Heaven, Hell, and Human's Need to Be Remebered

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]BBriere wrote:
People’s concept of heaven and hell is completely wrong according to the Christian view. Nowhere in the Bible does it say heaven will be filled with all your desires and hell will be filled with eternal torture. Heaven, as in Biblical references, is a place to worship, glorify, and be with God for all eternity. Heaven is for God, not for man just like man was made for God not vice versa. Hell is a place of eternal separation from God. It is not a place where you will be tortured around the clock for all eternity.

In this view, I think Hank Hanegraaff described it best saying those who wind up in hell want to wind up in hell. They have spent their entire lives trying to avoid a relationship with God. So when they wind up separated from him for all eternity they have successfully gotten what they want. This isn’t being mean spirited or vicious. Why would someone that didn’t love God want to go to heaven where they would be with him forever? It’s like saying all roads lead to heaven. Then what about those that don’t believe in heaven?
[/quote]

What? Do you even read the Bible.

22

I do, why? Are you claiming heaven will be filled with eternal desires and hell will be filled with unending torture and pain? If so, please cite verses.

23

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Another one of these?

Okay.

The argument for non-existence of Heaven and Hell (hence, the non-existence of God) fills the need for people to avoid accountability for their actions and remain cognitively consistent when relinquishing self-control and power by submitting to their animal urges and indulging in whatever acts they please, to whatever degree of morality?

A group of intellectuals wishing to control the masses plays on their own lust for immorality and creates empiricism, skepticism, nihilism and the overall idea of moral relativism?

See what I did there?

On a sidenote. When are you guys going to finally get it into your thick skulls that not all people who believe in God, Heaven and Hell act morally based upon the desire to avoid punishment and get a doggy treat?
[/quote]

Logic fail happening here. The existence of heaven or hell is not contingent on the deisre to enforce, or remove, moral accountability. [/quote]

No clue what you are talking about. You are going to have to express your ideas more clearly.
[/quote]

Ct. Rockula started a thread discussing the potential origins for the belief in heaven and hell. Your response is to attack the imagined motivations of those arguing against their actual existence. You are failing to address what’s actually being discussed. If heaven and hell exist, it will be independent of the motivations of the people that don’t want to believe in them. Attacking their motivations, instead of the content of their statements, is nonsensical.

24

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

Ok, that part could be ommited from my question.It really isnt worded correctly. Sory for the misleading concept.

What I’m asking is if the whole reason for religion and afterlife is to ease our minds into believing we won’t be forgotten?
[/quote]

“… religion cannot be the ultimate source of intra-group cooperation. Cooperation is made possible by a suite of mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion. Moral judgments depend on these mechanisms and appear to operate independently of one’s religious background. However, although religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation, it can play a role in both facilitating and stabilizing cooperation within groups, and as such, could be the target of cultural selection.”

  • Marc Hauser, professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard University

The most recent research seems to indicate that religion evolved by piggy backing on the moral machinery humanity had already evolved. It conferred a selection advantage in ancient times because it made it possible for large groups of unrelated individuals to form and be sustained. I suspect the primary emotions associated with religions original rise was our similarly wired senses of right and wrong. I think this out weighed our desire to be remembered or to provide comfort, which I’m guessing were concurrent, but secondary emotional side effects.

25

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

Ok, that part could be ommited from my question.It really isnt worded correctly. Sory for the misleading concept.

What I’m asking is if the whole reason for religion and afterlife is to ease our minds into believing we won’t be forgotten?
[/quote]

“… religion cannot be the ultimate source of intra-group cooperation. Cooperation is made possible by a suite of mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion. Moral judgments depend on these mechanisms and appear to operate independently of one’s religious background. However, although religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation, it can play a role in both facilitating and stabilizing cooperation within groups, and as such, could be the target of cultural selection.”

