# Hell



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 28, 2007)

Basically I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts on Hell. I don't personally believe in it. To me it's pointless to punish people infinitely. Punishment is meant to change behaviour. But indefinite punishment doesn't serve a purpose because the behaviour change never has a chance to take place.

Funny Side note: Ever read The thermodynamics of Hell?


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 28, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Basically I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts on Hell. I don't personally believe in it. *To me it's pointless to punish people infinitely. Punishment is meant to change behaviour.* But indefinite punishment doesn't serve a purpose because the behaviour change never has a chance to take place.



 And thus, this is what hell would have to be: Punishment, in a way, yes, but not an eternal one: There would simply be no point. Eternal punishment would be simply unjust, considering how, for example, You can't be sure which of the dozens of gods out there could be real ( if any ), and according to most scriptures embracing the idea of hell, believeing in the wrong god can take You there. 

 So, like this life can sometimes seem nearly unbearable, yet the prospect of an afterlife is there, a so-called hell would also have to have a prospect of re-education and an end of punishment. More of a purgatory than a hell, actually. 

 Eternal hell would indicate that our theoretical God has some sadistic tendencies, and since there is quite a number of positive things in the world, this cannot be so. 

Okay, that's enough for now; I'll elaborate later if necessary. And on the thermodynamics of hell: Great stuff! ^_^ 

~Sylv


----------



## Bloodangel (Apr 28, 2007)

I don't think there is hell, because not even a god would have enough evil in it to send someone to something worse than they could ever possibly concieve, which is what hell is generaly thought to be


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 28, 2007)

Being agnostic, my ideas about the afterlife, or indeed whether there is such a thing, are pretty fuzzy. But I'd have to say there isn't any such thing as hell, because I've studied ethics, and 'right and wrong' are rarely, if ever, black and white. Even if there is some sort of superior conscience sorting parting souls into 'good' and 'bad' piles, we couldn't possibly be expected to predict which pile we could end up in... definitions of right and wrong vary wildly based on conscience, upbringing, culture, time period, etcetera. It would be completely arbitrary if a superior conscience, benevolent or not, were to sort us expecting that we would feel rewarded or punished based on our categorization, because especially if it's an omniscient superior conscience, how could we, simple mortals, ever possibly be expected to have as elevated a concept and knowledge of good and bad? For all we know it's ultimately sinful to eat vegetables. It would be completely useless.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 28, 2007)

Interesting idea, Cinnabar. Yet there is one apparent flaw in it, if I may say so ( and it just so happens Ive discussed this issue with my beloved on the phone a few hours ago =) ): 

 Regardless of ourselves being flawed, an omniscient conscience would know what we can figure out for ourselves. After all, there are some basic things that every man, of every faith - or un-faith - can accept as "good".  Pursuit of happiness, trying Your best not do do any harm onto others OR Your environment, making the best of Your innate abilities. Thus, I think almost any man on earth who stops and thinks about it a while would come to the conclusion that killing other people, _in general_, is "bad". ( Yes, there are exceptions, in complex situations. Yet if such situations arise, a theoretical God, being omniscient, would understand the reasons for our actions. )

 As such, I personally believe that such a hypothetical God would judge us only by our intentions, not by the outcome of our actions. _If_ it is impossible for an individual to see why, say, harming other people is not a good thing to do, if this individual would be convinced, truly convinced that it is the _right_ thing to do, then I don't think that an omniscient God would hold a grudge against such a person. After all, his motives would be clear to such a God, so this God would understand why it was impossible for the individual not only to act in an other way, but also to even think in an other way. 
 However, if we do something that causes great harm to others knowing damn well what we do, and even worse: we do it for personal gain, or for other trivial reasons - yes, then I can imagine that such a God would, figuratively speaking, wave his finger at us. After all, we damn well knew it wasn't the right thing to do - the rule "Do not onto others what You do not wish that others do onto You" applies even for atheists. It's common sense, after all. Such a God would possibly use some kind of a resocialisation or reeducation instance; a Hell Ã¡ la Jacob's Ladder, Jack, or Memnoch: A place - or state of mind - where we recognize what we've done wrong, and why it was wrong. 

 End of philosophy =)

~Sylv


----------



## Monster Tamer (Apr 28, 2007)

Hell is just a display that even God, lord of all and everything, loses his holy temper.

Hades is there for a good reason.


----------



## Saturn (Apr 28, 2007)

I don't really believe in either Heaven or Hell.  I just sort of think that we die, and...that's it.  *shrug*


----------



## King_Raxxor (Apr 28, 2007)

Hell... m/ Satan and Hellfire!!!

lol.  Seriously, I dunno what to think either.  I always believed there should be some sort of punishment but eternal?  That eternal thing is what got me away from the Christianity BS.  Do I still believe in god?  Yes I do, and I do believe god isn't some jealous, immature, retarted joke as the Christians put him to be.  I believe a god who created this entire universe from the smallest atoms to the hugest galaxies is certainly much more of an advanced being and thinks far more complex than none of us can even imagine.  

Christians point that out that god is eternal, yet from my point of view, he sounds like an immature, power-drunk human being that became a god and now wan'ts to abuse his power.  Just send's everyone to hell like that?  Thats the solution to everything right?  I fucking hate those stupid evangelists for being so hyprocrytical.

I see those guys on T.V. convincing people that they're gonna go to hell, and being smart little bastards they are, they manipulate them to convince them to turn to the Christian's religion, and that pisses me off. I
think if there was a hell, the first ones to go in is those fucks.


----------



## ADF (Apr 28, 2007)

Well according to the Jesus Christ church missionary I met on the street this current realm of existence is worse than hell (says a few things about his optimism).

So if he is to be believed going there isn't so bad.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 28, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Well according to the Jesus Christ church missionary I met on the street this current realm of existence is worse than hell (says a few things about his optimism).
> 
> So if he is to be believed going there isn't so bad.



I've always said the Heavens and Hells we create for ourselves here on Earth are far worst than anything any God could dream up for us.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 28, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> And thus, this is what hell would have to be: Punishment, in a way, yes, but not an eternal one: There would simply be no point. Eternal punishment would be simply unjust, considering how, for example, You can't be sure which of the dozens of gods out there could be real ( if any ), and according to most scriptures embracing the idea of hell, believeing in the wrong god can take You there.
> 
> So, like this life can sometimes seem nearly unbearable, yet the prospect of an afterlife is there, a so-called hell would also have to have a prospect of re-education and an end of punishment. More of a purgatory than a hell, actually.
> 
> ...



I have heard the theory from a christian minister that Hell is not punishment. That it is the lack of reward. Or like purgatory. He theorized that Hell could be a good explanation for ghosts. People trapped on Earth forced to watch for eternity without being able to effect anything. I didn't care for this theory either, I think I'd rather watch the world for eternity to see what happens rather than live in a dream world.


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 28, 2007)

I like your reasoning, Sylvine. I'm sort of in agreement with Saturn; I don't think there's any heaven or hell. I can't be made to believe that there's some sort of post-life sorting of souls; I think that if there is an afterlife, it's probably just an alternate plane of existence. But if it's incorporeal, it probably can't be as bad as our world is now.


----------



## KabukiHomewood (Apr 28, 2007)

I believe that we are spirit incorporated into material bodies with free will so we can make decisions and make mistakes and learn.  I believe we chose the body that we did with full knowledge of the challenges we would face in this lifetime. I do not believe that the Higher Power punishes us, but we DO punish ourselves, to atone for past transgressions against the will of God.  When we die, we return to our true form, of Spirit, and we will understand why we chose the life we did, and prepare ourselves for the next lifetime, always working towards the fullest understanding of Love, Light, and Truth.


----------



## foxy (Apr 28, 2007)

My thoughts on hell are basically that it's an absurd concept and that the idea's existence and continued propagation reflect poorly upon both its initial inventors and humanity as a species.


----------



## foxy (Apr 28, 2007)

KabukiHomewood said:
			
		

> I believe that we are spirit incorporated into material bodies with free will so we can make decisions and make mistakes and learn.  I believe we chose the body that we did with full knowledge of the challenges we would face in this lifetime. I do not believe that the Higher Power punishes us, but we DO punish ourselves, to atone for past transgressions against the will of God.  When we die, we return to our true form, of Spirit, and we will understand why we chose the life we did, and prepare ourselves for the next lifetime, always working towards the fullest understanding of Love, Light, and Truth.


P1. If there is free will in Heaven then there is the possibility that someone will commit a sin there.
P2. In as much as the only punishment available for sin is hell (i.e., Satan and his followers, as pointed out above), it stands to reason that once a soul sins in heaven it will be cast to hell.
P3. Since there exists the possiblity that each soul will sin and there exists an eternity for that possibility be expressed then it is a mathematical certainty that every soul in heaven will eventually sin.
C1. Therefore ultimately god will be all alone again.


----------



## Lobo Roo (Apr 28, 2007)

I don't believe in hell (or heaven actually) but if there was one...I'd say it's whatever your worst habit was on Earth, but you have to do it so much that it's hell.

Like...say you drink too much. Go to hell, and you have to drink constantly, which means you're always sick and puking everywhere and hungover. I donno, though..becaue if you're a sexaholic, it means sex constantly...which I suppose could get tired, but sounds kind of fun for awhile....but I guess not for eternity.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 29, 2007)

My opinion.

Hell is the condition of being apart from God.  It's the equivalent of someone who sits in the corner and faces the wall, outside in the cold, when if they'd only turn around and look behind them, there is God, and the others, waiting for them with a feast in a warm home with beautiful lights.  It's the outer darkness, where there is wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth.  All the lake of fire and dante stuff is fun imagery, just that.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 29, 2007)

I thought this place was Hell 
I'm confused.


