Heaven

[1. Luftballon]

then why is it there?

 

[Pwnemon]

to hold satan and the fallen angels?

 

[shy ♡]

to hold satan and the fallen angels?

Why create them in the first place?

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

That's actually a big part of Judaism, to not live your life for what happens after you die, but for what happens while you're alive.

I can get behind this 200%.
Judaism is probably one of my favourite religions because it is totally radical (and has cool holidays)

 

[Eloi]

Why create them in the first place?

Why create any of us if we have the possibility of rebelling due to free will? Again, its why we want Artificial Intelligence even when we have perfectly working computers: sure they'd be loyal, but would they be a good companion? No, not really.

 

[shy ♡]

I can get behind this 200%.
Judaism is probably one of my favourite religions because it is totally radical (and has cool holidays)

Judaism is totally cool except for the 600+ rules like no electricity, tearing stuff, writing/erasing, cooking/using fire, etc. on the weekend and those holidays come with like 10 fast days spread throughout the year. :[

Why create any of us if we have the possibility of rebelling due to free will? Again, its why we want Artificial Intelligence even when we have perfectly working computers: sure they'd be loyal, but would they be a good companion? No, not really.

Isn't the point of Satan that he represents evil? He didn't choose it, he was created that way? Or am I missing something?

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Judaism is totally cool except for the 600+ rules like no electricity, tearing stuff, writing/erasing, cooking/using fire, etc. on the weekend and those holidays come with like 10 fast days spread throughout the year. :[

Living in x-treme conditions Bear Grylls-style is precisely what makes Judaism so radical.

Isn't the point of Satan that he represents evil? He didn't choose it, he was created that way? Or am I missing something?

iirc he was an angel of god who got banished from heaven for some bullshit reason (was he the one who loved god too much or was that someone else?) and then decided to screw with humans. Lucifer, anyway. I get muddled in my religions :/

 

[Eloi]

Isn't the point of Satan that he represents evil? He didn't choose it, he was created that way? Or am I missing something?

No, they were the Archangel Lucifer who rebelled against God and got cast onto the Earth and refused redemption due to pride. They were certainly not created that way.

 

[Phantom]

No, they were the Archangel Lucifer who rebelled against God and got cast onto the Earth and refused redemption due to pride. They were certainly not created that way.

Depends on where you're getting your information from.

 

[Eloi]

Depends on where you're getting your information from.

Very true.

(was he the one who loved god too much or was that someone else?)

No, it was more of the whole "I'm better than you and going to take over heaven" type thing.

 

[Phantom]

No, it was more of the whole "I'm better than you and going to take over heaven" type thing.

Once again, it depends what your sources are, for the most part, you're right. There are those who say that Lucifer was

It is said that Lucifer is the first Angel to have sinned. Some say that Lucifer is not the opposite of God, but the opposite of Michael, the head Archangel. Some say he was banished because he wanted to be like God. Others say that Lucifer was jealous of Adam and God's love for him.

In the end his greatest sin was hubris.

Though it is a common misconception that Lucifer and Satan are the same person. They are not.

Like Saul becoming Paul, or Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader.

 

[Dannichu]

to play with concepts that are rarely approached critically and to hopefully encourage some thought.

This 'critical analysis' is where it all falls apart. In assuming the existance of heaven/an afterlife, you have to then assume everything that follows it logically, including the existence of a supreme being that is so far beyond human comprehension as to render the entire discussion more or less useless.

You can't discuss Christian concepts of heaven and the afterlife without the Judaeo-Christian God, and while it seems cheap to argue that "God can do whatever it wants and exists outside of all natural laws that we as humans can comprehend", that is what the God of Christian mythology can do, and you can't, even as a hypothetical for the sake or argument, accept the existance of one without the other.

This all sounds crazy and stupid, but it's not really. In Social Anthropology, one can look at the beliefs of a sociecty by examining the basic supposition upon which their beliefs are based (eg. that the Azande believe that any misfortune that befalls them is due to one of their neighbours putting a spell on them), and seeing how, if one accepts this supposition, that everything they do (such as conducting 'tests' to see who is responsible like feeding poison to a chicken; if it dies, the neighbour is guilty, if the chicken lives, they are not) follows logically and rationally. This is a rather interesting article on the topic, but you don't have to go so far as tribal cultures to see how competely irrational beliefs become part of everyday life because they're just accepted. Earlier this paragraph, I said that Azande people attribute misfortune to witchcraft. In saying so, I've acknowledged the concept of misfortune - misfortune is a completely irrational concept with no scientific basis whatsoever, but we don't criticize anyone who wishes someone else "good luck", or describes someone who has a number of bad ('bad' is also a pretty subjective - and very Western-Eurocentric - concept) things happen to them as "misfortunate".