  • Marc Hauser, professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard University

The most recent research seems to indicate that religion evolved by piggy backing on the moral machinery humanity had already evolved. It conferred a selection advantage in ancient times because it made it possible for large groups of unrelated individuals to form and be sustained. I suspect the primary emotions associated with religions original rise was our similarly wired senses of right and wrong. I think this out weighed our desire to be remembered or to provide comfort, which I’m guessing were concurrent, but secondary emotional side effects. [/quote]

Wow! A professor of “EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY” - and at HARVARD!!! He simply MUST be an EXPERT on religion!

This thread reads like a parody of sophomores gathering late-night to wax philosophical about their parent’s “stupid oppressive religion.” LOL.

26

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

Ok, that part could be ommited from my question.It really isnt worded correctly. Sory for the misleading concept.

What I’m asking is if the whole reason for religion and afterlife is to ease our minds into believing we won’t be forgotten?
[/quote]

“… religion cannot be the ultimate source of intra-group cooperation. Cooperation is made possible by a suite of mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion. Moral judgments depend on these mechanisms and appear to operate independently of one’s religious background. However, although religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation, it can play a role in both facilitating and stabilizing cooperation within groups, and as such, could be the target of cultural selection.”

  • Marc Hauser, professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard University

The most recent research seems to indicate that religion evolved by piggy backing on the moral machinery humanity had already evolved. It conferred a selection advantage in ancient times because it made it possible for large groups of unrelated individuals to form and be sustained. I suspect the primary emotions associated with religions original rise was our similarly wired senses of right and wrong. I think this out weighed our desire to be remembered or to provide comfort, which I’m guessing were concurrent, but secondary emotional side effects. [/quote]

Wow! A professor of “EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY” - and at HARVARD!!! He simply MUST be an EXPERT on religion!

This thread reads like a parody of sophomores gathering late-night to wax philosophical about their parent’s “stupid oppressive religion.” LOL.

[/quote]

Suggest you smarten up a bit, reread the quote, and then apologize for vomiting stupidity onto the internet.

27

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Another one of these?

Okay.

The argument for non-existence of Heaven and Hell (hence, the non-existence of God) fills the need for people to avoid accountability for their actions and remain cognitively consistent when relinquishing self-control and power by submitting to their animal urges and indulging in whatever acts they please, to whatever degree of morality?

A group of intellectuals wishing to control the masses plays on their own lust for immorality and creates empiricism, skepticism, nihilism and the overall idea of moral relativism?

See what I did there?

On a sidenote. When are you guys going to finally get it into your thick skulls that not all people who believe in God, Heaven and Hell act morally based upon the desire to avoid punishment and get a doggy treat?
[/quote]

Logic fail happening here. The existence of heaven or hell is not contingent on the deisre to enforce, or remove, moral accountability. [/quote]

No clue what you are talking about. You are going to have to express your ideas more clearly.
[/quote]

Ct. Rockula started a thread discussing the potential origins for the belief in heaven and hell. Your response is to attack the imagined motivations of those arguing against their actual existence. You are failing to address what’s actually being discussed. If heaven and hell exist, it will be independent of the motivations of the people that don’t want to believe in them. Attacking their motivations, instead of the content of their statements, is nonsensical. [/quote]

Well, either you have amazing powers of telepathy or you and the Ct. are working from the same dictionary. Because I never saw the word “belief” anywhere in that first post. What I did see were the words “create,” “control,” “enforce,” “condition,” and “behavior.”

Now, I’m sure you’ll gleefully tell me where I’m wrong, but when I read “A group of intellectuals…create heaven and hell,” that certainly appears to assume the non-existence of the aforementioned. Moreover, it assumes the author, who is clearly not religious, understands the psychology and motivations of not only those who follow a given religion, but its leaders and all of the followers and leaders of all Heaven and Hell containing religions from the beginning of time.

If I’m expected to ascertain the meaning of that first post based upon what’s written there, you’ll have to forgive me, but it’s gonna take a lot more than “logic.”