----------



## DavidN (Apr 29, 2007)

P1. You use propositional logic to argue with people on a forum.
C1. You really need better things to do.


----------



## Xonic the Fox (Apr 29, 2007)

For me, life is hell enough. I don't believe in any hell after life, I believe that life is life, there isn't anything after it. When you die, you disappear into darkness and oblivion.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 29, 2007)

Well, it could always be _worse_, right? That would trump the current hell. 
Think positive! =P

~Sylv


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 29, 2007)

Well. I'm an agnostic and a pretty skeptic one at that! So I don't really believe in something like hell to be honest. But lets for the sake of argument assume a few hypothetical things;


If God is omnipotent and good and just, there can be no eternal punishment for temporary sins. Maybe appropriate punishment, but not eternal punishment. And likely not so much punishment as learning anyway. What is after all nobler? To hurt someone who hurt someone else, or to make this person realize what he or she did wrong, and why it was wrong? And would a truly good and just God perhaps not also consider mitigating factors? In some cases an evildoer may not neccesarily need punishment to come to insight about his crimes. There would definitly be no such thing as 'eternal burning' if God is good and just.

If God is omnipotent, but merely just. There will be punishment, but again it'll be temporal and appropriate. There might be a 'you do the crime, you do the time' attitude. But it'd still be unfair to punish someone with eternal suffering. Even if you could argue that the very worst mass murderers might deserve alot of suffering. Eventually even they would have been punished for each and every death they are responsible for.

In both of these cases you'd also only be punished for suffering and death  brought upon others out of maliciousness, greed, personal profit, your own cruel pleasure or other ruthless selfish interests. You would not be punished for any 'sin' that didn't hurt anyone else. Because punishing someone for a victimless crime is not just either.


Now all that considered, there can thus only be a classic hell in two scenarios. One is where God is not just (And thus cruel, and thereby evil.) Or if God is not omnipotent (And powerless to prevent people from going to hell in certian scenario's.)

Now if God is injust and evil, you can grovel all you like. But you can't fully rule out that he might sent you to hell just for kicks. So why worship him?

And if God is not omnipotent, or at least not powerful enough to create any true justice for the souls of the dead... Well... actually I don't really know what then. I guess you'd have some form of dualism then. Where you have an equally powerful God and Devil and neither can destroy the other or lay claim to souls going to the realm of the other one. But most monotheists would strongly reject this idea. Either way in this scenario it'd be all up the people. But since there's alot of stuff contradicting eachother in all this religions its hard to decide what to do then. If this seems a likely scenario to you then I'd recommend going by the rule of not hurting other for your own gain or pleasure, and hoping for the best then.


Finally if God is evil, and not omnipotent either. Then I'd motion renaming God to 'just some demon'. Because evil and supernatural, but not omnipotent sounds like a demon doesn't it? In fat in case of an evil, but non-omnipotent God, I'd suggest finding some form of Sword of Righteousness and slaying it in a heroic quest.


So to sum it all up;

If God is Good or at least Just, there is no hell. Because if there was one God wouldn't be Good and Just.

If God Evil and Injust, you're going to hell anyway sooner or later. Because hey, even if there was a rule against it, this God is evil and injust!

If God is Good but not Omnipotent, you're on your own if there is a hell. But if you don't hurt anyone you'll probably be okay. Since God is still Good and you'd be Good then.

And if God is Evil and Impotent, kill it before it breeds.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 29, 2007)

TheSkunkCat said:
			
		

> And if God is Evil and Impotent, kill it before it breeds.



But it can't breed if it's impotent! 

...sorry, couldn't stop myself. But other than that, actually pretty good reasoning, quite close to my theories. 

~Sylv


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 29, 2007)

Heh, well yeah I figured that someone might say that!

But don't discount the viagra of the ancients!


----------



## Pikachu (Apr 29, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> P1. If there is free will in Heaven then there is the possibility that someone will commit a sin there.
> P2. In as much as the only punishment available for sin is hell (i.e., Satan and his followers, as pointed out above), it stands to reason that once a soul sins in heaven it will be cast to hell.
> P3. Since there exists the possiblity that each soul will sin and there exists an eternity for that possibility be expressed then it is a mathematical certainty that every soul in heaven will eventually sin.
> C1. Therefore ultimately god will be all alone again.


So in heaven a soul that gets there, thanks to its regenerated heart, only ever wants to do the right thing.
It ALWAYS chooses to do the right thing. It NEVER decides to go to the bookies and bet the week's wages on Three-legged Runner, or pop into the local bordello, or look at porn on the internet, or steal that nice gold watch from Ab Lincoln, or tell a lie, or eat an extra dozen cream cakes out of sheer greed, or spread malicious gossip about Pope John Paul II or go to a football match instead of church, or cruelly tweek Mother Theresa's nose
Actually all it ever wants to do, is swan around singing praises to the Good Lord, for all of eternity, because in heaven, that's the most interesting thing to do.


----------



## foxy (Apr 29, 2007)

However, this means that in order to avoid being alone in heaven, god must not allow anyone to freely choose to sin. I.e. he can give you freedom between singing praises to himself before or after you sing psalms but you cannot have the freedom to sin. It is a limited freedom where you can freely choose which hymn to sing to his praise but you cannot choose to sin and possibly also you cannot choose to NOT sing any hymn to his praise since that would most likely be considered a sin in heaven.

Does such a limited freedom make sense? To what extent is such freedom really free?

True, I consider myself to have free will even if I am utterly unable to move to the moon just because I want to. My freedom is in this respect limited. I cannot even fly by flapping my arms! Yet, we still thinks - at least most of us - that we have some form of free will.

However - and here is perhaps an interesting phenomena. I am in fact perhaps unable to fly by flapping my arms but I am NOT restricted in my will to do so. I can want to do so if I want to to say it that way. How is that in heaven? In heaven we are not physical bodies so we probably lack those physical restrictions so if we want to do X we CAN do X. Thus, the only way for god to block us from sinning in heaven is to block us from WANTING to do things that leads to sin. Thus, while I do have free will in earth because although I am perhaps unable to actually fly by flapping my arms I am still capable of wanting it if I were so inclined, my free will itself is severely limited in heaven in that I am blocked from even WANTING to sin or do actions that ultimately lead to sin. This is true even if I myself cannot see that the action would lead to sin!

This is quite absurd and in no way can it be called "free will", thus we can conclude that in heaven we are all mindless robots who sing humns to god's praise much the same way we can have music played to us any time we want to by turning on the stereo. Is that the "perfect" world God wants? He simply want us to play back a recording of hymns to his praise much like we listen to a stereo or watch TV?

Doesn't sound that perfect to me - in particular it may be fun for God but it is absolutely no fun for us. It is degrading and humiliating.

Conclusion: The christian idea of heaven is like North Korea where everyone sing praises to Kim Jung Il  with the exception that they sing praises to God instead of Kim Jung Il.

I suggest all fundamentalist christians take a trip to North Korea to see how their heaven looks like.

Count me out.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> However, this means that in order to avoid being alone in heaven, god must not allow anyone to freely choose to sin. I.e. he can give you freedom between singing praises to himself before or after you sing psalms but you cannot have the freedom to sin. It is a limited freedom where you can freely choose which hymn to sing to his praise but you cannot choose to sin and possibly also you cannot choose to NOT sing any hymn to his praise since that would most likely be considered a sin in heaven.
> 
> Does such a limited freedom make sense? To what extent is such freedom really free?
> 
> ...



And, heres the kicker to this situation: If you DONT go to this place, you get eternal torment and pain instead! Lose-Lose situation eh? XD


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 29, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> P1. If there is free will in Heaven then there is the possibility that someone will commit a sin there.
> P2. In as much as the only punishment available for sin is hell (i.e., Satan and his followers, as pointed out above), it stands to reason that once a soul sins in heaven it will be cast to hell.
> P3. Since there exists the possiblity that each soul will sin and there exists an eternity for that possibility be expressed then it is a mathematical certainty that every soul in heaven will eventually sin.
> C1. Therefore ultimately god will be all alone again.



Unless, it's impossible to commit a sin in heaven? For instance, how can you rape or kill an incorporeal body? How can you steal if there is no concept of ownership? I don't think it's illogical for there to be a Heaven. I do consider it illogical for there to be a Hell where people are punished eternally.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 29, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> foxy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Warning! Explicit Lyrics!*
I like Biggie's thoughts on the subject.


----------



## absolutleybursar (Apr 29, 2007)

I dunno if I really have an idea of hell, I'm not so sure about an afterlife and if there were one what if it was just a generic one where everyone gets put, so it'd be essentially a second Earth.
My view on the conventional Hell as put forwards by Dante in his writings of the Divine Comedy, I figured that if hell was full of evil then if you were evil on Earth then wouldn't you get a promotion in hell? Hitler for example would be like a Sergeant or something.
Or unless God created hell and forced everyone in there no matter who they were to suffer forever (which is just another way of describing yet another fascist dictatorship)


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

This discussion reminds me of Tales of Symphonia... true peace only attainable by making everyone lifeless beings with no emotion.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 29, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> However, this means that in order to avoid being alone in heaven, god must not allow anyone to freely choose to sin. I.e. he can give you freedom between singing praises to himself before or after you sing psalms but you cannot have the freedom to sin. It is a limited freedom where you can freely choose which hymn to sing to his praise but you cannot choose to sin and possibly also you cannot choose to NOT sing any hymn to his praise since that would most likely be considered a sin in heaven.
> 
> Does such a limited freedom make sense? To what extent is such freedom really free?
> 
> ...



