A hypothetical question but one that returns to my mind time and time again.
<EDIT>It is believed by some that you go to heaven at some point as a reward.<END EDIT>
Now if you go to heaven and it abides by the laws set down by God then, apart from walking around being nice to one another, what will there be to do there for eternity?
There will be no money so the satisfaction of earning it will not be there and the satisfaction of winning it will no doubt not be there (does God endorse gambling?) so that will make heaven not such an attractive proposition to many. If there is money there then that must mean heaven will be as missed up with people who have lots and people who have none- surely that cannot be so.
Drugs will no doubt be frowned upon so that way of relaxing will not be available so there are a few more people not too interested in heaven.
Sex with multiple partners or even with one for anything other than procreation (depending upon which branch of Christianity) will be frowned upon. So there is the vast majority of people uninterested.
So either you continue to live in abstinence just as you did on earth to get there in the first place or God throws all the rules outs of the window and heaven makes Sodom look like Margate on a wet Sunday afternoon!!!
So what is the schedule in heaven – what happens when you wake up? What fills your day? What do you have to look forward to once you are there? And if you knew beforehand would want to go there anyway???
One of the greatest pleasures on earth is the anticipation of something special you could not normally have (due to one earthly constraint or another such as work, lack of funds or other commitments) and yet the perception of heaven is that you will be able to do have things as much as you like. The only things you could possibly want are what are classed as sins.
So you see, isn’t heaven somewhat of a paradox?
Now before Christians begin to berate me I am a Christian and I know what Christianity and the belief in Jesus and God does for me but that does not stop that question from cropping up.
I realise that a well lived Christian life on earth could prepare you for eternal life in Heaven and you shouldn’t want any of the things listed above if you are a true Christian and I agree BUT what is there on the agenda when/if we get there?
Eternity is a long time to follow your hobby of knitting and sitting in religious debate with God and the others in some ultimate prayer meeting. And as everything we do is for a goal, what goal can we set ourselves (or can God set us) once we successfully earn the ticket to Heaven.
Oh, so much more to say but I fear many readers will be asleep several paragraphs ago.
To those who read this far, thanks and well done. 
Last edited by Captain Fertile on Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:57 pm; edited 2 times in total Obvious jerk remark: You really haven't done much research on the topic, have you?
A lot of religions point out that a number of restrictions simply won't apply, and others won't apply out of necessity (killing, example: How do you kill someone who's already dead?). Other problems will be alleviated (ranging from physical disease to certain transgender issues).
Given the number of religions that point out that those that head to Heaven have 72 virgins and sumptuous feasts, among other things, I really don't think that saying that the Ten Commandments is necessarily an accurate observations.
And, even then, there is reincarnation if you get too bored (or to prevent boredom)...
HM
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
| The Bible states you go to heaven or hell at some point as a reward or punishment. |
No, you're very wrong there.
The Bible mentions a Heaven, but never ever actually mentions a Hell. To my knowledge, the only possible things in the Bible which might, if read in a certain way, lead you to the interpretation that Hell exists are the following:
• The mention of "a lake of fire and brimstone" in the book of Revelation.
• The various mentions of "sheol" which have been interpreted as Hell in fact means "pit" and probably means, in the cases used, 'grave'.
• The mentions of 'Gehenna', which has been falsely interpreted as Hell when it was in fact the local refuse dump outside Jerusalem.
I'm sure there are more, but to my understanding there is no Hell, furthermore there would be no need in one and God would not ever create one. I will explain why.
Let us hypothetically say that the people who have been 'good' in the eyes of God go to Heaven and the people who have been 'bad' go to Hell when they die.
Now, let's look at what would happen in Heaven if everyone who went there went their unchanged - exactly as they were on Earth. There would be chaos! People would still hate other people, people would become bored with their lives, people would in fact have all these negative emotions which would make Heaven just like Earth. I won't mention the ways humans naturally waste things and are naturally lazy as I'm sure these could easily be combated by influence from God, which is why I won't mention these or a number of other things. Anyway, Heaven is supposedly better than Earth, supposedly perfect. If it is indeed perfect then everyone who enters Heaven will have to be changed in such a way that they would never hate but will always "love thy neighbour"; there would be no fighting, no ill thoughts, no depression, no sadness, no mistrust (need I go on?). Now, you are pretty much inhuman if you don't have any of these things on Earth. Thus, God would certainly have to change people before they went into Heaven.
