you're not:)

aidan24326

Valmont wrote: »

Not unless they have LSD in heaven, which I'm sure they do, given that it's paradise and all that. Why else would God create psycedelic drugs?

By escape I meant escaping completely i.e dying (though of course the LSD might come in handy too!). Here on earth if your life becomes utterly intolerable you at least have the option to end it, you always have that escape clause, and of course we're all going to die at some stage so there's an eventual escape anyway.

But in an eternal afterlife there is no out-clause, no exit door, you'd be trapped inside your own consciousness forever. Only religion could view such a horrible outcome as something to be desired.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I only found out Hell exists on the day I found out I'm not going there.

A totally meaningless soundbite unless you can elaborate.

What you call human, Christianity calls fallen human. Hence the possibility for two types of response to base urges: deny/permit. It isn't humanity that choses base urges, it is sub-humanity (or falleness) that choses so. To be 'saved' is to press the ejector button on the sub-human element of ourselves.

It's not that there will be no choice 'in heaven', it's just that there will be no option to chose between sub-human options.

I don't see how removing flaws in anything results in it not being itself (or even more itself). Is a battered BMW which is repaired, reupholstered and resprayed not more of a BMW rather than less?

The greedy aspect to yourself is something that you can either come to loathe about yourself. Or it is something you can come to make excuses for (so as to permit it to continue functioning). If coming to loathe then salvation beckons - which will involve you being rid of that aspect of yourself (see BMW analogy)

If on the other hand you love your greed (albeith finding it disquieting at times) and don't come to loathe it then the 'you' doing the loving will be Judged. Judged as greedy that is. And as greedy, will be of no use in the Kingdom of God. And so, will be discarded.

If you can't see what ridiculously twisted (un)logic this is then I wager that god will banish you to hell for completely failing to use the faculties he gave you.

robindch

KeithAFC wrote: »

Would you want to sit in heaven with god all 'day' and just talk to him?

Far as I remember, the last time the topic came up on the Other Forum, the general feeling amongst the religious was that you'd show up at the pearly gates recreated at something like your mid-thirties, perfect in mind and limb and thrilled at the prospect of spending eternity singing the praises of god. It was felt that this activity would be sufficiently interesting to sustain indefinitely the spirits of the saved (which suggests that singing is whole lot more interesting and less exhausting than it appears, or else that the saved are easily amused and have vocal chords made of carbon fibre).

Personally, I can't imagine anything duller in the long term than singing paeans of praise to the almighty. It's bad enough for 90 minutes at Landsdowne Road. What must a million years be like? :eek:

antiskeptic

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

It already has, ignore the hell bit, look at the benefits I listed.

Same point. I didn't believe there was a heaven in order to desire to go to it until the day I came to know it existed. I didn't give a monkeys about religion until the day God turned up.

The "sub-human" element as you call it is part and parcel of being human, it defines a person as much as their ability to resist it. A man who controls his urges for whatever reason has made a big part of himself the ability to resist those urges, in their absense, he loses the character trait of self control, again, losing part of himself.

1) In losing part of himself you would agree he is also gaining another part of himself (the ability to live truly according to his nature). Good and evil as postive/negative ideas are just conventions in your worldview - they have no transcendent value.

2) Your view of heaven is predicated on this view of humanity being true. There is no need to continue discussing according to this view - as I am not defending a position based on it.

Sounds like a hell to me.

Christianity says that if you don't want to be shorn of your base tendencies and desires, then 'to Heaven' you surely won't be going. It won't sound like Hell in that case. It will be Hell.

Much less. It is then a bmw like any other that came out of the factory, and the car that led a hard life and showed its scars no longer exists, it is now one of many bland bmws, like any other, its personality is gone.

But how can it be bland when it's one of a kind? And equipped with all the features necessary for it's new journey. You seem to suppose that because The Spirit of St. Louis spanned the Atlantic once that it's suitable for a trip to the Moon?

Low self esteem and self loathing seem to be christian traits alright, original sin? Guilt for natural traits such as desires?Self loathing and insecure need only apply, I prefer the idea of hell.

It's your response to your own greed, selfishness, deceitfulness, spitefulness, hatefulness, malice, lusts .. that will ultimately form your final response to God on the issue of your salvation. Whether you believe in God or not doesn't alter those characteristics being yours nor your responding to them ... and thus God.

If you want to use the device that they are "natural desires" (and so aren't evil in any objective, to-be-held-to-account sense) then by all means use that device. The device doesn't hide the heart behind the response from anyone who matters.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

The chances are he was...

Not on that outing he wasn't.

Stercus Accidit

antiskeptic wrote: »

Same point. I didn't believe there was a heaven in order to desire to go to it until the day I came to know it existed. I didn't give a monkeys about religion until the day God turned up.