I almost missed this one. You state: "I consider myself to have free will even if I am utterly unable to move to the moon just because I want to". So why would it not be free will if you wanted to kill someone but couldn't because they were incorporeal? Different limitations but you still have free will within the limitations. I can't see a way to conclude that Heaven would HAVE to be full of mindless robots singing praises to God.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

As long as man has desire, he will never attain inner peace. So, perhaps, since as far as I know (I'm not big on religion) heaven is supposed to be " eternal peace" then the only way to attain that is to remove all traces of desire from us.


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 29, 2007)

But there are many more sins that can be committed with thought alone, not requiring a corporeal body. Like saying the Lord's name in vain, and such. In fact, I think in Christianity merely thinking sinful thoughts is a sin. So if I go to Heaven and I'm like, "Gee I sure miss sex, you know I always did covet my neighbor's wife (husband?)" then it'd be off to eternal fire for me. Anyway, most of the previous concepts of Hell, or the lack thereof, include arguments that acknowledge the existence of a 'god.' Isn't there the possibility that some form of afterlife exists in the absence of any sort of omnipotent higher conscience? And might that afterlife also include stratification of some sort? Also, what about reincarnation?


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

perhaps, Cinnabar, going to heaven is ascending to the afterlife, and going to hell, is being reincarnated into another body and having to live another lifetime on Earth until you get it right and finally your soul can rest in the afterlife.


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 29, 2007)

That does sound reasonable!


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

This little theory of hell of course, assumes your memories and everything you knew of your past life was wiped from you upon reincarnating.


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 29, 2007)

Mmm... Come to think of it. According to the bible, God doesn't actually claim to be the only God. He just tells his followers to worship only him. He does say a couple of times he's BETT4R! then other gods, but never that they don't exist. Suggesting that maybe if you worship other Gods you'd have to deal with THEIR afterlives, instead of his.

Maybe going by the bible its not so bad to look over some ancient Gods that offered more fun afterlives!


Maybe I'll go bash some of my enemies skulls in. Should I get killed in the process maybe I can go have an eternal feast in Valhalla or something. Then again, come to think of it, I would have to get killed in the process. I can't just kill them, die of old age and cash in... So come to think of it, thats not the greatest pantheon either.

I think the Babylonians had a realm of the dead, but it pretty much sucked no matter what you did in life. Something dark underground where you ate clay.

Hmmm... Maybe Sekhmet.. She had a kind of 'maternal to her followers' but 'totally kick the shit out of any of her enemies' mentality... Gotta love that. But then again I don't think she started her own afterlife where crushing my enemies would be rewarded. And the standard egyptian one actually still made you be very good if you where to get any rewards. I mean.. they had 44 commandments! (If actually better ones then the 10 in the bible!) And the burial customs are just so complex... And if you weren't good your soul was annihilated by being eaten by an underworld crocodile-hippo monster.

So hmm.. the Greeks.. I think they had a bunch of afterlives and some where heavenly. But how DID you get there again? And their hells where very creative. Not just burning, but very specific punishments. Like having your organs pecked out by vultures again and again and rolling rocks up high places that fall down again. And starving whilst all the food flees away from you when you want to get some.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

TheSkunkCat said:
			
		

> Mmm... Come to think of it. According to the bible, God doesn't actually claim to be the only God. He just tells his followers to worship only him. He does say a couple of times he's BETT4R! then other gods, but never that they don't exist. Suggesting that maybe if you worship other Gods you'd have to deal with THEIR afterlives, instead of his.
> 
> Maybe going by the bible its not so bad to look over some ancient Gods that offered more fun afterlives!
> 
> ...



This one made me laugh, nearly choking on the soda I was sipping while reading this post ^^


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 29, 2007)

Ooh ooh... And then there are the Chinese hells.... they have like... a bazillion of those. Such as the hell of festering water and the hell of being forced to climb up trees whose branches are blades.

However be good and you just get boring old reincarnated. Well gee, how great, even if I reincarnate favourably I'm not going to remember who I was to enjoy it! It might as well be someone else enjoying it. Because they're going to format the floppy of my soul!


Hrrmm... And I think the Aztec hell was a cave that constantly got flooded... Not sure if they had a heaven though. Still to get there I bet you had to sacrifice people to the sun. Maybe I could sacrifice my enemies to the sun and get some sort of Aztecy heaven?

I bet it has jaguars...


----------



## Nyan (Apr 29, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Spirit Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Imagine your self as a puppet.

Good bye to masturbation... drinking beer... sex... porn... adultery... telling lies... telling bad jokes... saying bad words... and many more !

There's no freedom in heaven !

So god will program you before entering to heaven !


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

*pokes* Your name reminds me of a Yu-Gi-Oh card called "Thunder Nyan Nyan" way back when I used to play that game


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 29, 2007)

I think I has the solution!

How about we deify ME!

Like one of those roman emperors!

Then I'll start and afterlife, and I'll let anyone do whatever the hell they want there. To get into it, you gotta sent me money. But precious minerals and metals, or cool stuff I might want to have will do as well.

In return I'll sent you a ticket to my heaven. Which you will then ritually burn, turning it into a spirit-ticket that will be waiting for you when you die.

Then after I die and create my afterlife with my new godly status, you can show me the ticket, and you can have an eternal life of doing whatever the hell you want!

So sent me money!


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

I got a better hell idea ^^

In this hell, food attempts to EAT YOU!

*picturing a large, fanged hamburger chasing someone*


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 29, 2007)

Well about that bit with the food fleeing from you...

As a macro skunkcat that happens to me alot. Just in Greek hell, I wouldn't actually catch them after they flee. But they'd all always get away succesfully. Quite likely leading to Wiley Coyote like tafarels.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 29, 2007)

Cinnabar said:
			
		

> But there are many more sins that can be committed with thought alone, not requiring a corporeal body. Like saying the Lord's name in vain, and such. In fact, I think in Christianity merely thinking sinful thoughts is a sin. So if I go to Heaven and I'm like, "Gee I sure miss sex, you know I always did covet my neighbor's wife (husband?)" then it'd be off to eternal fire for me. Anyway, most of the previous concepts of Hell, or the lack thereof, include arguments that acknowledge the existence of a 'god.' Isn't there the possibility that some form of afterlife exists in the absence of any sort of omnipotent higher conscience? And might that afterlife also include stratification of some sort? Also, what about reincarnation?



Agreed, in some religions, thought alone can be a sin. So this would leave Heaven empty ultimately. 

I personally like the idea of reincarnation. But it wouldn't explain where all of the extra people are coming from.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 29, 2007)

Nyan said:
			
		

> Imagine your self as a puppet.
> 
> Good bye to masturbation... drinking beer... sex... porn... adultery... telling lies... telling bad jokes... saying bad words... and many more !
> 
> ...



Actually, if you make it to Heaven, you are supposedly not doing those things to begin with.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

Who said you _had_ to always get reincarnated as a person? It could be another hellish punishment to get reincarnated as something else. Say perhaps, a chicken or an insect.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 29, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> Who said you _had_ to always get reincarnated as a person? It could be another hellish punishment to get reincarnated as something else. Say perhaps, a chicken or an insect.



I want to be an animal like a rabbit or wolf. Less complicated and a life focused on food and sex.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

I don't think you'd want wolf then. In a pack, only the alpha males and females mate, and they mate for life, not to mention only during certain periods. no, I think you'd want rabbit


----------



## foxy (Apr 29, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> And, heres the kicker to this situation: If you DONT go to this place, you get eternal torment and pain instead! Lose-Lose situation eh? XD


North Korea or perhaps the old DDR sounds like very good emulations of heaven on earth.

The real funny thing is that many conservative christians who hate communism want to go to heaven.

Also, keep in mind that the early christians practiced a form of communism so I really do think that North Korea, DDR or Soviet under Stalin is very close to christian heaven.

Elbarotating further. As hell is assumed to be such a horrible place that people there long to get to server under stalinism I guess hell is most likely comparable to a gulag or some such and as such is actually located IN heaven. It is just the camp where they send people who oppose the stalinism under God's rule. Only in such a camp would people actually consider it "freedom" to get to an oppressive regime as heaven's stalinism.

Also, the ruler of hell must therefore be likened to a guard working for stalin supervising the labor camp and so Satan actually have to be under God's command and doing his dirty work - now that actually makes a lot more sense!

So, it appears that if christians are right and we do have an afterlife then we are screwed either way. We can choose to live "free" in a place like North Korea, DDR or Soviet under Stalin or we will end up in hell which is a Gulag or "re-education camp" as the chinese call it.





			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I personally like the idea of reincarnation. But it wouldn't explain where all of the extra people are coming from.


1. We know that the number of people is on a steady increase. Where do all these extra people come from? Reincarnation - if restricted to humans - would imply that the number of people remain constant, so that a new born baby wasn't born until some other guy died so that his "soul" or whatever you call it, could transfer over and inhabit the new body.

2. Speaking of this "soul" in what manner is this "soul" supposed to exist? All evidence indicate that there is no "soul" so what exactly is it that transfer from one body to another when we die and get reborn?

3. You can of course explain the increase of people by assuming that other animals also have "souls". However, the soul problem in (2) above still remain. Also, there is no indication that the number of "souls" if you count animals and humans remain constant on earth. The number of humans increase and many other animals decrease but I don't think it adds up to 0 so the problem remain. Also, what kind of "soul" do an ant who is a bug and is heavily influenced by instincts have?

I would say that reincarnation is a dead end. There is absolutely no evidence FOR it and as you can see there are heavy arguments against it.


----------



## TeeGee (Apr 29, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> I thought this place was Hell
> I'm confused.



<---Yiff in hell is over there. D:<


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 29, 2007)

I know I sure as hell would not be reincarnated WILLINGLY.