28

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html
“Philosopher Dan Dennett calls for religion – all religion – to be taught in schools, so we can understand its nature as a natural phenomenon.”

29

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

Ok, that part could be ommited from my question.It really isnt worded correctly. Sory for the misleading concept.

What I’m asking is if the whole reason for religion and afterlife is to ease our minds into believing we won’t be forgotten?
[/quote]

“… religion cannot be the ultimate source of intra-group cooperation. Cooperation is made possible by a suite of mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion. Moral judgments depend on these mechanisms and appear to operate independently of one’s religious background. However, although religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation, it can play a role in both facilitating and stabilizing cooperation within groups, and as such, could be the target of cultural selection.”

  • Marc Hauser, professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard University

The most recent research seems to indicate that religion evolved by piggy backing on the moral machinery humanity had already evolved. It conferred a selection advantage in ancient times because it made it possible for large groups of unrelated individuals to form and be sustained. I suspect the primary emotions associated with religions original rise was our similarly wired senses of right and wrong. I think this out weighed our desire to be remembered or to provide comfort, which I’m guessing were concurrent, but secondary emotional side effects. [/quote]

Wow! A professor of “EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY” - and at HARVARD!!! He simply MUST be an EXPERT on religion!

This thread reads like a parody of sophomores gathering late-night to wax philosophical about their parent’s “stupid oppressive religion.” LOL.

[/quote]

Suggest you smarten up a bit, reread the quote, and then apologize for vomiting stupidity onto the internet. [/quote]

I was merely commenting upon the vomiting stupidity so evident in your post.

30

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Another one of these?

Okay.

The argument for non-existence of Heaven and Hell (hence, the non-existence of God) fills the need for people to avoid accountability for their actions and remain cognitively consistent when relinquishing self-control and power by submitting to their animal urges and indulging in whatever acts they please, to whatever degree of morality?

A group of intellectuals wishing to control the masses plays on their own lust for immorality and creates empiricism, skepticism, nihilism and the overall idea of moral relativism?

See what I did there?

On a sidenote. When are you guys going to finally get it into your thick skulls that not all people who believe in God, Heaven and Hell act morally based upon the desire to avoid punishment and get a doggy treat?
[/quote]

Logic fail happening here. The existence of heaven or hell is not contingent on the deisre to enforce, or remove, moral accountability. [/quote]

No clue what you are talking about. You are going to have to express your ideas more clearly.
[/quote]

Ct. Rockula started a thread discussing the potential origins for the belief in heaven and hell. Your response is to attack the imagined motivations of those arguing against their actual existence. You are failing to address what’s actually being discussed. If heaven and hell exist, it will be independent of the motivations of the people that don’t want to believe in them. Attacking their motivations, instead of the content of their statements, is nonsensical. [/quote]

Well, either you have amazing powers of telepathy or you and the Ct. are working from the same dictionary. Because I never saw the word “belief” anywhere in that first post. What I did see were the words “create,” “control,” “enforce,” “condition,” and “behavior.”

Now, I’m sure you’ll gleefully tell me where I’m wrong, but when I read “A group of intellectuals…create heaven and hell,” that certainly appears to assume the non-existence of the aforementioned. Moreover, it assumes the author, who is clearly not religious, understands the psychology and motivations of not only those who follow a given religion, but its leaders and all of the followers and leaders of all Heaven and Hell containing religions from the beginning of time.

If I’m expected to ascertain the meaning of that first post based upon what’s written there, you’ll have to forgive me, but it’s gonna take a lot more than “logic.”[/quote]
The Count’s post does assume heaven and hell are human construct that are not objectively real. If you want to attack that assumption, the only way to do it is to provide evidence for the existence of heave and hell.

31

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Wow! A professor of “EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY” - and at HARVARD!!! He simply MUST be an EXPERT on religion!

