minsocal Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 More than a generation ago, some thinkers noted that secularism might just become the new religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornet Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 How can Heaven be a place? Place suggests finite physicallity. My understanding of what may come after this is that it is eternal - without end or limitation of any kind. Peace, Brian Heaven is located somewhere. It has a finite size. Heaven is eternal in the sense that it will exist forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Heaven is located somewhere. It has a finite size. Heaven is eternal in the sense that it will exist forever. Hornet, This is an opinion stated as an established fact. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 OK, I'll try this. Heaven and hell are mental states.Mental states need the concept of time in order to be human mental states. The term "eternal" does not relate to intrinsic time, it relates to a state of "non-time". To reach, or strive, to connect means to have a desire to connect with the eternal. Myron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Sure, but unlike a god, it isn't necessary to sacrifice humans, animals, dignity and common sense to appease. Norm, I did not say that this was stupid but that you were smarter than this. I should not have said it this way and I apologize. I look forward to your posts. Your comments have a sense of being real and reasoned. I gravitate to your avatar when looking at a list of new comments. The above is a succinct variation of your criticism of religions. But I don't see how it is useful in the conversation. The generalizations aren't nuanced and don't fit the issues. Deities and what they command evolves, Animal sacrifice is not a permanent characteristic of religion. Common sense is problematic. There have been no animal sacrifices in Judaism or Christianity in two millennia. As George observed the study of religions does include an examination of the costly sacrifice but to say that sacrifice only happens in religion misses much about the nature of sacrifice and its importance of it to any group of people. If animal sacrifice taints a people or practices then the iconic birthplace of democracy, Athens, is tainted. If making a costly sacrifice for a higher good taints a people then the Civil War and Normandy Invasion taint America and Europe. Democracy is often born in the violent sacrifice of human lives. Deities are not counted and measured in general studies of the evolution of religions. Granted, the effect of some higher being watching our behavior is. But that shared understanding of right behavior which stands outside of any group and can therefore critique those in power is essential to the development of modern stable government, according to Fukuyama, who does not think that religion was always helpful. But in the West this independent sense of what is right evolved with the help of Christianity according to both fukuyama and John Keane, author of Life and Death of democracy. Keane says that democracy is the first human government in that it is not dependent on a deity or a religion for authority. In his view we didn't have democracy fully realized until the beginning of the 20th century and in the west religion helped us achieve the first secular government. We should not confuse the past with the future. Our Christian heritage does not make us a Christian nation. That perhaps the crowning achievement of democracy is that it is the first human, secular, government does not mean that the past would be better if stripped of religion. I think a discussion of the effect and co-evolution of religion can be more nuanced. Is the thinking of Francis Fukuyama and John Keane part of the common that makes sense? Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 It seems that you would like to see the demise of religion. How come? I don't necessarily WANT to see the demise of religion, it's just my observation that it is becoming less and less of a priority for most folks. On a personal level; I don't really see a need for religious belief. I do like the music, though. Conversely, what would lead you the think that a secular society would be cooperative and compromising? I think our own SECULAR United States is a pretty darn good example. It's not perfect, but I've traveled extensively in religious theocracies and they kind of suck in comparison, IMHO. NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Norm, I did not say that this was stupid but that you were smarter than this. I should not have said it this way and I apologize. I look forward to your posts. Your comments have a sense of being real and reasoned. I gravitate to your avatar when looking at a list of new comments. The above is a succinct variation of your criticism of religions. But I don't see how it is useful in the conversation. The generalizations aren't nuanced and don't fit the issues. Deities and what they command evolves, Animal sacrifice is not a permanent characteristic of religion. Common sense is problematic. There have been no animal sacrifices in Judaism or Christianity in two millennia. As George observed the study of religions does include an examination of the costly sacrifice but to say that sacrifice only happens in religion misses much about the nature of sacrifice and its importance of it to any group of people. If animal sacrifice taints a people or practices then the iconic birthplace of democracy, Athens, is tainted. If making a costly sacrifice for a higher good taints a people then the Civil War and Normandy Invasion taint America and Europe. Democracy is often born in the violent sacrifice of human lives. Deities are not counted and measured in general studies of the evolution of religions. Granted, the effect of some higher being watching our behavior is. But that shared understanding of right behavior which stands outside of any group and can therefore critique those in power is essential to the development of modern stable government, according to Fukuyama, who does not think that religion was always helpful. But in the West this independent sense of what is right evolved with the help of Christianity according to both fukuyama and John Keane, author of Life and Death of democracy. Keane says that democracy is the first human government in that it is not dependent on a deity or a religion for authority. In his view we didn't have democracy fully realized until the beginning of the 20th century and in the west religion helped us achieve the first secular government. We should not confuse the past with the future. Our Christian heritage does not make us a Christian nation. That perhaps the crowning achievement of democracy is that it is the first human, secular, government does not mean that the past would be better if stripped of religion. I think a discussion of the effect and co-evolution of religion can be more nuanced. Is the thinking of Francis Fukuyama and John Keane part of the common that makes sense? Dutch Thanks for the clarification, Dutch. Your comments make sense. My comment was me being lazy. NORM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Keane says that democracy is the first human government in that it is not dependent on a deity or a religion for authority. Interesting. I had not thought about this or read this before. I guess it is true that previous rulers (all?) claimed divine authority. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I think our own SECULAR United States is a pretty darn good example. It's not perfect, but I've traveled extensively in religious theocracies and they kind of suck in comparison, IMHO. Or secular, anti-religious systems. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Heaven is located somewhere. It has a finite size. Heaven is eternal in the sense that it will exist forever. The question this raises is that if it is a place located within the realm of form of finite size then how is it not subject to decay as is all form? How can it exist in form forever? Perhaps it is eternal and not finite because it is not a place. Finite has a definition of limited while biblically speaking the eternal is beyond limits. Location is a concept of mind. God is biblically speaking described as Spirit and being everywhere or omnipresent. God is also biblically placed in that kingdom or realm (Heaven). If there is no place that God is not then the presence of God must include Heaven and Earth. If you are conscious of that presence here on Earth then has not Heaven come to you? Just some musings on the subject, Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Also worth thinking about is that if God is everywhere then God would also be present in any Hell that some Christians believe in. That seems contradictory because some Christians say others can't go to Heaven because God can't be in the presence of sin. If God can't be in the presence of sin, then he can't be everywhere (if one believes in sin being some class of action different to non-sin actions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Good point Paul, I think there may be an explanation if one has a different understanding than some Christians may believe. Perhaps Heaven and Hell are just descriptions or realms of mental states, One could then say even though God is everywhere when one is in the realm or mental state of hell, one cannot be aware of God's presence because that state of metal activity is an obstruction to realizing that presence. Not withstanding that presence is present even though it cannot be consciously realized as such in that state. The analogy being that the sun is always present even though clouds may obstruct the view. Just some thoughts, Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) ...and very good thoughts I think, Joseph. It also may interest some that Hell never even cracks a mention in "God's Word" until about 100yrs before Jesus' existence. Quite unusual if Hell is a physical and/or infinite existence? Edited May 7, 2013 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Paul, Some will argue that the OT does mention Hell but translated from the Hebrew word "Sheol". The KJV OT translates Sheol as "hell" 31 times , "grave" 31 times and pit 3 times. One would have to read all the occurances of Sheol in context to understand what was meant by the word. Perhaps Norm or some Jewish person on this site can shed some light on the understanding of "Sheol" from a Jewish perspective and compare it to the use of the word "hell" in the NT. Or anyone else familiar with Jewish theology and the Bible. Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Many Christians aren't aware of the translation differences and/or aren't familiar with the vast differences in understanding between Sheol and the common Christian understanding of the 'lake of fire' Hell. Such a Hell did not exist in the minds of God's chosen people until 100 or so years before Jesus. The introduction of Greek ideas to Jewish culture saw this sort of Hell developed very late in the OT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rhino Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 My personal view on heaven and hell is that I, have no idea... I hope for universal salvation, suspect anihilation, and fear eternal damnation. On the subject of the latter I heard one guy say that hell is like God giving you eternity of your own making rather than his. Which over an eternity would become hell because we would mess up so much over an eternity because of our fallible nature, so bit by bit we would create our own torment. Trusting in God would mean an eternity getting closer to the divine, and as he knows best that would be heaven. This is the only veiw of eternal torment that has come close to making sense for a loving God, however there are still huge holes in this. 1. Why is death the end point? Why wouldn't God keep trying to reach us? 2. So God gives us free will, but the only decision that is good for us is to relinquish that free will to him? Why bother? 3. Anihilation is still the better choice if universal salvation is not an option. It also still fulfills perfect justice as destruction is an eternal punishment. Problem is, I'm just a human being, and I have no control over this, and it scares the crap outta me that damnation is even a possibility. I like life, but I would much rather have never existed than suffer eternal life in torment. Nietzsche was an idiot for saying otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 My thoughts: Hell!!!... huh yeahWhat is it good for?Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, ohHell!!!! ...huh yeahWhat is it good for?Absolutely nothing, say it again...Hell!!!..., huh good God, y'all...What is it good for?Absolutely nothing,... listen to me My apologies to Edwin Starr. Seriously: Hell is in the mind of the beholder. Our views on this subject say more about what is within our own hearts than the entire breadth of the Talmud or even Strong's Annotated Concordance on the subject. We have seen the enemy... NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 My thoughts: Hell!!!... huh yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh Hell!!!! ...huh yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, say it again... Hell!!!..., huh good God, y'all... What is it good for? Absolutely nothing,... listen to me My apologies to Edwin Starr. Seriously: Hell is in the mind of the beholder. Our views on this subject say more about what is within our own hearts than the entire breadth of the Talmud or even Strong's Annotated Concordance on the subject. We have seen the enemy... NORM Norm, I have not been around this forum much of late, but i have to agree. We do seem to manufacture our own hell. But this is not necessary is it? Myron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Norm, I have not been around this forum much of late, but i have to agree. We do seem to manufacture our own hell. But this is not necessary is it? Myron It is truly hard to imagine a world without some notion of eternal punishment or guilt. However, fortunately for us, there are those who can Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people living life in peace You, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one I hope some day you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people sharing all the world... John Lennon, Imagine We're not the only ones... NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 ..and with Hell not even existing prior to the latter centuries before common era, nor were we the only ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Here's my take on heaven and hell - simply states of mind or at least metaphors for states of mind. The tricky bit is is can we choose freely which state of mind we are in? I would argue no. Sure we can choose, but freely? Nah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.