As of this, there would be no need for a Hell, as God could just as easily change the 'bad' people to be just as the 'good' after they have been changed.
This is incomprehensible (although you might be able to get some way to thinking about how it would be) to any human as we can only imagine from our experiences.
Therefore there is no point trying to think about what it will be like, especially as whatever it is like (and I am sure that it is like nothing (as in like nothing you could ever experience in our [reachable] Universe)) will be so different and unimaginable compared to life here on Earth. Furthermore, whatever it is like, you will enjoy yourself all the time if you go there, as you will have been changed upon entry.
This also means that Heaven is not a paradox.
Those are my beliefs anyway. I'm adamant that there is no Hell and pretty sure that we will have to be changed to enter a Heaven if there really is one. I'm already wondering what replies I'll get to this and I'm prepared to change my beliefs but I don't think anyone's going to be able to come up with any argument which could change my views on this.
Oh, by the way I don't follow any religion. I'm not sure whether God exists or not (plus I believe that you can never prove it) and I believe that you can be happy without religion (also known as a 'humanist').
My post is pretty long too, Captain Fertile, good luck reading through it (I didn't fall asleep reading through yours).
EDIT:
Some additional information:
Gehenna: Adapted from the name of a valley to the South of the Temple in Jerusalem where the city waste was burned called "Valley of Hinnom". People have interpreted this as Hell, it is - after all a place where the fires never burn out. An example of this can be found at Matthew 5:22.
Sheol: A place where the dead go, used in a metaphorical way to talk about what happened to people when they died; this was almost synonymous with death and especially the "grave". Therefore, it basically means grave. An example of this this can be found at Psalms 49:14.
Hades: A term from Greek mythology wherein it was the abode of the dead. It was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew concept of Sheol. An example of this this can be found at Matthew 11:23.
Last edited by ninjakannon on Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:26 pm; edited 1 time in totalActually, there is a Hell; Jesus Christ went down there to grab some people (The Harrowing of Hell). Admittedly there is some debate over what was meant exactly, but it's usually noted there is a Hell.
By the same token, there is true definition of Heaven, and it's not usually well-defined until after the events in Revelation happen...
HM
Okay, I hadn't heard of the 'Harrowing of Hell' before so I've gone and done a bit of research.
My first port of call was Wikipedia, it being the quickest immediate method; now look at what I found:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell wrote: |
| Nowhere does the New Testament state that Jesus descended into hell. The doctrine, therefore, can only be inferred from a particular interpretation of a few verses. |
Again, the Bible never actually states that there is a Hell and do you not see from my previous argument that Hell is useless anyway if God and Heaven both exist. I must say that if God and Heaven do really exist but also alongside Hell then we must have got our views of God very wrong. God, omni-benevolent God, would not send people to an eternity of torture when he could just change (and save) them like he would do for everyone he considered 'good'. Do you not see this?
If you read all the possible references to Jesus bringing up people from Hell in the Biblical sources section on Wikipedia's page about the Harrowing of Hell then you will realise that none of them give certain answers about the existence of Hell.
I would say that, as none of these references offer anything even nearly near certain, that my previous argument about why there would not be a Hell overrides the 'Harrowing of Hell' in every way. Okay I have edited the original question to remove the comment about the Bible mentioning Hell, so hopefully people won't be distracted and feel the need to talk about something that was not intended to be any part of my original question.
Neither is this a question of whether God is real or not or whether Christianity is the correct religion to follow (there are plenty of those threads already).
I was asking how heaven would actually operate in a purely CHRISTIAN context to be a pleasant place to live for those of us in the modern world (or are we just so far beyond hope almost all people who call themselves 'Christian' will be denied access to heaven).
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
| Okay I have edited the original question to remove the comment about the Bible mentioning Hell, so hopefully people won't be distracted and feel the need to talk about something that was not intended to be any part of my original question. |
I just thought it necessary to point out that no where in the Bible is any direct reference to Hell actually made.
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
| Neither is this a question of whether God is real or not or whether Christianity is the correct religion to follow (there are plenty of those threads already). |
Well I wasn't going down any of these routes so that's okay.
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
| I was asking how heaven would actually operate to be a pleasant place to live for those of us in the modern world (or are we just so far beyond hope almost all people who call themselves 'Christian' will be denied access to heaven). |
I have answered this question, Captain Fertile, what is your answer to what I said?Almost an interesting post. If there were some more serious research on the existence of heaven and hell, this would almost be a valid post.