Apologies for the little rant there. I'm doing anything I can to avoid writing this sociology essay due tomorrow, so the obvious thing to do was to write another, completely unrelated, sociology essay that nobody asked me to do. Oh, self.

 

[Butterfree]

You can't discuss Christian concepts of heaven and the afterlife without the Judaeo-Christian God, and while it seems cheap to argue that "God can do whatever it wants and exists outside of all natural laws that we as humans can comprehend", that is what the God of Christian mythology can do, and you can't, even as a hypothetical for the sake or argument, accept the existance of one without the other.

But I am not accepting the existence of one without the other! I am explicitly assuming, for the sake of the argument, that God exists and is omnipotent and incomprehensible and absolutely everything Christian mythology claims him to be. I completely agree that you can't sensibly criticize one aspect of a belief system using assumptions that don't hold true in that belief system, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking critically within a belief system, which is exactly what I'm doing.

My point is that God being able to omnipotently make me like heaven (which I am accepting for the sake of the argument) does not mean I, right now, like the idea of being forced to like heaven (by an omnipotent and incomprehensible God or not). If God is able to omnipotently make everyone get along while still having free will, well, that's great, but I'd like to have the kind of free will that has not been manipulated by (omnipotent, incomprehensible) God. I am nowhere saying "But God can't do that!"; I am saying "I don't like that God does that."

I am perfectly willing to accept if Christians just find that God's incomprehensibility makes it perfectly nondisturbing and my mind just can't understand why, but I am really curious to hear if that is actually the case, because my intuition would be that most people would find this thought uncomfortable, Christian or not - much the same way most Christians would never actually say yes if you asked them, "Would rape and murder be okay if the Bible explicitly encouraged them?"

 

[Phantom]

If God is able to omnipotently make everyone get along while still having free will, well, that's great, but I'd like to have the kind of free will that has not been manipulated by (omnipotent, incomprehensible) God.

I just can't see that happening. I believe that some people naturally don't get along, and at that point any kind of "getting along" would be a failure and God would have to intervene, therefore removing free will.

I am perfectly willing to accept if Christians just find that God's incomprehensibility makes it perfectly nondisturbing and my mind just can't understand why, but I am really curious to hear if that is actually the case, because my intuition would be that most people would find this thought uncomfortable, Christian or not - much the same way most Christians would never actually say yes if you asked them, "Would rape and murder be okay if the Bible explicitly encouraged them?"

First off my feelings. It would terrify me. The fact the existence, as you said saying God exists for the discussion, of a completely all powerful being that can control the universe is completely terrifying. Delving into the idea of heaven, then you think of the alternate. That keeps you in line. But I don't see that as free will. I think of it as an extreemly forced concept of free will.


And for that last bit, that's why religion is dangerous. Look at the old testament, which we know is one of the bloody accounts...ever. Blind faith is dangerous.

 

[Eloi]

.

My point is that God being able to omnipotently make me like heaven (which I am accepting for the sake of the argument) does not mean I, right now, like the idea of being forced to like heaven (by an omnipotent and incomprehensible God or not). If God is able to omnipotently make everyone get along while still having free will, well, that's great, but I'd like to have the kind of free will that has not been manipulated by (omnipotent, incomprehensible) God. I am nowhere saying "But God can't do that!"; I am saying "I don't like that God does that."

Who says They have to manipulate your will for any of that to happen? Who says you just don't eventually choose to?

I am perfectly willing to accept if Christians just find that God's incomprehensibility makes it perfectly nondisturbing and my mind just can't understand why, but I am really curious to hear if that is actually the case, because my intuition would be that most people would find this thought uncomfortable, Christian or not - much the same way most Christians would never actually say yes if you asked them, "Would rape and murder be okay if the Bible explicitly encouraged them?"

How many people do you think would be a part of a religion that said that in the first place?

 

[Phantom]

How many people do you think would be a part of a religion that said that in the first place?

Haven't read much of the Old Testament have you? There's a reason some call it the bloody Bible.

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

A handful of others.

Exodus 12:29-30 NLT
Exodus 21:7-11 NLT
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT (Quite literally the law for rape)
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
Judges 21:10-24 NLT
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB
2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB
Jeremiah 48:10 NAB
Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB


Bit 'O Slavery In New Testament:
Luke 12:47-48 NLT
1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT

 

[Eloi]

Haven't read much of the Old Testament have you? There's a reason some call it the bloody Bible.

