Heaven/ hell

[Cheekyandfreaky]

I was listening to a ‘this American life’ podcast about a priest who was denounced as a heretic because of his ideas about Hell. He essentially came to a realisation that he didn’t believe the way hell was written in the bible and decided instead that humans create Hell and it exists here in the world we live in (the example he cited was the genocide in Rwanda).

I am not religious, I don’t believe in anything and have been very staunch in my non-religious beliefs, but, I found myself nodding. What if we are in both heaven and hell right now? I feel like I’m going mad just thinking about it because I’m not s Christian and the faith I was born into doesn’t acknowledge the existence of either but I feel like I believe something all of a sudden.

I guess I’m wondering a) could we be in heaven and hell right now and b) have you ever randomly felt like all of a sudden, out of nowhere that you believe something? C) does this belief even prove anything, I mean I don’t really know what to do with it?

Ok, so what evidence is there for any kind of existence outside the material world? The evidence is within ourselves.

That we're spiritual beings having a human experience
So there are 'spiritual beings' and there are human beings and the 'spiritual beings' are having some kind of holiday in the humans body or alongside them like some sort of simulacrum?

How do we know who the humans are and who the 'spiritual beings' are. Are the 'spiritual beings here by choice or where they forced here?
Can the humans go to heaven or is it just for the 'spiritual beings' when they get tired pretending to be human.

Seems a very complicated plot, with no actual facts or answers, its a bit like the story of a made for TV movie.

Vitalogy

The evidence is within ourselves

I'm sure you think that statements like this make you sound very deep and clever.

They really, really don't.

I'm not sure why you guys engage, given that you don't understand the language and concepts in the way we are using them, and don't wish to. Our experiences have shaped us, and no amount of you telling us we're wrong stupid deluded fantasists is going to change us. When you choose not to accept our perceptions, and misinterpret what we are saying in order to disprove it, then we aren't going to get anywhere. Did you read the article Greenheart posted?

If that's what you've taken out of what I've written Walkingdeadfangirl then sorry to have confused you.

I'm sure you think that statements like this make you sound very deep and clever That wasn't my intention but you're welcome to your opinion.

Pickle

I have read that article before. The problem is that Dr Williams idea of what God is is fundamentally different from the Christian God as described in the Bible and later texts.

The argument that Shortt makes and Williams picks up on is that 'God' might be some fundamental force or energy outside of our understanding of the universe. In that sense he is correct, 'God' could be that. However there is absolutely no evidence to support that, so in terms of proof, I am just as justified to argue that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog in order to create more of his kind. The two positions are both equally supported by facts and evidence.

The type of God he has outlined is the Deistic, 'primal energy/ultimate mind' type of God, which is very different from the Theistic, interventionist, personal God of all the Judeo-Christian religions.

In terms of using your 'experiences' as proof of God, the reason that the religious get short shrift for this is because for every person who can swear that they have had a personal, real experience of God and Jesus, I can find you an equal number who have had exactly the same experience with Vishnu, or Baal, or Quetzalcoatl.

And funnily enough, Jesus never seems to reveal themselves into the hearts of Hindus, or Lord Vishnu to a member of the C of E congregation in Croydon. You get the the point I'm making I assume?

I'm not sure why you guys engage, given that you don't understand the language and concepts in the way we are using them, and don't wish to. This is it, questions are asked so that statements can be made in return, not to actually find out the answers.
When I was an atheist I had little interest in anything to do with religion/spirituality, yet some posters feel drawn to this part of the forum. They're searching for something, so it's all good I suppose.

I have read that article before. How much of your time is spent reading/discussing religious/spiritual matters?

I think if someone wants to believe something outside the realms of reality, because deep down inside it makes them feel warm and fuzzy or because their parents told them it was true from birth, then that is fine.

But if you are going to engage with others who on the whole are rational thinkers and care about, evidence and the truth. Then you have a responsibility to provide a an explanation for what you believe and what evidence you have for it.

You cant be surprised when, if all you do is throw out random meaningless phrases, with no explanation of what they mean or evidence for them, that you get derided for being a bit la la.

Claiming that you were 'given' free will negates the whole concept of free will. By definition you cannot be granted it. What if you don't want free will?

Then I guess you could take yourself off to a cult of some description where you are told what to think / do / wear / eat / believe / value etc. You could give up your freedom and free will to another if you wanted, I suppose.

Maybe 'choice' would be a better word for it. I have choice to believe the earth is flat (or not), that climate change is real (or not), to be a christian / jew / muslim / hindu / sikh / atheist (or not).

There are quite a few religious Street folk put near my office (must be the nice weather). One is one who is adament that God has told him that world is ending in December (rotten birthday present for jc), the jehovas just didn't there and smile, the hare krishnas prance and chant, the fake monks pan handling, the not sure Whats who tell you that you look serene and can they talk to you about God?, the woman who marches up and down the street waving a Bible, and the 2 women further up who scream at random people that we all damned and going to hell.

The last ones particularly annoy me as they look very normal so you don't give them a wide berth until they are spitting in your face.

Then you have a responsibility to provide a an explanation for what you believe and what evidence you have for it. We have, but you won't accept it because it's not in the form of evidence that will satisfy you. But then you know that from the start, yet still choose to engage.

Fangirl, "But if you are going to engage with others who on the whole are rational thinkers and care about, evidence and the truth. " this is a thread in philosophy and religion, asking about the nature of Heaven and hell. It wasn't me that turned it into an opportunity to dissect other people's belief systems.