Luke 16:22-25 makes very clear reference to the existence of hell, as well as the torment ("...I am tormented in this flame." verse 24) that comes with the territory.
Really, guys...if you're into religion, at least do some homework. If you're just tired of Dungeons and Dragons and want to finds something else to pontificate on--try Harry Potter.
TexasWes, you don't have to attack us to get your point across. I myself have never read the Bible all the way through, just sections of it. I have also talked about other sections of it and spoken to people who have read the whole Bible who believed there was no mention of Hell*
I would also like to say that I did do some research and did not find any links to Hell. I don't see this thread flooded with replies. Indeed most people choose to post in threads where they don't have to think too much, let alone do research - so don't criticise us for not doing our homework.
Anyhow, on with this discussion, the mention of Hell in Luke 16:22-25 is interesting to say the least, so what do I make of it?
In this, Abraham appears to be punishing someone (a rich man) "that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things" (who had a good life) and comforting somone (a beggar) who witnessed much evil in life (after these two are dead). "Hell" is mentioned here; the rich man is sent there and indeed says "I am tormented in this flame".
However, you must understand that the Bible has gone through many translations and things within it have changed. Look at the origin of the word "Hell" and what do you find? You find that it is the word used in English translations of the Bible to substitute for "Sheol" and "Gehenna". And what did I say about those words? Have a look at my previous posts in this thread if you don't quite remember or haven't yet read.
Do you see? This is not a link to Hell*! It is a misfortunate translation which has resulted in much dispute over the existence of such a place as Hell because some people don't do their research.
So what might Luke 16:22-25 mean then? Well to me it looks like the rich man is being punished with a poor grave and the beggar is being given a very good grave. Yes, [after he is dead] the rich man does say "I am tormented in this flame", but that must therefore be a direct link to Gehenna, which makes perfect sense as that is one of the words which has been translated into "Hell" - not wrongly translated, or badly translated. No, it has been translated into "Hell" correctly because no after doing some further research I have found that Hell in the Bible means "sheol" or "Gehenna". This is why I found no link to Hell* in the Bible
So next time think before you write, TexasWes. And do your research.
* All mentions of "Hell" which are followed by an asterisk are talking about Hell in the form of 'abode of the Devil', the meaning which has sprouted from misinterpretation of sections of the Bible such as Luke 16:22-25.
EDIT:
| TexasWes wrote: |
| Almost an interesting post |
I think it's a very interesting topic. This thread has really got to me and left my rather angry. The ill mannered, pig headed way people word their replies really upsets me after what was such an innocent question.
I didn’t come here for what so many in this area of FriHost call ‘deep philosophical debate’ but which usually seem to degenerate into slanging-matches. Slanging-matches where the barricades of belief come up so fast that no outside ideas will ever penetrate.
I just came with a question, be it a hypothetical one for many here. A question and some optimism that a helpful answer may prevail.
I wanted some opinions (really wanted to use the word answers there but I know that you live and die here on how you word things, people here love to dive into a dictionary to tell you that your word was not the one you should have used, even though they knew the context in which you used it. You have offended their intelligence by using it).
Anyway I wanted some opinions from fellow Christians to see if they are bothered by the same questions as me (and atheists were welcome to answer too if they can take off their atheist hats for 2 seconds and see another side –if they can’t fine, but in that case they have nothing to offer toward the answer because the question requires an ability to say, “What if…” and heaven forbid I should ask a philosopher to say those words).
I didn’t come here asking whether or not you believed in the Christian God, or even whether Hell existed.
| Quote: |
| “You really haven't done much research on the topic, have you? |
If I was as sure of all the answers as many of you out there I wouldn’t have asked the question in the first place. If you are talking about the existence of hell then maybe I didn't do much research but then that was not the crux of my question. Like many exam questions I make sure I understand what the question is before I begin answering it. There is much more talk of hell here than of heaven which proves either I worded the question badly, you didn’t read it correctly or you simply alter the question to suit an answer you can provide with an air of authority.
I resent your assumption - I did plenty of research I just didn’t understand the conflicting conclusions I was left with – hence my question.
I have steered clear of the philosophy and religion section for a long while because it has a high ratio unfriendly posts, with people who just love to rip into other people’s theories without tact or respect. And I now see my mistake in posting here.