If the supernatural creatures are to erase me, they should just break the floppy, not format it and put something new onto it. Thats just creepy and wrong. And I don't understand how anyone could possibly find the idea appealing to be honest. But then again, if people joined religions for their afterlives, all straight guys with a healthy libido would become muslims. I mean, 72 sex slaves...

Come to think of it, could Allah be convinced to give me 36 anthro skunkcat sex-slaves of both genders? If so, Islam is starting to look... interesting! Though I'd want a sort of 'swedish' version it where I get to do whatever I want but God forgives me anyway, because God is forgiving. And I get my sex-slaves at the end. I'm pretty sure I remember something about God being all-forgiving in the Quran once or twice...


Anyway back to reincarnation....

What point is there for me if something as nebulous as 'personality traits' survive? What do *I* get out of that?

Heck, I'm a strong believer in the fact that nurture is vastly more important then nature anyway when it comes to psychological development. So any reincarnate of me might not resemble me in the slightest. It'd just be someone else, using my floppy without my permission.

Actually though if reincarnation is true, and you DO somehow get to keep your personality, I must have protested against it about a gazillion times by now after dying various lives ago.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

Keep in mind that theres no way to know where souls come from. They could be beings created by a god who are sent here as a test to decide if they are worthy. Or, they could be souls expelled from heaven for some reason and sent here until they can prove themselves worthy again. This would tie that end of reincarnation foxy, even if it puts way too much theory out there.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 29, 2007)

This also assumes souls can only come from us, and, our own planet. There could be souls coming from anywhere in the gread dark beyond. Imagine earth suddenly exploding and everyone dies. Thats A LOT of souls isnt it?


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 30, 2007)

If there aren't souls, aren't we wasting our time by debating the nature of the afterlife? If all that remains of us once we die is the physical material of our body and the dissapation of some heat energy, then there is nothing left to inherit any afterlife. We're debating something that cannot be tested; evidence will be lacking no matter what afterlife or continuation beyond life we speculate. Unless we play it safe and assume there is nothing after death, which is what current 'evidence' might support. As for the number of beings on the planet increasing, in order to use that fact to argue that there is no such thing as reincarnation, you're using two assumptions: the number of beings in this life or the next must remain the same, and that all beings that die come back in another life instantly. Otherwise it's possible that the net amount of beings (souls) is somehow increasing, or that there's an afterlife in which beings can either stay or choose to be reincarnated, accounting for fluctuations in the number of mortal beings.


----------



## tigermist (Apr 30, 2007)

Well this really might not be about hell specifically but oh well. If Heaven and hell are different dimensions, doesn't that make earth purgatory. Think about it purgatory is supposed to be the inbetween of life and heaven. Purgatory is supposed to be the place that prepairs you for heaven. Isn't that what your life on earth does. If you believe in that anyway. Personally I don't think there is anything after life.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 30, 2007)

Or it could be that in growing a child inside a woman also grows a soul into it.


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 30, 2007)

But then people could only reincarnate as nonhuman animals, because every baby would be a new soul, not an old soul being reincarnated. Maybe in the afterlife, from which souls may or may not choose to be reincarnated, reproduction is still possible, or maybe there is a god who steadily creates more souls, or maybe there are just a whole lot more souls who chose to remain in the afterlife initially, losing interest in the afterlife after a time so more and more have begun to reincarnate as time has passed. It's difficult to say, anything's possible!


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 30, 2007)

far too many "what ifs" to describe it. a far off planet having an apocalypse seems the most likely to me.


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 30, 2007)

I wonder if we're next? Heh, anyway, if we include the souls of other planets, maybe our population increase is just corresponding with a population decrease somewhere out there. No need to kill everyone off.


----------



## Nyan (Apr 30, 2007)

DUDE ! each time we masturbate we create millions and millions of sperms... i mean WTF does that come from ?


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 30, 2007)

Heh. I find it slightly amusing, to tell the truth. I mean, it's fun speculation, and rather cynical, to compare Heaven to a communist regime, but it's not very well thought out. 

On the argument that freedom in heaven must be limited, because otherwise there would be the possibility to sin...
ummm... how about: You woudn't _want_ to sin (whatever the definition of that might be)? Is Your freedom limited right now because You don't want to cut off your perfectly functional arm? Or leg? Is Your freedom limited right now because You choose _not_ to go out into the streets and randomly kill people, or rape your neibour's grandma, or [insert lots of things here]? We might safely assume that some sort of enlightment is bound to the ascent to heaven. So afterwards, You wouldn't want to commit sins. And if You would, well, to use an analogy... You can go into a fine restaurant anytime, but if You get in, undress, stand on a table and piss on the waiter, You'll get the boot, and You won't be telling anyone afterwards it wasn't Your fault, right? 

~Sylv


----------



## Nyan (Apr 30, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Heh. I find it slightly amusing, to tell the truth. I mean, it's fun speculation, and rather cynical, to compare Heaven to a communist regime, but it's not very well thought out.


Since the criteria for being sent to hell is whether we have screwed up this planet and made it a hell. God will have wanted as many of us to respect one another and work together to make everyone benefit on this planet. Anything else would indicate a lack of compassion which is one of the things that indicate benevolence.


----------



## foxy (Apr 30, 2007)

Nyan said:
			
		

> Since the criteria for being sent to hell is whether we have screwed up this planet and made it a hell. God will have wanted as many of us to respect one another and work together to make everyone benefit on this planet. Anything else would indicate a lack of compassion which is one of the things that indicate benevolence.


Ah, but there are some problems with this. The heaven/hell belief is mostly advocated by christians and similar religions and they often consider it a "sin" to attempt to turn the earth into a heaven. They claim that any such attempt is doomed to fail and might actually just make things worse.

Also, the christians image of hell is very much similar to North Korea, old DDR or soviet union under Stalin or China under Mao or some such with a police that check out everyone and make sure you never "sin" or if you do, you get sent off to hell immediately. All day is filled with singing praises to God much like people in North Korea fill up their days by singing praises to Kim Jong Il.

Most of us doesn't like to live in places like that and yet, they claim heaven is a wonderful place a place where you want to go and it is their highest wish to end up in heaven.

They really are a pitiful lot, I feel sad for them.

Granted, you are not christian so I hope you are not inflicted with such a brainwash. I also agree with you if you mean to say that we should do our best to make this world a better place for most people and that the only ones who "suffer" are people who "deserve" it in one way or another. Of course, the problem is then who decides who deserves it and not but that is a big discussion in itself. The basic idea is to make this world a better place for as many people as possible and I can agree to that.





			
				Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> Or it could be that in growing a child inside a woman also grows a soul into it.


Here, you are challenged to define just at what point during development a human acquires a soul. It couldn't be at the point of egg fertilization, since at that time everything is still purely biochemical, and the fertilized embryo has no properties normally associated with a soul. It couldn't be during early embryonic development, since an early human embryo is anatomically and functionally indistinguishable even from fish embryos. So when is it that a human acquires a soul? The answer to that question is impossible similarly to how it is impossible to define a cutoff across different lifeforms -- because just as the spectrum of lifeforms on earth is fairly continuous in terms of their capabilities, form and function, the development of an embryo is similarly continuous. At no point during development does the embryo suddenly make a quantum leap and exhibits some feature it didn't have a second ago. This continuity makes it impossible to define a cutoff at which the soul definitely must be there. From another (and more mathematical) perspective, since a fertilized egg has no soul, then by induction over this smooth continuum of development we arrive at the conclusion that even a fully developed adult human doesn't have a soul.





			
				Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that theres no way to know where souls come from. They could be beings created by a god who are sent here as a test to decide if they are worthy. Or, they could be souls expelled from heaven for some reason and sent here until they can prove themselves worthy again. This would tie that end of reincarnation foxy, even if it puts way too much theory out there.


Perhaps God created the soul? What is "soul"? Some people will even argue that the soul does not exist and it is certainly hard to define what it is. Some people believe the soul will survive our bodies and keep living on even after we are dead in an eternal afterlife. Some Hollywood movies have you think that the soul is something ghostly similar to the person who it inhabit, like a faint image of the material person. That is - I hope - something we can agree on is BS. If a person has an amputated arm, will his soul in afterlife also have an amputated arm? How, can an immaterial entity have an amputation? How in the world is that supposed to make sense. However, if it is not this ghostly image, to what sense does it make to say that such a soul would be "me" or "you" or anyone else.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 30, 2007)

"Perhaps God created the soul? What is "soul"? Some people will even argue that the soul does not exist and it is certainly hard to define what it is. Some people believe the soul will survive our bodies and keep living on even after we are dead in an eternal afterlife. Some Hollywood movies have you think that the soul is something ghostly similar to the person who it inhabit, like a faint image of the material person. That is - I hope - something we can agree on is BS. If a person has an amputated arm, will his soul in afterlife also have an amputated arm? How, can an immaterial entity have an amputation? How in the world is that supposed to make sense. However, if it is not this ghostly image, to what sense does it make to say that such a soul would be "me" or "you" or anyone else."


We are assuming in this post we know this, dont beat around the subject


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 30, 2007)

Or, you know foxy, the soul could be created the moment before a child is born. I said it could grow inside her, i didnt say how long it takes. It could be instant for all we know


----------



## Nyan (Apr 30, 2007)

I just want an eternal sleep after i die. If god/heaven/hell/souls exist, ill just tell god to delete me. I dont want to be a cockroach or some wierd ET creature.


----------



## absolutleybursar (Apr 30, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> This discussion reminds me of Tales of Symphonia... true peace only attainable by making everyone lifeless beings with no emotion.