Are you saying you met god and that is your point?

1) In losing part of himself you would agree he is also gaining another part of himself (the ability to live truly according to his nature).

No I wouldn't agree and that is my point, the person you are on earth is not the person you will be in heaven, it may as well be someone else.

Good and evil as postive/negative ideas are just conventions in your worldview - they have no transcendent value.2) Your view of heaven is predicated on this view of humanity being true. There is no need to continue discussing according to this view - as I am not defending a position based on it.

What view of humanity, that who we are is defined by all facets of our personality?

Christianity says that if you don't want to be shorn of your base tendencies and desires, then 'to Heaven' you surely won't be going. It won't sound like Hell in that case. It will be Hell.

Will you be free of you lower-human characteristics in hell? As such, some other person is going there, or does that only apply to eternal boredom bliss.

But how can it be bland when it's one of a kind? And equipped with all the features necessary for it's new journey. You seem to suppose that because The Spirit of St. Louis spanned the Atlantic once that it's suitable for a trip to the Moon?

That is a nonsense statement, there is no adequate response to it.

It's your response to your own greed, selfishness, deceitfulness, spitefulness, hatefulness, malice, lusts .. that will ultimately form your final response to God on the issue of your salvation. Whether you believe in God or not doesn't alter those characteristics being yours nor your responding to them ... and thus God.

I havn't seen evidence to support this 'god' of yours existance, as such its existance is irrelevant to me. The crux of my point is that heaven will either be a boring eternal hell in its own right, or the soul that is sent there has no human characteristics at all, which define who you are.

If you want to use the device that they are "natural desires" (and so aren't evil in any objective, to-be-held-to-account sense) then by all means use that device. The device doesn't hide the heart behind the response from anyone who matters.

What do you mean by heart, the organ or the rhetorical device? A human being could not enjoy an eternal bland existance, an altered version could, my point is that that altered version is not the version floundering around on earth worshipping golden cups and disks of stale bread.

GLaDOS

Feck heaven, Valhalla is the place to be

antiskeptic

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Are you saying you met god and that is your point?

I'm saying that the listed-by-you upsides/downsides to God weren't the reason why I came to believe in God. I believe in God because God turned up. If he hadn't I'd have had no reason to believe in any up/down sides.

No I wouldn't agree and that is my point, the person you are on earth is not the person you will be in heaven, it may as well be someone else.

I think we're talking crossed purposes. You speak of someone living basely as having lost something (self-control) whereas that can also be seen as a gain (living according to their nature)

What view of humanity, that who we are is defined by all facets of our personality?

In the sense that all aspects belong to us equally - yes. As opposed to the Christian view. which sees the base side as a contortion of humanity. A sickness, a disease.

Will you be free of you lower-human characteristics in hell? As such, some other person is going there, or does that only apply to eternal boredom bliss.

In this life we have the ability and freedom to suppress truth. So, when we do something ugly (because we desire ugliness and want that desire satifised) we are able to suppress, to greater or lesser degree, our knowledge that the action was rotten. And that the action stemmed from an ugliness that sits in our own hearts. In Hell (or so the idea goes) a person will be stripped of their upper-human aspect (that which can love, relate, enjoy, create) and be left only with all that is ugly about them. But in this instance, they won't be able to suppress the truth about themselves and will be able to see themselves for what they are: rotten and ugly to the core of their being.

That is a nonsense statement, there is no adequate response to it.

So much for your clone BMW's rolling off the production line then.

I havn't seen evidence to support this 'god' of yours existance, as such its existance is irrelevant to me.

As my point pointed out - it doesn't matter whether you believe in him or not in order for his purposes regarding you to be executed. You don't get to choose whether you will respond to God, you only get to choose what that response will be.

The crux of my point is that heaven will either be a boring eternal hell in its own right, or the soul that is sent there has no human characteristics at all, which define who you are.What do you mean by heart, the organ or the rhetorical device? A human being could not enjoy an eternal bland existance, an altered version could, my point is that that altered version is not the version floundering around on earth worshipping golden cups and disks of stale bread.

Your point remains joined at the hip to the notion that our 'natural tendencies' are natural. And that without them we'd be less than human. And you have to suppose that a Creator capable of producing all you see around you can't easily have plenty more up his sleeve - when what he would have created must (assuming for a moment he exists) produce silence and humility.

I mean, who'd you be (if God existed) to say what and what cannot be). The created telling the Creator what the limitations of the Creator are.

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not on that outing he wasn't.

Empiricism is concerned with obtaining knowledge from experience, one cannot experience something from before they were born, therefore it would have been impossible for Twain to use empiricism on the subject of before he being born. Unless of course you somehow remember events from before you were born.;)

Stercus Accidit

antiskeptic wrote: »

So much for your clone BMW's rolling off the production line then.