I appreciate that ninjakannon went on to answer my question in the best way he could and that is greatly appreciated. I’m not going to say what I agree and disagree with, my question was just that, a question. At least he answered it.
But the rest of the 'answers' on here were neither relevant nor in the least helpful, in fact they seemed to be designed just to belittle and offend.
Like so many answers in the philosophy and religion section they were posted more to massage your own ego than in an attempt to actually HELP someone who does not claim to know as much as some on the subject and that is why they are asking the question in the first place!
Okay so maybe it was my own fault. Perhaps I was unable to word the question in the required way before presenting it at the table of the chosen few.
| Quote: |
| "Almost an interesting post. If there were some more serious research on the existence of heaven and hell, this would almost be a valid post. “ |
Sorry but I’m not going to take your word on what makes an ALMOST valid post? Are you a moderator? They tell me what is and is not a valid here.
I am sorry that such a Neanderthal as I shambled onto your turf, where I clearly do not belong. Maybe Bondings should have an exam we must take before we are allowed to post here, so we don’t pollute the pool!
The question WAS a valid one because I did not know the answer ergo the post was valid.
| Quote: |
| Really, guys...if you're into religion, at least do some homework. If you're just tired of Dungeons and Dragons and want to finds something else to pontificate on--try Harry Potter.” |
If this was aimed it me, you are condescending aren’t you? Religion is not something I am into it is something I am trying to understand and comments like this as are useless and contribute nothing other than bad feeling. I don’t like D&D and not that keen on Harry Potter but my kids are so I take this comment to be highly offensive, are you accusing me of being retarded with the mental capacity of a child?
If this is the case then welcome home to the Philosophy thread were pompous black and white thinking rule and the ability to try and understand another perspective rarely raises its ugly head other than by a few inspired members.
As soon as most people post in this section they seem to put their philosophy head on and understanding or openness to other perspectives is taboo.
Before anyone accuses my of being this way, I accept that people believe there may not be a God (I was one of them until quite recently) and I am quite willing to discuss this and take on their point of view – but only if they are willing to do the same AND when it is in context with the question for which the thread was created.
Very disappointed at the responses and attitude toward the question.
My spleen is now vented and I can move on to posting in the other ‘dumb’ threads where I clearly belong. Maybe I should start a post asking people to vote on their favourite Brittany Spears record.
Mods may as well lock this post (if you want to allow time for people to retort fine but I have nothing more to add). I wouldn't go so far as to say that this topic should be locked. It hasn't had an abundance of replies yet and I'm sure it could get back on track, especially as the original question you asked, Captain Fertile, is very interesting indeed. I would love to see some proper answers to it (and I'd love to see your response to my answer, but I don't demand it).
I think it was people's reactions to what I originally posted which have derailed this topic a bit. In my post I stated my beliefs and people have fought back at this, not the original question. That's all it is, you worded your question in a perfectly adequate way for people to give on-topic opinions; it's just that we got sidetracked (which sprouted from my post, and I continued to go along with it - sorry).
We all need to calm down and take a step back. I'm sure we'll get some interesting replies to the original question if we leave this topic open.
People do attack each other rather a lot here, I admit to it. But you must understand why. Very few of us here are actual philosophers; most people here are around 18 years old - just teenagers really. We have strong opinions and, being of quite an argumentative, egotistical age we lay into each other a bit. But if you learn to look over this and see the arguments [too], which people make, then things are usually quite interesting and good debates can take place. However, when we are insulted directly then things really have gone too far - I wish people would refrain from doing this. But once it happens then people just fight back (I just did it).
I thought that TexasWes was attacking me, mostly. I was the one who said I'd done some research and believed that I had conclusive argument to say that Hell did not exist. He obviously knew of this mention of Hell in Luke 16:22-25 and thought it very simple, thus the way he attacked me(?) for being so sure of myself and saying that I had done my research.
I would like to get a reply from TexasWes, how is that going to work? Is our discussion too off-topic to continue for a bit here?
EDIT:
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
| My spleen is now vented and I can move on to posting in the other ‘dumb’ threads where I clearly belong. Maybe I should start a post asking people to vote on their favourite Brittany Spears record. |
You don't belong there at all! You are one of the most intellectual members on FriHost (in my opinion) and can really string a good argument together. Your grammar and spelling ability (as well as a whole host of other skills you possess) would be wasted in a thread where the longest reply was "Oops I did it again!".