Or the old episode of Dr Who "Keys of Marinus" where the Doctor and his compatriates had to go round the planet Marinus and get keys to activate a great machine which was built to pacify everyone on the planet. War and crime ended because the machine removed things like anger from everyone, it was just another form of cyber fascism.


----------



## Monster Tamer (Apr 30, 2007)




----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 30, 2007)

I think if there ARE souls. (Which I'm not sure of) Every being capable of appreciating its own existence would have one.

(So for my definition that would mean that humans have souls and perhaps some higher animals (But it'd be dubious if say... mosquito's would have them to me. I mean, can a mosquito consider its own existence in depth? If not why would it need a soul?) Interestingly I'm also probably one of the few who would thus belief that a truly sentient machine would have a soul. Because I don't think its bound to organics so much as a metaphysical thing. If there is such a thing as a soul.

Needless to say, if there IS, there needs to be something done with them after you die. (Because the definition of a soul is that it doesn't die with the body. If it did it wouldn't be a soul, but it'd be your psyche. Which is made up out of chemical and electrical activity in your brain.)

So if there IS a soul, you go somewhere after you die, because you'd have too. If there is not (And I admit there is no scientific evidence, but then again, could there be for something metaphysical?) well then there is no afterlife. And by extension also no reason to bother with any gods. After all, what DO they have to offer you then? Surely not luck in this life! The most devout believer is just as susceptable to bad luck as the most skeptic unbeliever. Just like they can both have good luck. So gods don't come in there.


----------



## Aikon (Apr 30, 2007)

Saturn said:
			
		

> I don't really believe in either Heaven or Hell.Â Â I just sort of think that we die, and...that's it.Â Â *shrug*



That pretty much sums it up. 

When you're dead you're sleeping for enternity.  You won't be able to think, feel, touch, smell, anything.... you're dead!  I used to believe in the afterlife, but then how is it physically possible?


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 30, 2007)

Foxy, you can't use math to prove or disprove the existence of a soul. It is indeed silly to think a zygote might have a soul--it doesn't remotely resemble a human. But you can't do a physical test for 'soul,' or see 'soul' in an X-ray, or in any other possible way verify the existence of a soul, to be sure that it doesn't. So you can't argue that just because it seems silly to think a zygote has a soul, it does not, or just because you can't prove there is a soul, there is not, because there is also no way to produce proof that there is no such thing as a soul. 

Ethicists come to the same problem of a fetus's continuous development when trying to assign a point at which the fetus gains personhood, or moral worth, important to bioethics abortion debates. The assignation is extremely difficult and usually arbitrary, requiring a list of criteria like self-awareness, ability to reason, etc., which some adult humans themselves lack. But that doesn't mean some adults are not people. It usually ends up being safest assuming that zygotes do have moral worth, and then forming the argument given that. In the case of this thread's topic, we generally need to assume that something like a soul does exist, because otherwise we're discussing something that cannot exist in the absence of the soul--an afterlife. It's difficult to define 'soul,' but the aesthetics of the thing aren't necessary to identify in this discussion; it can be assumed that the soul is some sort of continuation of one's conscience.


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 30, 2007)

Assuming the existence of souls;


If you assume zygotes have souls you might as well go a step further and say sperm cells have souls. Which die by the billions, completely inevitably.

If zygotes have souls then amoeba have souls, because they are actually far more self-aware then zygotes, which are just clumps of organic matter, that have yet to develop a brain. But can an amoeba ponder its existence? (Well I guess I don't want to rule it out entirely, but it doesn't seem LIKELY. An Amoeba has only the nucleus of its cell to think things over with.)

No, I think that if there is such a thing as a soul it can only be possessed by creatures who can appreciate and consider their own existence. Else there is no point to it. If something is not truly self-aware in any appreciable sense. (And a zygote is not.) There is no point to it having an eternal soul. Because there is no consciousness to exist on.

As such a zygote would not have a soul no more then a seed is a tree. Its more like a potential vessel that could receive a soul.

Of course this (in my view logical, I mean if it must exist eternally, it should be aware of it, you'd think.) way of thinking does suggest something else that most people never consider when thinking about souls. Humans aren't born with souls, but gain them as they develop full self-awareness.


Now some might seem that sort of thinking as justifying killing lower animals indiscriminately and even newborns, but I'm not saying that. Those still have a drive to live. I'm just saying that unless something is self-aware, there is no real reason for it to have a soul.

If a snail goes to a dark moist places simply because its genes command it too, then it is essentially like a clockwork mechanism. And would a watch go to the afterlife after it broke? However if a snail could rationally consider its situation, it would be a self-aware being. And there is a reason for it, spiritually, to continue to exist beyond death.

However, assuming a clockwork snail... Its genes do command it to try to survive. And it can feel pain. Even if it cannot consider its suffering, it can suffer. And you could consider that as a reason for not killing the snail for the heck of it.


Now, I am very interested in zoology, and I do believe that many higher animals do have at least a limited self-awareness. And some may have full self-awareness, even if not human mental capacities. Apes in particular seem to be able to consider their existence very well and they can be taught to express that. Primate research has shown that they can be creative, that they remember things, solve problems etc. So apes would have souls. Perhaps all vertebrates and some of the more advanced invertebrates (like octopi) have too.

But do ants? Its hard to tell. Arthropods don't have conventional brains, but instead data-processing ganglions. Which are little but big nerve-clusters. Am I ruling it out? No... But is it likely?

Of course not knowing for sure what has a soul would be another reason not to kill living things indiscriminately.


However zygotes have no brains at all. So we can be sure that THEY don't have any self-awareness. Because what do they have to have it with?


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 30, 2007)

To make a synopsis, my logic goes roughly like this;


1) Assuming there is a God (or Gods) there must be souls. Else there would be no point to a God, or at least not to worshipping one or following religious edicts. Because there'd be no reward for it. Devoutly religious and vehemently unreligious people have an equal chance to be lucky or unlucky and there is no satistying evidence that religion brings any particular advantage in this life. Ergo, if God exist, and religion is at all useful. Souls must exist.

2) In order to preserve a soul eternally, a soul should be aware of its own existence. And able to consider it. To be able to do this it would need an advanced brain.

3) Not all creatures have advanced brains. Arthropods have ganglions, which are nerves that process sensory input and likely respond to it according to genetic programmature. Its not impossible, but it is biologically highly unlikely that an ant or a beetle has a memory or an ability to reason. As such it'd be little more sapient then a clock, even if its alive.

4) As such preserving them eternally makes no more sense then preserving a clock or a rock eternally if it where to break.

5) A zygote has not yet developped a brain. Nor has in fact a recently conceived fetus. It starts as a clump of undifferentiated cells.

6) Even if a fetus is alive by virtue of being living matter. It cannot be even considered to have thinking capacity until it at least develops its brain. Which takes a while. And for that matter its not said that brain really has much appreciable input to consider in the womb anyway.

7) Thus there is no reason to assume a fetus would have a soul. And certainly no reason to assume it has a soul before it develops at least a brain. Which does not happen right upon conception.

8) As such, life in the purely spiritual sense, cannot reasonably be assumed to begin upon conception.


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 30, 2007)

But if self-awareness is a requirement for having a soul, then it would mean some humans, even humans who were once self-aware, could lose their souls. Young infants and toddlers would be without souls, as would humans with advanced brain disorders, comatose or sleeping humans, etc. And if babies and young toddlers don't have souls, we must define the point at which they gain souls--is it when they learn their name, and that the name means themselves? When they first look into a mirror, and realize, "that's me?" Is it when they first examine their hands, and realize they control them? Any criteria seems arbitrary. I don't think zygotes DO have souls, just like I don't think they have personhood, but it is easier to assume they do in order to avoid assigning the point at which they do acquire souls/personhood, which is impossible. Also, the assumption that sex cells might also have souls if zygotes have souls can be bypassed if we assume that only beings with an original, unique set of DNA are individuals capable of having souls. Sperm has the same DNA as the person who it came from, not their own original, unique DNA.

Anyway, the presence of a 'soul' can't be verified, but in concept it doesn't imply moral obligation; the possession of a soul does not impart rights to the individual. What does it imply? I'm not sure. This entire soul discussion is complicated and difficult; since the soul can't be proved either way, it's just as possible that there is no such thing. But lacking the knowledge of what the soul is or if it is also makes it impossible to tell whether lower animals, even single-celled organisms, have souls. Who is to say? Even if an animal has no skill to reason, just simple instincts and chemical reactions, humans are not much different; we are only a product of the same instincts and chemical reactions, we just got the longer end of the evolution stick. It's a comparison of complex and simple machinery. We respond to our environments, but so do simpler organisms; because we have a memory, we can also learn, but does this ability really mean only we can have a soul? We have emotions, but they are all just chemical cocktails, responses to stimuli--so they imply soul?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 30, 2007)

Perhaps a soul is not a soul as we generally term it. Perhaps the soul is a collection of our thoughts, memories, and ideas. One theory for the way the mind works is that memories are stored in water molecules. If this is true isn't it feasible that these water molecules continue to store the memories even after we are dead? Perhaps ghosts are simply living people encountering enough of these molecules at one time to percieve the memory or it creates a false memory or impression of the ghost? The world is so complex and there is so much unknown, even beyond our own physical experience that we can't simply rule out something because science cannot prove it.


----------



## Nyan (Apr 30, 2007)

Looks like we're only a few thousand years away from easily transferring human consciousness into machines. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6600965.stm

Foxy was right, science disproved the existence of the soul.


----------



## KabukiHomewood (Apr 30, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> KabukiHomewood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait what?  I didn't say anything about free will in heaven, Satan, or anything like that.  I don't believe we necessarily have free will in "heaven."  I believe that once we are back to our natural Spirit form, we can fully understand the scope of our life on this plane of existence, as well as all previous lives.  I do not believe in "the devil."  I do not believe that one can "sin in heaven" because we can only influence others and sin when we are made flesh on earth (or into not flesh on other planes).