This thread reads like a parody of sophomores gathering late-night to wax philosophical about their parent’s “stupid oppressive religion.” LOL.[/quote]

The fallacy here is that you think religion needs some form of theological brainwashing to be considered an expert in a field that is just as valid as a fairyologist.

32

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html
“Philosopher Dan Dennett calls for religion – all religion – to be taught in schools, so we can understand its nature as a natural phenomenon.”[/quote]

That is something I could agree with.

33

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

I was merely commenting upon the vomiting stupidity so evident in your post.
[/quote]

What stupidity? I cited a peer reviewed paper, written by professor of of evolutionary biology at a prestigious university, talking about the evolution of religion in humanity. What part of that is stupid?

34

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html
“Philosopher Dan Dennett calls for religion – all religion – to be taught in schools, so we can understand its nature as a natural phenomenon.”[/quote]

That is something I could agree with.[/quote]

I love this idea, but based on my experience of going to a public high school in south GA, I feel the application would be very one sided.

90% of the semester would be spent on studying the bible, b/c it’s a fact that the bible contains bible verses, with a smattering of disparaging facts about other religions thrown in.

Maybe Obama will make the write a balanced federal plan though, since he’s secretly a Muslim and all.

35

[quote]attydeb2005 wrote:
Religion was invented to control man.[/quote]

Yep. Religion and state go hand in hand.

Since the advent of modern social democracy the new religion is to the State itself.

36

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]attydeb2005 wrote:
Religion was invented to control man.[/quote]

Yep. Religion and state go hand in hand.

Since the advent of modern social democracy the new religion is to the State itself.[/quote]

Is that why communism which is total state control denies any form of religion? I mean seriously, people were martyred for years over preaching Christianity and yet it was invented as part of some state control?

37

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]attydeb2005 wrote:
Religion was invented to control man.[/quote]

Yep. Religion and state go hand in hand.

Since the advent of modern social democracy the new religion is to the State itself.[/quote]

The jews lived in tribes and God did not want them to have a King, they wanted one. Bible teaches several times to take no one before God. So God is hirer than humans, but humans should keep it at that, except for the clergymen.

38

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]attydeb2005 wrote:
Religion was invented to control man.[/quote]

Yep. Religion and state go hand in hand.

Since the advent of modern social democracy the new religion is to the State itself.[/quote]

Is that why communism which is total state control denies any form of religion? I mean seriously, people were martyred for years over preaching Christianity and yet it was invented as part of some state control? [/quote]

Exactly. It is the height of ignorance to state that most religions were “invented” or “created” with the intention of controlling mass amounts of people. A cursory glance at the history of most religions will quickly reveal that they were typically started by a single male who explicitly rejected just such power and all its accoutrements.

That a religion was hijacked by the State does not say anything at all about the religion itself.

39

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]attydeb2005 wrote:
Religion was invented to control man.[/quote]

Yep. Religion and state go hand in hand.

Since the advent of modern social democracy the new religion is to the State itself.[/quote]

Is that why communism which is total state control denies any form of religion? I mean seriously, people were martyred for years over preaching Christianity and yet it was invented as part of some state control? [/quote]

Communism may as well be a religion. What part of ‘unquestionable dogma is evil’ is so hard to understand?

40

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]attydeb2005 wrote:
Religion was invented to control man.[/quote]

Yep. Religion and state go hand in hand.

Since the advent of modern social democracy the new religion is to the State itself.[/quote]

Is that why communism which is total state control denies any form of religion? I mean seriously, people were martyred for years over preaching Christianity and yet it was invented as part of some state control? [/quote]

Communism may as well be a religion. What part of ‘unquestionable dogma is evil’ is so hard to understand?[/quote]

Read the Epistles of St. Paul. He exhorts people to question what he writes. He challenges them to see for themselves if what he writes compares to what else is in the Bible. This was also a man that spent several years trying to persecute Christians and gave up a high place in society to preach Christianity and eventually be martyred for it. He always urged people to talk to those who claimed to have seen the risen Christ.