Last edited by ninjakannon on Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total Thanks for your post ninjakannon - I am now relaxed, have taken a step back and all is right with the world once again.
I was a little frustrated that it appeared that my question had been misinterpreted into a discussion of heaven and hell even after I tried to clear it up.
My comments to TexasWes featured a precursory disclaimer that "If his comments were directed at me...etc. etc.
...If they weren't aimed at my original post then I hope he will not be too offended but it seemed to be a comment on this thread topic.
I am happy for this topic to stay open and will give it the time you rightly suggest to attract some replies.
When I get some time I will give my thoughts on your answer to my post as it deserves more time than I have spare at the moment.
As ever you are a voice of reason and you have allowed me to gain my own perspective once again.
Thanks
(The Captain retires to a darkened room to chill even more)
PS I have to admit that my spelling ability is thanks entirely to the good folks at Microsoft and the spell checker in MS Word. 
OK guys. First, I overstepped in my closing remarks. That was over the top and I should have use better literary judgment. My sincerest apologies.
In a more civil tone, here's my "beef" with some of the components of the thread.
1) Is there a heaven or hell?
Good question. Lots of literary resources to pull from to make this a good discussion topic; however, refuting that the Bible does not mention hell is 100% incorrect. Check out any concordance and there are dozens of references.
2) Stating that the term "hell" in the Bible does not actually mean "a place of eternal torment" due to "translation errors," is a real slap in the face to all religions that use the Bible as their source document. If "the words don't mean what they actually say" can be used for the term "hell", then there's obviously room for error with regards to other terms. Perhaps murder, adultery, and "the long list of other sins" aren't really what the authors intended.
This has been an atheistic tactic for...well...forever. If you can prove one thing in the Bible isn't valid, then there's room for two...and so on. This is what I viewed as being the direction of this post--a dismantling of biblical text based upon loosely construed lore as to what people were thinking when translations were being scribed. I felt my faith was under attack and inappropriately defended it.
In retrospect, I should have just read (what I believe to be misrepresentation of biblical text) and just moved on. Please accept my apologies for not presenting the above views in a more tactful way.
v/r
Texaswes
I'd say we've all made up now, that feels better. I was never attacking your religion really, just stating my beliefs about the Bible. I'm pretty certain neither of us will budge from our stances on this matter, but I must say I don't agree with you. It appears you believe I'm misinterpreting things and I believe your misinterpreting things, quite funny really.
I looked at the origins of the word "Hell" and found it to - in the case of the Bible - be the word used, as I previously said, when translating the Bible into English to mean 'Sheol' or 'Gehenna'. You know what I said about what they meant, so what is your response to this?
The Bible is a moral text; it preaches morality, justice and all that is right (amongst a range of other things). Why then, would God punish his people for eternity when there is no apparent need? I gave my reason for not believing that a 'Hell' like place could exist (about God changing people to enter Heaven etc), what do you say to that? I do understand that God does punish people; take some obvious examples like the Great Flood or the punishment (more like a lesson) of bestowing mortality upon humans. I can think of even more, why would God, though, punish people for eternity? Especially as there is no need, or none as I see it (see my 'changing people' argument).
I'm not trying to show up mistakes in the Bible or prove that it is some kind of made up story (for I believe that many of the events recorded within it actually took place, although they may have been altered slightly in translation - which is only expected). Do you accept that there are translation errors in the Bible? I would say that you cannot deny it, no two versions of the Bible are the same! Furthermore, I will give an example of mistranslation in the Bible: some versions (mostly older versions I would have thought now) of the Bible state that Moses parted the Red Sea. However, it has now been realised that Moses parted the Reed Sea, which is entirely different. Actually, it's also very plausible that he did in fact appear to part the Reed Sea, why? Because there was an inland section which had a tide, if Moses had come at the right moment then the river could have in fact been sucked down towards the sea with the tide; recordings of this would quite likely have exaggerated this event, too.
I got a bit sidetracked there, but you do see where I'm coming from here don't you?
Just zooming past but had to comment very quickly.
@Texaswes
So pleased we are all getting on and discussing rather than anything else. I will no doubt join in this discussion tomorrow (I am getting ready for the superbowl right now) but I have learned so much already from the latest posts made by you and ninjakannon.