Patriarchy, you are doing just as the article outlines. You are telling me what I and other Christians believe, and then telling me we shouldn't believe it. Can you see the problem with that? I do not agree that the majority of UK Christians would recognise what you describe as Christianity. I work for the Church, I am a lay leader so take services and preach in church. I have a degree in theology and have studied since then. I have visited many churches, spoken to many Christians. Very, very few of them would recognise what you describe as Christianity. So don't tell me I'm wrong to believe in something I already do not believe in.

You seem to be determined to accuse me of having concrete beliefs that neither of us have.

I fully understand your point about different cultures experiencing different gods. I am in no position to tell anyone they are wrong. I can only talk about my beliefs based on my experiences- which are no more valid than anyone else's.

Pickle

Where have I told you what you believe?

I have described (defined is the better word) the Judeo-Christian God who is described in the Bible and later texts.

Theistic, interventionist, personal

Please if any of the those three adjectives are not accurate then correct me.

It sounds like you are very well qualified in the Church and christian religion in general. The thing is that nobody who isn't already a believer is particularly impressed by that knowledge.

There are people in the world who can speak fluent elvish, hold degrees in Tolkien folklore and know everything there is to know about Middle Earth.

I can't win an argument with people like that about the nature of Elves, or where the Dwarves really come from, or what Sauron's true intentions were and at what point he became truly evil.

That does not in any way mean that what they believe is actually real

This thread has descended into extreme oddness. An atheist has decided that Christians who have academic degrees and are licences to preach and teach in the C of E including myself, Pickle and the former Archbishop of Canterbury are not proper Christians because we have a different understanding of God to him.

This is just daft.

There is a strand of new atheism that insists that all people of faith are fundamentalists and that Christians/Muslims or whatever who are not fundamentalists are not proper Christians or Muslims. John Gray an atheist himself takes a punt at this view of his own tribe in his latest book ' Seven Types of Atheism.' Perhaps Gray is the wrong sort of atheist......

Hardly anyone wants to take ownership of the Christian hell these days. Lakes of fire and weeping and gnashing teeth – the biblical imagery is too harsh for modern sensibilities.

Unbelievers might annoy from time to time but don’t seem that bad – surely not deserving of an eternity in hell, a fate that is so clearly mapped out for them in the bible.

There are often attempts to ‘walk back’ the cruelty of the narrative without condemning it completely. One report – I believe there is a link up thread - had the Pope talking of unredeemed souls simply ceasing to exist rather than being punished. (The Vatican was quick to deny that this was the Pope’s actual position, doubling down on the traditional assertion of eternal damnation for unbelievers.)

When the Pope met the young son of an atheist who had died and who was worried his father would not get into heaven, the Pope reassured him that he would. When it came down to it, the injustice of having an afterlife arrangement that discriminates on religious grounds was evident even to the Pope.

Another dilution that crops up these days is the idea that unbelievers will remain separated from God after death and that is the chief punishment rather than torture. Consciences are then salved with the thought that atheists aren’t expecting post-death bliss anyway and it would all be pearls before swine. But that’s as unfair as saying, ‘I only need to give a slice of chocolate cake to those anticipating I’m going to give them a slice of chocolate cake. The rest don’t deserve it.’

Greenheart

Please argue against the argument being made, not one you have invented.

I have never said or implied that anyone on this thread is not a 'real christian'. All I have done is describe the nature of God as described in the Bible and other religious texts. I have even invited you to show me where I am wrong.

All myself and others have had in response is 'you can't define my God' (we aren't, we are describing the Bible's definition of him) or meaningless mumbo jumbo about 'finding the answer inside'.

meaningless mumbo jumbo about 'finding the answer inside'. meaningless to you because you've not known it yet.

So, we were having a lovely conversation about our different view points, but as soon as the theistic side can't justify their position, they resort back to circular, meaningless phases and getting on their high horse about being attacked in their own back yard. That's a shame, I was really hoping that there might be some real arguments and rationalisation here.

I'm going to politely say, clearly we are speaking different languages and there is no point continuing. Every explanation is being ignored as irrelevant to the point atheists want to make.

Greenheart, Vitalogy, thank you for your interesting posts.

What response are you hoping for? WiseOldElfIsNick

Thank you to you too picklemepopcorn

pickle that is sad that you don't feel able to discuss these things.

The only Christians to take the Bible literally are fundamentalists. So insisting that Christians take the Bible literally in their description of God is insisting that all Christians are fundamentalists. Oddly enough a fundamentalist God can come out of that approach.

However the Bible is a library written by different people over thousands of years and then collected together, rewritten and re-edited. Significant chunks of it such as the wisdom literature use metaphorical language. Some of the images of God are to modern and post modern eyes patriarchal and cruel. Other images are not. Some are feminine juniaproject.com/biblical-maternal-images-for-god/. Oddly enough the Christian fundamentalists can ignore those maternal passages as well. Is there a pattern here of people reading into,the Bible what they want to hear? The Bible is not a straightforward text.

Once again Christians do not just take their images of God from the Bible. They have two thousand years of thinkers, artists, musicians, writers and their own experience. Scientific Materialism is not the only metaphysical game in town.

If you are convinced that God cannot exist then no amount of discussion board debate is going to change your mind. So like the others I'm out. Have a lovely day.

greenheart- you have the luxury of a good education and seem erudite.
Sitting in your ivory tower surrounded by thinking christians, you think that "most" christians take this academic approach to christianity.

They don't.

Coming from rural Scotland most christians I meet take the bible literally.
And world wide most christians take their religion as a hell fire and damnation type faith.
You are living in your cloisters.
Far from being " fundamental" christians as you label them- I would suggest that these who take the bible seriously as the usual common or garden type christians.