Of course every soul will sin.  That is how we learn, by making mistakes.  I believe that when we die and go back to God, we see each and every one of our 'sins' and also know fully the effect that it had on others.   We will also see what more we need to do to learn all of life's lessons, and will eventually choose a new life to lead, knowing what will happen in that form.  When we are born onto this world of course, we have no knowledge of these former decisions, human beings cannot comprehend the totality of Truth.  We can become closer to god by reflecting on the world we live in, and by striving to live with our hearts full of Love for our fellow man, compassion, and understanding, to be righteous and judicious, to not harbor or encourage evil.  

I am happy to continue this discussion with you, Foxy, as long as you can appreciate that NOBODY CAN EVER REALLY KNOW ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS UNIVERSE AND HOW IT WORKS.


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 30, 2007)

Maybe people with advanced brain damage could be considered living bodies where the actual soul has already passed on?


But anyway, souls are defined as immortal things that last as ther physical dies. There is no scientific proof for such a thing existing at all. So purely scientifically, by force of occam's razor, souls pretty much do not exist. You could make a hypothesis about it, but experiments based on those showed nothing indicating there is such a thing. (And for that matter, same for God or any other gods.)

So if we are going to assume the existence of souls we are already assuming there are supernatural forces at work that we cannot detect.


Now as I said, a soul MUST be immortal to qualify. If its as mortal as our bodies its not a soul, its just the chemical and electrical reactions in our brains. Which cease after death. You can't call that a soul in a meaninful spiritual sense.

However an arthropod 'brain' cannot think, but only respond. And therefor its reasonable to assume that an arthropod cannot meaninfully tell the difference between being alive and being death anymore then a clock can. Because there are no tought processes. There are only nerve ganglions, which receive input and respond in a genetically programmed manner. If an ant would as such have a soul, then a clock would have a soul too. Because in spite of the fact that an ant is organic, there is very little reason to assume its any more sapient then the clock, because it doesn't have the complex brain needed for mental processes. Which vertebrates and some more advanced invertebrates like cephalopods DO have.

No matter how primitive, a fish can remember things. An octopus can solve problems. They don't just respond like arthropods, they can actually improvise. Such as an octopus who learned how to unscrew a jar. Or a shark who can memorize what to do to get food out of a dispenser. (And yes, they have thought octopi and sharks this!) There is a difference there. They aren't just clockwork.

A shark is a cartilaginous fish, hardly the most advanced type of vertebrate there is, but sharks have been seen cooperating to drag a whalecarcass to a good place to feed. And even to display curiosity and playfulness. You don't get that from animals that do not have complex brains.

As I said before, I'm not entirely willing to rule out that somewhere in those ganglions there may be a spark of greater sapience that makes it turn out a bug is smarter then I'm giving it credit for. After all jellyfish have even less of what passes for a brain, yet some of them have eyes. And they gotta process that information somewhere. (Even if its just the simple receive-respond pattern of a ganglion.) But still. I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say.


If there are souls, how many people would argue inanimate objects have them? And if they don't then why would something thats no more intelligent then an inanimate object have them?


So where does that leave newborns, sleeping humans and people in a vegative state?

Well newborns gain the first glimmers of self-awareness very soon. And this develops gradually. The exact point doesn't really matter that much now does it?

Sleeping peopel are still fully self-aware. Just going through a temporal phase of reduced mental activity.

And people in a vegative state... Well the most logical idea is that their soul passed on whilst their body survived. If there is indeed an afterlife, chances are they are already there, even if their body is technically still drawing breath.


Of course you won't hear me say that there IS a soul, or if so which lifeforms have one. I'm just saying what I think would be logical if there was such a thing.

And why preserve something eternally that has not even the faintest glimmer of realization about anything at all?


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 30, 2007)

Arguing that intelligence is the prerequisite for 'soul' seems a bit narcissistic, but I think I agree with you. It's as relevant a requirement as any other, as far as I can tell.


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 30, 2007)

I wouldn't say its really narcissistic per se.

I acknowledged that humans are PROBABLY not the only ones with soul since scientific research suggests strongly that any species with complex brains has some level of intellectual capacity. Just because humans have more of it then any other species. (And lets face it, even if apes end up real close, we still as a SPECIES, have the most advanced brains on this planet.) Doesn't mean their the sole ones entitled to a soul. If a gorilla can tell another gorilla bout its youth in sign language (Which has been observed), you'd think they'd have souls as well.

But well yeah... I think there needs to be at least a glimmer of self-awareness for the creature to be able to 'appreciate' for lack of a better word, the fact that it has a soul. 
If there is such a thing as a soul. It would need to have at least the vaguest most nebulous idea of the fact that it exists. Else it'd be irrelevant wether or not it would have a soul.

Intelligence as a criteria would also mean that a truly sentient machine (which currently don't exist.) as such would have a soul. (And why not? We've already established that if there is such a thing its a metaphysical thing, and not something that can be scientifically quantified.)


I think intelligence in this regard is perhaps best defined as when a lifeform's capacities are more then the mere sum of its parts. When it can learn, improvise, adapt... Things that it could not do if it merely responded to stimuli alone. Not as human intelligence per se.


----------



## Nyan (Apr 30, 2007)

KabukiHomewood said:
			
		

> NOBODY CAN EVER REALLY KNOW ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS UNIVERSE AND HOW IT WORKS.


Always the same old argument.


----------



## KabukiHomewood (Apr 30, 2007)

Nyan said:
			
		

> KabukiHomewood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you disagree with that statement?


----------



## Pikachu (Apr 30, 2007)

KabukiHomewood said:
			
		

> Do you disagree with that statement?


The universe is time, space & matter and it is proven to be true, and also the universe is chaotic and not designed.

I dont see why you believe that god created the universe out of nothing.


----------



## Cinnabar (Apr 30, 2007)

No one here has really stated that there is a god, everything here has been speculations, some arguments including a god, some excluding any god/gods. No one has so much as mentioned the idea of a god creating the universe out of nothing--but it's true, for all of the new knowledge science has acquired about the universe and how it works, there are still unknowns, and some ideas are just speculation so far.


----------



## Nyan (Apr 30, 2007)

Lets go back to the soul thingy.

I have a question about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6600965.stm

If we could get transistors to behave as neurons we could end paralysis due to spinal cord injury?


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 30, 2007)

KabukiHomewood said:
			
		

> Nyan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, what I did notice some religious people do often and what I know irks atheists. Is that some use that argument in the following manner;

'We don't know everything about the universe so (our specific christian) God exists. (and the bible is all 100% true!!!)'

Which is a very poor argument, and which basically amounts to. 'No YOU proof that I'm wrong!'

However you didn't do that. (And I'm not accusing you of doing that! Don't get me wrong!) But since some religious people use that argument in that way maybe it was perceived as that?



Anyway... as for my two cents on the subject of religion vs. irreligion...


Me, I say it IS true that we don't know everything about the universe.

But I also say that according to scientific rules we can only make hypothesis, based on observations, test them according to the scientific method, and then discard or refine our theories. And if you go at it purely scientifically, there is no reason whatsoever to assume anything supernatural exists at all. There is no evidence that cannot reasonably be disputed as something more mundane or as fabrication. There have been no experiments that succesfully proved there is anything supernatural out there. And any tests of such a nature in fact overwhelming FAILED to prove there is anything mystical. (Not to mention that James Randy never had to pay out that million that people can win if they prove to him that anything supernatural exists.)

I'm as such very skeptic myself. But knowing that we indeed don't know EVERYTHING. I am also willing to consider the POSSIBILITY of there being more between heaven and earth, as they say. Which is why I'm an agnostic in practice. Which just seems the most... logical... to me from my personal perspective to be.


But thats of course just the way I personally feel about it. And though I AM opposed to the tendency some religions have to convert. (I believe very strongly that people must convert only out of their own volition. Not be converted in any way whatsoever. It just rubs me the wrong way.) I don't mind what people personally belief. As long as they don't use their beliefs as a justification for hurting or persecuting others. Our trying to undermine scientific progress with it.

I mean, people can belief the moon is made out of cheese for all I care. And I'm fine with it. But only as long as they're not trying to get it into schoolbooks or beating up on gay people over it. And I also don't like those people knocking on my door to try to convince ME the moon is made out of cheese. If I thought that I'd join THEM. But it can't be the other way around.


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 30, 2007)

Nyan said:
			
		

> Lets go back to the soul thingy.
> 
> I have a question about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6600965.stm
> 
> If we could get transistors to behave as neurons we could end paralysis due to spinal cord injury?



That be a fantastic medical breakthrough!


----------



## foxy (Apr 30, 2007)

Nyan said:
			
		

> I have a question about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6600965.stm
> 
> If we could get transistors to behave as neurons we could end paralysis due to spinal cord injury?


Im not a neurologist but i think this statement is false.

Do you think it is that easy?

If it was as easy as you say we could have taken neurons from other animals and implant them in people with injuries and they would be instantly healed. Why is that not so? Perhaps your "cure" doesn't really cure it at all? Perhaps there is more to it than just replacing neurons?

Another problem is the practical problem of space. A computer can completely emulate a neuron and even several neurons but the computer implementation would most likely be much larger than the biological neuron and so unless you want to carry a big electronic device around it might not be a practical solution yet.

However, a single neuron and even a set of neurons is today easy to emulate. A single neuron is not that difficult actually, it is a rather simple unit that does a very simple operation:

Here is the life of a neuron.