You see I am a learning Chrsitian making the first few steps and many of the things you guys are saying are not new to me so they give me a sound starting point for my Bible study and you both make some common misconceptions clear where I was never aware of them before so I can go of and check them out myself.
I am pleased that this has turned out well and that you both took my post in the way it was meant and we can move on - I have a lot of respect for you both.
Hey, a self-moderated discussion, we did it ourselves! 
Okay, I will be back. Fair enough--here's my personal opinion on the questions you pose. Forgive me for not doing that nice-n-tidy quote box--I haven't figured out how to do that yet.
English translation of 'Sheol' or 'Gehenna': You are correct in your translation of these Hebrew words, but there's additional meanings of these words that may make passages clearer. The Hebrew (Old Testament) language was a very dull and non-specific language. 'Sheol' does refer to 'grave', but also was used to describe the 'realm of death' and 'Sheol deepest depths' (which could either be the lowest point in the actual grave, or be referring to a more spiritual aspect of death). It takes serious reading to figure out which relationship or meaning of the word they're trying to achieve, as you must replace the various English meanings into the passage to figure out the context.
Example: (Psalm 86:13)
- For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave.
- For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest realm of death.
- For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Sheol deepest depths.
The first example is OK, but the second is likely what the author had in mind, being more of a spiritual reference (realm of death) of freeing the soul.
So, I don't agree that every passage in the Old Testament that mentions hell (translated word) means 'grave.'
Conversely, the New Testament was written in a much more living and vibrant language--Greek--which is a more precise and exacting language. When they mention Hell in the New Testament, you can be pretty sure that they're referring to a "very bad place in the after-life." Regardless if it was derived from Greek mythology, that's the closest description that could be used to describe what we refer to as 'Hell.' The New Testament normally uses the word 'tomb' to mean grave, so any reference to hell in the NT is not normally speaking about a hole in the ground. So I have to respectfully disagree that the term 'hell' in the NT means anything other than...well...hell.
The NT in Greek is very specific as to what the intended words were, and if anything, English is not a very good language to translate into.
Example of this is John 21:15. Jesus asks Peter, "Do you 'truly love' (agape) me more than these?" Peter responded, "...you know that I love (Phileo) you." There are three principle Greek words for love; Agape, which means to love with all your heart (what your spouses want to hear); Phileo means to love, as in affection or to kiss; and Eros means to love in a more physical (sexual) way (i.e. eros=erotica). Jesus asked Peter if he loved him with all his heart. Peter replied that he loved him in an affectionate way. When read in English, this gives the sense that Jesus questioned Peter about his love for him and Peter passed 'the test' or made a public affirmation of his love for Jesus (I've heard sermons on public affirmation of one's love for Christ using this verse incorrectly). In Greek, this conversation takes on a different meaning.
Now to throw some props to the original question as to why should God have a hell to throw people into. Well...he gave is free will. With free will comes the freedom to choose and the responsibility to suffer the consequences of those choices. He gave Moses laws. Why would he make laws if he didn't intend on enforcing (i.e. punishing) the laws? In designing the world, I think one must have a set of consequences in place to ensure the 'order of things' (laws?) flows smoothly--not resulting in a world of chaos and hedonism, free from any behavioral consequences. As for God punishing people for eternity, it may be simpler to understand if you remove the vessel (body) that we use to navigate this planet, and focus on the spirit. If you're a bad person, it's not your flesh and blood that's bad--it's your mind and soul. I (personal opinion again) don't believe a bunch of rotting corpses will float into the heavens, but I do believe that the 'good souls'--who demonstrated their goodness while on this planet--will go to a place free from the issues that 'torment' (flesh and blood) humans. No pain, fear, bitterness, lust (why have lust? don't have a body to lust after), etc.
Hope this clears my point of view a bit. Granted, I've not mainstream. I believe in the tenets of the Bible, but I don't subscribe to any particular religion. I believe that God created everything, and I believe in evolution. I don't fit the mold, and am not easily stereotyped--so I'm normally misunderstood.
The way I understand the descriptions of Heaven, isn't it supposed to be a state of eternal grace in the presence of God?
