Do you believe in heaven and hell?

[Drunken Actuarial]

See poll please.

[Drunken Actuarial]

Originally Posted by GuyWhoLikesMath

I find the concept of believing in one but not bother to be logically inconsistent.

Go on...







(your message is too short)

[PennJersey]

What is with guywholikesmath not liking what he says and deleting all of his posts?

Henry

[Drunken Actuarial]

Originally Posted by PennJersey

What is with guywholikesmath not liking what he says and deleting all of his posts?

Henry

Yeah, really. What's the deal?

[wickedstorm]

I chose "Heaven Only" because it is closest to my belief that there is some sort of after-life, but not the "Heaven and Hell" that so many churches preach about to keep people "in line". Of course "in line" for the churches means the people doing, saying and thinking what the churches tell them to do, or the threat of "hell" looms over them.

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by wickedstorm

I chose "Heaven Only" because it is closest to my belief that there is some sort of after-life, but not the "Heaven and Hell" that so many churches preach about to keep people "in line". Of course "in line" for the churches means the people doing, saying and thinking what the churches tell them to do, or the threat of "hell" looms over them.

But science claims that for every action there is a reaction. As far as I can remember from school, that's a fact, not theory.
Therefore, if there is good, there must be evil.
You can't define the concept of "good" without a concept of "evil."
Therefore, if there is a heaven, there must be a "non-heaven."
If heaven is a good place (and most people believe that it is), then "non-heaven" must be an equally awful place. Therefore, hell.

[Sassygrl]

I believe in both, right here on Earth.

[Arius]

I have given this much thought...

and I still don't have the answer.

I guess my experiences in life have brought me to the conclusion that there is really neither, but there is both. Allow me to explain.

First, in the biblical sense of heaven and hell, I say no, they do not exist. They are creations of man in order to assign consequences to actions that either go in favor of or against a specific belief system. I don't believe in the "pearly gates" nor do I believe in the "fires of hell". Again, in my uncertainty, they could exist, but I simply do not believe they do.

I do believe after we die our energy is transformed (since energy cannot be destroyed, only changed). Our life energies become manifestations of who we were (hence eternal suffering or bliss, depending on the type of energy we exhibit), as we continue on our journey to improvement and enlightenment.

After that, I am not really sure what happens. The principal of reincarnation entices me, as does the possible existence of other "planes" of reality. The more I study these possibilities, the more I am sure that there is an afterlife, and that we are bound, as mortals, to not understand it for a reason.

Since I cannot explain the afterlife, what it is, and how it works, I will just continue to do what, in my heart, I believe is right. Then we will see what happens in the eventuality it is my turn to find out.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

But science claims that for every action there is a reaction. As far as I can remember from school, that's a fact, not theory.
Therefore, if there is good, there must be evil.
You can't define the concept of "good" without a concept of "evil."
Therefore, if there is a heaven, there must be a "non-heaven."
If heaven is a good place (and most people believe that it is), then "non-heaven" must be an equally awful place. Therefore, hell.

You are very right here, but looking at it only from one angle.

Evil is not a reaction to good, nor good to evil, so your alluding to science (Newton's law) does not apply. If it did, then every time you did something good, you would have to do something evil.

Evil was created by man the first time he realized the felt shame or guilt over an action. Well before the Ten Commandments, prehistoric man felt a growth of "morality" within him, and allowed him to form societies (not as we know them) that allowed for his survival.

Similarly, good was also created by man in a similar manner. When something made "moral" sense, it became good, while things that were counter to his moral fiber became bad.

And those things have evolved over the millennia. Our sense of right and wrong, good and evil, has changed over the course of human history. This would lead one to believe that both good and evil are human creations (or God's creation within man) and can be changed as evolution of the human moral code adapts.

Also, if your theory on the existence of heaven must be a "non-heaven", then I challenge you with the following question:

Isn't it quite possible that we are living in the non-heaven now?

[Pineygirl]

I could never see the point in reincarnation, especially since you're supposed to go through all kinds of rigamorale to understand who you were in your past life. Funny, not one of my Buddhist friends (or others who believe in reincarnation) have ever been a nasty peasant. They've all been sweet, honorable royalty, or at the very least, someone from the upper classes. So I could conclude that only royalty gets reincarnated. Hmmmm, maybe that explains the lovely caste system that nobody ever discusses when extolling Eastern religions.

Which, IMHO, leaves a heaven 'n' hell situation. No, I don't think earth is hell, because there is too much good here. There is no good in hell. Just as there is no evil in heaven. So earth is not heaven, either. Once our souls leave our bodies, I believe that we continue in consciousness of who/what we were on earth. But we achieve the purity of one state or the other, once we have been examined and judged.

Since absolutely nobody is capable of being sinless, absolutely nobody qualifies for a pure heaven. But there is sure enough evil in all of us to send us downward. If you don't believe me, just pay attention to what you think in your mind whenever you're behind a slow driver. It isn't pure and spiritually holy, believe me.

I find it intriguing that Paul describes a man who was "taken up to the third heaven." What third heaven? When you don't have a Hubble telescope, you see one heaven. You may infer a second heaven from the stars and planets. But a third? Any ancient who discusses a third heaven is, IMHO, thinking WAY too advanced for the day.

For example, suppose the earth, all of the stars, planets, etc. are nothing more than a huge sphere (hey, why not -- just about everything else is a sphere)? Imagine that everything that is lies within a basketball.

There is infinity and eternity outside of that basketball. But because WE (the same puny people who can't cure a cold) haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. We refuse to even postulate its existence. How arrogant we are!!! We don't have all the answers, we KNOW we don't have all the answers, yet we act as if we do.

The Apostles claim that Jesus went up into the heavens. You know, what if He did? What if everything in the Bible IS true? Then I would assume that a whole lotta people have a major problem.

I think it's time to be a bit more open-minded about the truth of so-called "man-made" religions. There is too much similarity among them to ignore the very real possibility that miracles have happened, the unexplainable has occurred, and we are the children of a loving god. Which leaves only one decision -- which god, and what do we do about it when we decide?