A neuron N is connected to other neurons through connections C1, C2, C3, ... Ck if it has k connections. Each neuron is also in one of two states, we can call them "0" and "1" or "on" and "off" or whatever you like, the neurons it is connected to also have one of these two states. It also have a threshold value T and for each of the connections it has weights W1, W2, ... Wk. If a weight is exactly 0 it is as if you did not have a connection there so I guess we can safely assume that normally no weight will be zero.

Now, simply compute S = W1 * C1 + W2 * C2 + W3 * C3 ... Wk * Ck. If S > T then the neuron switches state, hopefully the change of state will cause the other neurons it is connected to to also switch state so that the new sum S will go below T and thus the neuron will stabilize at the new state.

This is ALL that a neuron cell does - as far as thinking or neuron activity is concerned. Of course, as all other cells it has the normal cell operations etc but they are irrelevant as far as the mind or thinking is concerned. We don't think with our liver or muscles and while they are all cells and share those characteristics it is irrelevant as far as the thinking is concerned. The thinking is only related to the operation I descrived above.

Yes, we have made emulation of brain cells in computer programs and yes it has allowed us to get a much better understanding of how the process of perception work. For example a computer program that learn how to recognize letters using a neural network has told us much about how the perception process in the brain works and how it operates. Wether you could actually implement that emulation into a thing that could fit inside a brain of a person who had that part of his brain destroyed is a completely different issue.





			
				KabukiHomewood said:
			
		

> I believe that when we die and go back to God, we see each and every one of our 'sins' and also know fully the effect that it had on others.Â Â  We will also see what more we need to do to learn all of life's lessons, and will eventually choose a new life to lead, knowing what will happen in that form.Â Â When we are born onto this world of course, we have no knowledge of these former decisions, human beings cannot comprehend the totality of Truth.


First, this "absolute/totality truth" doesn't strike me to be so absolute and it absolutely not strikes me as truth. 

What is truth? To me, truth is "that which agrees with reality". So, if you tell me that Joe is the name of your brother and you actually do have a brother named Joe and I knew that, then I would say that yes, you are telling the truth. If I do in fact know that you do not have any brother named Joe I would say that you are not telling the truth. 

So truth is related to and subjet to relality. What then is "absolute truth"? What is meant by "absolute" "totality" in this context? Absolute often mean "not relative to anything else" but truth is always relative to the reality. By definition truth is that which agrees with reality and as such it is always relative to what reality is. Thus, truth cannot be absolute. Of course, you can then argue that reality is absolute and that absolute-ness transfer over to truth but this is a problematic stance. Even if we do agree that under a certain preassure and temparature, water will freeze to ice at 0 degrees centigrates, it still does not mean that the freezing point is absolute. It still varies with pressure and other variables. You can say that the speed of light through vacuum is "absolute" because it is a certain specific number of meters per second and this is indeed through because if you define meters by a certain wavelength of a radiation and you then define 1s as the duration it takes light to travel that given distance through vacuum it follows that the speed must necessarily be that value by definition. However, the truth does not have such a relationship with other things. It has reality and then a proposition in reality and if that proposition states something that agrees with that reality it is true, otherwise not, thus truth per se cannot be "absolute truth". 

There is one exception to this. There are a collection of statements that are always true: 

1. Tautologies. They are always true by the way the concepts involved are defined. 
2. Things that are true by definition. These are also always true and tautologies are actually a subset of these as indicated above. 

These can be said to be absolutely true, this is because they are true without regard to reality. However, because of this they also do not fit the original definition I gave completley. They fit the definition because tautologies and things that are true by definitions also happen to be always true in reality so that they always agree with reality however, the opposite is not true. There are many things that are true in the sense that they agree with reality but they are not tautologically true or true by definition and so those two cases above are not the only types of truth. However, they do appear to fit the category "absolutely true" though because you do not refer to reality to find out that they are true, as such they must be true regardless of how reality is and as such we can understand some of reality in terms of them. 

It is also interesting to reality that the concept of truth does not relate to the mind. It relates to reality. Of course, we understand reality in terms of the mind in the sense that we do not really relate to reality itself, instead we perceive reality and build a model of reality in our mind and it is that perceived reality we then evaluate the truth value of the proposition to find out if it is true or false. As such it is performed in the mind but the idea is that we have this model of reality in as much agreement with how we know reality works as possible and so whatever difference there would be between that model and the actual reality is due to things we do not know about and therefore cannot speculate upon. It is therefore "as if" we evaluate the truth in the actual reality even though we actually do it in the perceived reality and as such our mind is not referred to in that definition of truth. 

Of course, a person who thinks that our minds is the real thing and reality is just an illusion would disagree with that assessment and would use a different definition of what truth is.

I would think a better approach is by first defining what you mean by "truth", then discuss if it is at all meaningful to label any truths as "absolute" and go from there. 

Another issue is that finding there are such things as "absolute truths" is one thing, determining that there is only a single one such around is a completely different issue. How do you know that there is only one? If we for the argument sake assume you have managed to established that "absolute truth" is a meaningful statement, how do you determine that there isn't more than one? 

Of course, you can say that "absolute truth" involved an "AND" operation between all propositions that are absolutely true and so "the absolute truth" T is of the form "X and Y and Z ... " where X, Y, Z are each absolutely true. In this case T is clearly itself absolutely true and it is also clearly unique (we assume you never include T among the X, Y and Z so it is not recursive). Of course, in this case there is only one absolute truth but it woudl be hard to figure out exactly what it is. Even if you did find X and Y are absolutely true, you could say that T includes X and Y but you would have to be omniscient to know that it did not include Z but did include U, V and W and so you would have to be omniscient to ever know this absolute truth. This is quite hard since omniscience is logically problematic and so you would end up with the absurd statement that there is one and only one single absolute truth but it is inherently impossible to know exactly how it is. The statement may be true but it doesn't help anyone much and isn't enlightening nor does it provide any wisdom. It isn't even deep! 

I therefore think that it is very much like a wild goose chase to try making a theory for "absolute truth". At best it is questionable, at worst it is gibberish.





> We can become closer to god by reflecting on the world we live in, and by striving to live with our hearts full of Love for our fellow man, compassion, and understanding, to be righteous and judicious, to not harbor or encourage evil.


You are not only the physical body and atoms which gets scattered everywhere and even some of them leave you while you are alive. You shit and you piss and you sweat and breathe out and atoms leave your body constantly and new one enters your body constantly and they get to be present in your body for a while and then leave while some are present in your body as long as you live. However, none of those is what makes you you. What makes you you is the collection of all your past experiences and what makes your sense of identity and none of that survives when you die - it is gone, finito, dead, no more. Deal with it. I can agree that in a sense it is possible to live on. Your genes might have been passed on to children and your experiences might have been passed on to a student if you were a mentor or teacher or you may have left behind books, songs, poetry, wisdom or knowledge that people can enjoy for centuries and even millenia after you are dead. However, you as a person is no longer around to enjoy any of that. The only enjoyment you can get from that is the enjoyment in assuming that it will or might happen while you write that piece of music or poetry or whatever. You live this one life, enjoy it while you can. No afterlife, no reincarnation, nothing. Deal with it.


----------



## kyleviolet (Jun 14, 2007)

This is how hell works. Bear with me, as this is long:

God created hell as a place to send Satan and his followers. His followers were only supposed to contain demons (fallen angels). Man was designed to live forever. However, after the sin of Adam and Eve, they lost their immortality. God gave them the choice whether to sin or not, to obey Him or another. As he also gives us this choice. He knew man had rebelled against Him and, though they were sorry, they could no longer be totally in sync with Him on their own. In this way, we are separated from God, and will have to go to hell. However, God promised Adam and Eve a way out. Though the name is not mentioned, he promises to send Jesus to rescue them with the sacrifice of his life.

Now, I have to explain how sin works: sin is anything against God. God will forgive sin, but it is such a horrible offense that it takes the spilled blood of a pure specimen to cover the sin and purify the souls of men. Originally, this took the spilling of the blood of an animal sacrifice. The animal had to be pure: no broken bones, no blemishes, etc. Also, you'll notice that an animal cannot sin because of its lack of freewill, so it is also pure in the spiritual sense (to make another argument, they probably don't even have souls, but that is another debate). However, though the blood of an animal sacrifice was pure, it was not omnipotent, and could only cover the sins of a certain amount of time.

This is where Jesus comes in. Jesus lived a perfect life with absolutely no sin, and was not injured with a broken bone or blemish until the slaughter of His crucifixtion, and was also omnipotent, so his blood could cover the sins of all people at all times: past, present, future. Also, he rose from the dead to prove that he could beat death and sin. In this way, he shows that death and the grave do not have any power over him at all.

Bear with me. I'm almost done. Consider Jesus' sacrifice as a gift. The sacrifice will allow you to get to heaven if you accept it, but if you do not, then you cannot enter. Hell was made for Satan and his followers, but when you deny Christ, you accept Satan.

I gotta go. If you want to know more, PM me on FA forums.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 14, 2007)

*sniffs* I smell necromantic magic


----------



## TundraWolfBlade (Jun 14, 2007)

I think hell is for Hitler, stalin, Osama, anyone who's claimed to kill in God's name, muderers, rapists, pedaphile's and people who do bad things against others, like seriously evil bad things.


----------



## Oni (Jun 14, 2007)

I am curious about where you obtained your knowledge about neurons
foxy.



			
				foxy said:
			
		

> KabukiHomewood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 This sounds like idiot gibberish of someone who wants to use big words and basic truths or facts. 

To simplfy for you folks.