I have, actually. Personally, I don't think the Old Testament is relevant to anyone outside of the ancient Hebrew people, and even then it was just a history book. I believe the teachings of Christ replace the teachings of the Old Testament, tho' I don't really think they "replace" it so much as the Old Testament is just the cultural background of Christ. *shrugs*

Bit 'O Slavery In New Testament:
Luke 12:47-48 NLT

That was a metaphor, and slavery was perfectly fine back then, but even so, this is not condoning it, just making an analogy of it. As well, Roman slavery was much different than the slavery practiced by Europeans and Arabs during and after the Renaissance.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT

Here, the slaver is the aggressor that must not be resisted, and in this passage its suggesting a pacifistic course of action. This doesn't condone slavery at all, it just backs up these verses in a specific way:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

-Luke 6:27-31. NIV

 

[Butterfree]

Who says They have to manipulate your will for any of that to happen? Who says you just don't eventually choose to?

If that were to happen by non-omnipotent means, sure, but I don't think all human beings ever could get along perfectly without manipulation of any sort. You say they'll work out their problems, but like I said, you don't need to have problems, per se, to disagree with another person. And what about before you've worked out your problems.

How many people do you think would be a part of a religion that said that in the first place?

Not a lot! But that's the thing: a lot of Christians say things like "Murder is wrong because the Bible condemns it", and that really opens the question of "So would murder not be wrong if the Bible encouraged it?" That's when most people, forced to think about their statement, will squirm and say, "Well, no, not exactly..." My point is just that people claim a lot of things about their beliefs when in fact they don't like the logical consequences one bit, and I believe the whole idea of Heaven is one of those things.

 

[Eloi]

If that were to happen by non-omnipotent means, sure, but I don't think all human beings ever could get along perfectly without manipulation of any sort. You say they'll work out their problems, but like I said, you don't need to have problems, per se, to disagree with another person.

True, but whatever problems one might have with heaven would probably be resolved, because an all-powerful God would know what your problems are before you exist, and thus many manipulate the scenario of heaven (and not yourself) to make you happier until you can adjust.

And what about before you've worked out your problems.

Well there is a distance in time between the current afterlife and the second judgement.

Not a lot! But that's the thing: a lot of Christians say things like "Murder is wrong because the Bible condemns it", and that really opens the question of "So would murder not be wrong if the Bible encouraged it?" That's when most people, forced to think about their statement, will squirm and say, "Well, no, not exactly..."

I am not one of those Christians, and one of the only ones here, so yeah.

My point is just that people claim a lot of things about their beliefs when in fact they don't like the logical consequences one bit, and I believe the whole idea of Heaven is one of those things.

I think a lot of people like to dissect conjectural models and ideas not based on Jesus' teachings but the most common interpretation of them, which may not always be the most logical interpretation, and use that as grounds as why Jesus, and not the interpretors, are incorrect. And then, when these people try to argue with said common interpretors (i.e. the majority of Christians, in this specific argument), the interpretors like to think their interpretations are the only correct ones, so the opposing party falls into this trap as well unaware that there is more than one interpretation (or perhaps they do and just don't want to mention the fact because that would sabotage their argument), and thus no one gets anywhere in understanding, and thus most of these debates are completely pointless.
The main this is that whole mechanics of souls, soul universes, and interactions there of are not fully known, thus we can't really discuss the logic of anything but the most common interpretation, which again, gets you no where because you can only prove the most common interpretor incorrect and not the originator of said text being interpreted.

 

[Butterfree]

True, but whatever problems one might have with heaven would probably be resolved, because an all-powerful God would know what your problems are before you exist, and thus many manipulate the scenario of heaven (and not yourself) to make you happier until you can adjust.

But the point is a large part of the scenario of Heaven is the other people in it. Are they manipulated? If not, there will be conflict. If they are, well, then you'll be manipulated to make other people happier. If there are no real people there and all you see are figments that look and behave like them, that's a Truman Show-like thing.

I think a lot of people like to dissect conjectural models and ideas not based on Jesus' teachings but the most common interpretation of them, which may not always be the most logical interpretation, and use that as grounds as why Jesus, and not the interpretors, are incorrect. And then, when these people try to argue with said common interpretors (i.e. the majority of Christians, in this specific argument), the interpretors like to think their interpretations are the only correct ones, so the opposing party falls into this trap as well unaware that there is more than one interpretation (or perhaps they do and just don't want to mention the fact because that would sabotage their argument), and thus no one gets anywhere in understanding, and thus most of these debates are completely pointless.
The main this is that whole mechanics of souls, soul universes, and interactions there of are not fully known, thus we can't really discuss the logic of anything but the most common interpretation, which again, gets you no where because you can only prove the most common interpretor incorrect and not the originator of said text being interpreted.

Well, I'm sort of trying to argue that no matter how you interpret it Heaven can't be as perfect as it's made out to be. I'm not trying to argue Jesus is wrong or that Heaven is actually this way or that way or whatever; that's irrelevant to this discussion.