This sums it up really, your previous 'analogy' made no sense, the above makes no sense, the original 'people are cars' (which you started) made no sense.

Tell me without rhetoric or ghastly analogy how the changed person(who gets to heaven) is the same person. A human would go insane with eternity, what goes to heaven of that person that would enjoy it?

antiskeptic

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Tell me without rhetoric or ghastly analogy how the changed person(who gets to heaven) is the same person.

The person was infected with a spiritual disease called Sin. In heaven they're the same person they were but without the disease. The same but changed.

A human would go insane with eternity, what goes to heaven of that person that would enjoy it?

The person who has come to hate the disease in all it's manifestations (what you call 'natural base desire') desires goodness as nothing else. And since all that is goodness stems from God and God is there, the person naturally desires to be there too. Quite what 'activity' there will be is anyones guess - but given God's creativity and promises there is little sense in worrying about boredom. Indeed, boredom is a notion tied up with time elapsing - which might not be possible if eternity contains no time.

munsterdevil

On the issue of hell and Christianity, if Satan is so keen for humans to commit sin in the world, shouldn't he really dig the "lost souls" who make it to hell? I mean if someone commits murder wouldn't it make more sense for Satan o actually reward that individual rather than make him miserable for eternity?

It's just another contradiction from the belief system that is Christianity and the afterlife.;)

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

It's just another contradiction from the belief system that is Christianity and the afterlife.;)

When you lick your Christian theology from the back of a cornflakes packet then 'contradictions' like that are to be expected :cool:

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you lick your Christian theology from the back of a cornflakes packet then 'contradictions' like that are to be expected :cool:

When you base your belief system around a book that is nearly 2,000 years old and written 60+ years after Jesus was around, you are bound to believe in anything.

Moreover, your comment or theology, does not really explain why Satan would hate souls who have done wrong in their lives, neither does it explain how Satan was allowed to rebel against God in the first place if God is so omnipotent.

irishh_bob

Blikes wrote: »

I don't think it's quite 'sitting around' as we know it here, but i get your point.

Also, Hell isn't a place of fire and brimstone, it's apparently, a complete separation from God.

i can put up with the seperation from god bit but the burning bit does make me sit up and take notice , never did like the sun much let alone being the main course in a neverending barbecue

strobe

I'll let the demon Crowley sum up my thoughts on the matter:

"We'll win, of course," he said. (Aziraphale the Angel)
"You don't want that," said the demon.
"Why not, pray?"
"Listen," said Crowley desperately, "how many musicians do you think your side have got, eh? First grade, I mean."
Aziraphale looked taken aback.
"Well, I should think-" he began.
"Two," said Crowley. "Elgar and Liszt. That's all. We've got the rest. Beethoven, Brahms, all the Bachs, Mozart, the lot. Can you imagine eternity with Elger?"
Aziraphale shut his eyes. "All too easily," he groaned.
"That's it, then," said Crowley, with a gleam of triumph.
He knew Aziraphale's weak spot all right. "No more compact discs. No more Albert Hall. No more Proms. No more Glyndbourne. Just celestial harmonies all day long."
"ineffable," Aziraphale murmured.
"Like eggs without salt, you said. Which reminds me. No salt, no eggs. No gravlax with dill sauce. No fascinating little restraunts where they know you. No Daily Telegraph crossword. No small antique shops. No bookshops, either. No interesting old editions. No" - Crowley scraped the bottom of Aziraphale's barrel of interests - "Regency silver snuffboxes. . ."
"But after we win life will be better!" croaked the angel.
"But it won't be interesting. Look, you know I'm right. You'd be as happy with a harp as I'd be with a pitchfork."
"You know we don't play harps."
"And we don't use pitchforks. I am being rhetorical."
They stared at one another.
Aziraphale spread his elegantly manicured hands.
"My people are more than happy for it to happen, you know. It's what it's all about, you see. The great final test. Flaming swords, the Four Horsemen, seas of blood, the whole tedious business." He shrugged.
"And then Game Over, Insert Coin?" said Crowley.
"Sometimes I find your methods of expression a little difficult to follow."

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

Moreover, your comment or theology, does not really explain why Satan would hate souls who have done wrong in their lives,

Satan hates us as well as God. Our sinning offends God and our sinning imperils us before a holy God. Two birds with one sin: us and God

neither does it explain how Satan was allowed to rebel against God in the first place if God is so omnipotent.

Satan being allowed to rebel doesn't affect God's omniopotence?? One can be omnipotent and permit something one finds reprehensible. Especially if it can serve a greater purpose such as being the means whereby we would be equipped with a choice.

God turns men into children of God. Satan was 'but' an angel.