Truth is what actually happened, what actually is reality according toÂ Â how we percieve things. Not lying. Saying things for how they are or how we percieve them. No deviation from fact and proven fact in reality. (human truth)

Here is an absolute truth:Â Â 1 + 1 = 2Â Â (human truth)

But according to foxy's definition of absolute truth, absolute truth cannot exist because absolute truth would not relate to anything, whch is almost pointless to talk about.



			
				foxy said:
			
		

> There is one exception to this. There are a collection of statements that are always true:
> 
> 1. Tautologies. They are always true by the way the concepts involved are defined.
> 2. Things that are true by definition. These are also always true and tautologies are actually a subset of these as indicated above.
> ...


 For something to be true it must be related to reality. Once again, you defeat yourself foxy.



			
				foxy said:
			
		

> ... You live this one life, enjoy it while you can. No afterlife, no reincarnation, nothing. Deal with it. ...


You have no proof which supports your statements, deal with that.


----------



## DavidN (Jun 14, 2007)

TundraWolfBlade, you may want to alter that sweeping generalization before the rest of the forum comes down on you like five tons of grand piano.


----------



## Oni (Jun 15, 2007)

Hehe, just a bit over the line using, "the bulk of the middle east population".


----------



## net-cat (Jun 15, 2007)

Necromancy and tl;dr? Amazing.


----------



## Icarus (Jun 15, 2007)

If hell exists I think it would be like Dante's Inferno (or the Divine Comedy) where hell is literally what you make of it.
ex:  if you're afraid of snakes, you'll be in a snake pit.

IMO though...
I would rather feel or hear or believe that I would be "born again" or "in an after life" or "back to a terran life stream" or "D all of the above." than I'll just rot in the ground and that's the end.  Sort of seems unfitting to anything, like a lizard that was my first pet brought me so much joy.  And I'm just supposed to agree with others saying that it is now just gone forever.  

I f*cking refuse.
savy?


----------



## TundraWolfBlade (Jun 15, 2007)

Oni said:
			
		

> Hehe, just a bit over the line using, "the bulk of the middle east population".



BY bulk i mean terrorists.  America aint innocent either.  I dont think ill be seeing alot of gas executives getting into Heaven.  Hell, i might not get in.  What if instead of God, it's one of those old world god's like Zeus.  That would suck...* Thinks about it and shudders.*  I really hope i dont get reincarnated.  Id have to go ,"WHAT!  I just got off of Earth.  Now i have to go back there?!"


----------



## Sulacoyote (Jun 15, 2007)

Hell absolutely does exist. The word itself is derived from the ancient Hebrew term "Sheol", which translates to "Escondido, California".


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jun 15, 2007)

TundraWolfBlade- Thank God for someone else here with the guts to speak their mind.

Oni- I hate to break it to you, but replying to foxy is even more pointless now than it was when she actually posted here, which she doesn't anymore.

DavidN- because there's so many people here who are pro-Hitler, pro-Stalin, pro-Osama, pro-pedophile (well ok, yeah I'll give you that), pro-rapist and pro-terrorist.


----------



## Oni (Jun 15, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> TundraWolfBlade- Thank God for someone else here with the guts to speak their mind.
> 
> Oni- I hate to break it to you, but replying to foxy is even more pointless now than it was when she actually posted here, which she doesn't anymore.
> 
> DavidN- because there's so many people here who are pro-Hitler, pro-Stalin, pro-Osama, pro-pedophile (well ok, yeah I'll give you that), pro-rapist and pro-terrorist.


Well that is depressing, I was hoping for a debate.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Jun 15, 2007)

Oni said:
			
		

> I am curious about where you obtained your knowledge about neurons
> foxy.



I didn't go back and reread her stuff, but I remember her making comments about neurons when what she was actually describing was how a neural network works.


----------



## Oni (Jun 15, 2007)

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/theneuron.html

Here, after reading her definition and explaintion of "truth", I trust the above even more.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jun 15, 2007)

Oni said:
			
		

> Well that is depressing, I was hoping for a debate.



No, trust me on this, you wouldn't be able to debate with her. I tried, a bunch of us tried, and it was surreal. You'd present your argument as clearly and as easy to read as you possibly could, and what you'd get in response would be this massive wall of text that may or may not even have a damn thing to do with what you just said.


----------



## Oni (Jun 15, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Oni said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*laughs* Interesting enough and believable. That is noted here Wolf Bone. ^.^

Foxy's comments were understandable until I read further into them, then it was just gibberish that disproves itself.


----------



## Priest (Jun 15, 2007)

well, heres my two cents.......

God is a nice guy, and he is not going to send you to hell for any reason whatsoever. 

you aren't born a sinner, and you don't have to go to church to be a good person. 

and lastly, you don't have to be saved to get into heaven.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jun 15, 2007)

I'm going to end this bullshit once and for all. The reason these arguments never reach a conclusion is because they're debating the wrong thing.


----------



## Mettaur (Jun 15, 2007)

*Reads only the first post, because he is lazy as all heck.*

Uh. I dunno about Hell, and right now I don't really care that much. If there is such thing, yay. I'll meet you all there to be tormented or whatever forever. If not, whatever.


----------



## Sylvine (Jun 15, 2007)

kyleviolet said:
			
		

> God created hell as a place to send Satan and his followers. His followers were only supposed to contain demons (fallen angels). Man was designed to live forever. However, after the sin of Adam and Eve, they lost their immortality. God gave them the choice whether to sin or not, to obey Him or another. As he also gives us this choice. He knew man had rebelled against Him and, though they were sorry, they could no longer be totally in sync with Him on their own. In this way, we are separated from God, and will have to go to hell.
> 
> [rest snipped]



I find this post highly interesting. So, there's actually no mention that "Hell" = Eternal Punishment, Lake of Fire, little horny, err - horned devils poking You with oversized forks? It's more like "You don't agree with me, so stay the fuck out of my house, go hang out with Satan"? 

That doesn't sound too bad, now, does it? 

~Sylv


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jun 15, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> kyleviolet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've always wondered if the people who originally came up with this shit like a million years ago weren't just trying to say that, and God and Satan were just supposed to be two paths you could follow, neither one necessarily being better than the other, just one came before the other.


----------



## TundraWolfBlade (Jun 15, 2007)

Priest said:
			
		

> well, heres my two cents.......
> 
> God is a nice guy, and he is not going to send you to hell for any reason whatsoever.
> 
> ...



WOH WOH!  If i get to heaven and find HItler, or God forbid Osama.  Then IM gonna have to talk with God.  Right after i kick Hitler's and Osama's ass.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jun 15, 2007)

TundraWolfBlade said:
			
		

> Priest said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what about George Bush? He going to heaven?


----------



## Sylvine (Jun 15, 2007)

FUCKIN NO! Not into my heaven, at least. *grins* 

A-Hem. Why not? Maybe there will be some kind of enlightement. Hitler will realize what a sick bastard he was, Osama will repent for his crimes, and Bush will  - gasp - smarten up a lot. Could happen, no? After all, if YOu are not ready to forgive, You do not deserve heaven. Or something. 

~Sylv


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jun 15, 2007)

Fuck Yo Heaven Nigga! Make another one ya omnipotent muthafucka!


----------



## Sylvine (Jun 15, 2007)

And then, God spoke: 

FYIAD. 

And, on an other note: 

This is Blasphemy!! This is madness!!! =P 

I think we're ruining a perfectly viable topic here. So back to it: 

From my studies of the bible ( I did read the damn thing. It's more popular than Harry Potter, after all ), the word "Hell" derives from the hebrew "Gehenna", which was a place for burning trash, circled by high walls. It was said what You threw into the Gehenna could never be retrieved again. THis opens up an other interpretation alltogether: You either follow the will of God, or You get thrown into Gehenna, meaning: You have forsaken every chance for an afterlife. YOu're DEAD, and that's it. 

In my opinion, that's more reasonable than the eternal punishment theory. Why bother? If something doesn't work, You throw it away. God, as a higher being, will surely not retrain to simple sadism? 

~Sylv


----------



## TundraWolfBlade (Jun 15, 2007)

One of us should start a thread about what were gonna do after we die according to out beliefs.  Hitler and Osama will never get into Heaven, Buhs, id give him 50/50.  An atheist could get in as longs as he/she led a good life and didnt trash other people's religion.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jun 15, 2007)

TundraWolfBlade said:
			
		

> Buhs, id give him 50/50.



Wow, so a politician's chances of getting into Heaven are about the same as his approval rating, more or less. I wonder if Heaven has an electoral college.


----------



## Icarus (Jun 15, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> This is madness!!! =P



No.....



This


is 


SPARTAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TundraWolfBlade (Jun 15, 2007)

GET A JOB! IN HELL!-BLAM- I've always wanted to do that to someone. 

Politicians chacnes are based on what they do.  Saddam, he's in hell.  Washington, heaven, Lincoln heaven, Clinton should be able to get in.  It almost sounds like im talking about a club.  
Saint Peter:  Hi welcome to heaven, do you have a reservation?
Me: WHAT?! 
SP: Oh im just kiding.


----------



## Vgm22 (Jun 15, 2007)

I think we already live in hell. Well some of us anyway, so life is hell. Who knows if hell or heaven even exsists until we actually die.


----------



## firefox_b (Jun 16, 2007)

As Mark Twain said, 'ya go to Heaven for the climate, but 'ya go to Hell for the company!Â Â 

As the Squirrel Nut Zippers said, "In the afterlife/You could be headed for the serious strife/Now you make the scene all day/But tomorrow there could be Hell to pay!"Â Â (Give the Zippers a listen; the cut is called _Hell._ --Think Carmen Miranda on speed.)Â Â :evil:

I kinda like the Catholic concept of Purgatory, where you go if you're too good for Hell but not good enough for Heaven...you attone and burn off your sins there. -- Kinda like New Jersey...Â Â :wink:


----------