Anyway, it sounds pretty boring to me, and I'm personally hoping for reincarnation.
| TexasWes wrote: |
| 'Sheol' does refer to 'grave', but also was used to describe the 'realm of death' and 'Sheol deepest depths' (which could either be the lowest point in the actual grave, or be referring to a more spiritual aspect of death) |
Yes, you are right there. However, do these other meanings not just mean the same thing? The grave is the realm of the dead, in a sense; furthermore, people have always used euphemisms when talking about the dead and related topics. Henceforth, I think that it is quite likely that you might refer to someone being in the "deepest depths" or some such phrase when they are dead. None of this entails a 'Hell' as in 'abode of the Devil'.
However, I have not analysed every passage where the word "Hell" has been used. It is my belief that 'Hell' (again, as in 'abode of the Devil') isn't referenced in the Bible yet I do accept that I may be wrong about this. We're not going to get anywhere unless someone provides a use of the word where there is no question of its meaning being 'abode of the Devil' (or such place).
You are also right about the Old Testament being more non-specific, this is expected anyway, as translation after translation and copying after copying, it's bound to have changed and become more jumbled too. Hence, the New Testament has been altered less and meanings within it should be more defined. Thus, it is more likely that references to Hell in the NT do, as you say, mean Hell.
Yet I'm sure you will find copies of the Bible written by people who share my belief that there is no Hell, and in these... Well, there will be no sign of 'Hell' at all - the word probably won't even be used. This is because a lot of the Bible has been interpreted differently by different people - some of these interpretations have stuck. Originally it was up to the scribe who was writing that section of the Bible to make judgements about what different words, phrases, sentences (etcetera) meant. I think that the first Bible which was translated with defined definitions for everything was the King James Bible, although I'm not certain of this.
Anyway, I would like you to directly answer my following questions.
I said earlier in this thread that God would have to change people before letting them into Heaven, thus he might as well change the people who had been 'good' in life as well as those who had been 'evil'. Therefore, there would be no need to send anyone to Hell. (I would be obliged if you would read my full argument). Here, I talk about 'people' as they will be in the state they will be in upon entering Heaven or, perhaps, Hell; whether they are a spirit or whatever.
So, do you not agree with this? If not, why not?
| Jinx wrote: |
| Anyway, it sounds pretty boring to me, and I'm personally hoping for reincarnation. |
This only backs up my argument.
Living for eternity would be boring to any human, it's just our nature. Therefore, God would have to change people before they entered Heaven.Don't worry my brother, God has already realized that not all of the people would like to spend the eternity with Him, that is why we are living here on Earth - to decide whether we want it or not. And I'm pretty sure that if you find it boring or not interesting, He would not bother you twice to change your mind 
| the_mariska wrote: |
| Don't worry my brother, God has already realized that not all of the people would like to spend the eternity with Him, that is why we are living here on Earth - to decide whether we want it or not. And I'm pretty sure that if you find it boring or not interesting, He would not bother you twice to change your mind |
I find it very hard to get bored, myself; in fact I haven't been bored for a few months now, I think. But a few months is very different to an eternity, very very different. People wonder how I manage to stay interested all the time, I tell them that I just find everything interesting, nothing bores me.
But eternity... I'm not sure I could survive that without getting bored. I don't think anyone could, actually. Don't you agree? It's human nature to become bored. Therefore my argument still stands.Exactly. I agree with you Ninjakannon. Its Human nature to get bored at stuff. I bet most people have been bored in our lives. I dont think heaven or hell are related to us deciding anything in life. I reckon God just sends us to heaven or hell dependant on our actions and whether we're good or bad. What we do psyically doesnt matter. If god is omnipotent ( all powerful) then he can see into peoples hearts to see whether they are truly good or not. However most people break the 10 commandements in their life so i think if heaven and hell exist then heavens gotta be quite empty.
I agree that we would have to be changed if we entered heaven which means we'd be different in heaven that on Earth. I dont think many people would like the idea of being changed because then they wouldn't be them. Our characteristics are what make us us. However If heaven and hell exist then were would they be? A parralell universe? Another world?
Also yes there is no mention of Hell in the bible. I think hell is like Satan. I think Satan was created because people thought that if God existed then there would have to be something bad to challenge God. People realise that is heaven existed then Hell would also have to exist if only the good people go to heaven. The bad people would have to go somewhere. So i think that the idea of Satan and Hell were created a while after the Bible and not at the same time. There are references yet there arent actually names mentioned which suggests that the people that wrote the Bible only began to pla with the idea of Hell and Satan but had not yet developed the idea and that the idea was developed a bit later on.
