Heaven and hell for controlling the masses
I believe in God. I also believe that God has given man a brain.
Spiritually speaking, religion is beautiful. It is the gateway to peace and serenity. However, it was never limited to spirituality. It is involved in our daily lives,
In my opinion, the concept of heaven and hell is used to control the masses. It is portrayed that if you do wrong, you will go to hell, and vice versa. I think it is up to the mind to decide whether to do right or wrong. If every individual revised his ethics and morals before doing wrong, rather than having the fear to end up in the fictional place called " HELL ", it would help us accomplish what religion actually wants us to; love and peace.
Heaven and hell exist to replace the mind when taking a decision. It is simply used as one big brain for all followers to refer to. It limits our thinking, therefore limiting our potential and creativity.
Pro claims to believe that humans are spiritual, which I also believe. I would like to know where Pro thinks the spirit would go if the body dies? After that I would like to know who is the one meaning to control the masses with Heaven and Hell? Who invented them?
The Christian view of Heaven and Hell, which I personally believe, is simple. Those who reject Christ are separated from God, this is also called "Hell" or "death." It is also referenced as "the lake of fire" perhaps figuratively. But anyone who puts their faith in Christ is united with God in heaven. This view of the afterlife wouldn't work with Pro's resolution, even if the bible was considered fiction. This is because under these definitions the worst of people can still enter heaven and the most moral of people can end up in Hell.
Pro's claims appear very dependent on people having universal views on heaven and hell, which they don't and never did. Perhaps Heaven and Hell is used as motivation to do good for some, but for other people it has been motivation to commit terrorist acts. Pro's arguments are only sufficient for the kind of Hell he described, but that is not the Hell that most people believe if they believe in Hell at all.
Pro believes removing heaven and hell "replace the mind." But if someone is trying to decide what is right, they use their brain just as much as anyone else. Once they decide what a moral action is, it is only then that Heaven and Hell would have any influence on them. They still have to decide whether or not to do what is right.
Since most of Pro's arguments were opinion, I will wait for his response to move this debate forward.
I’m glad my opponent understands the true purpose of this debate, it’s not about giving each other lessons in religion, it is simply because I have this way of thinking and I’d like to find out how my opponent would react to such a unique topic.
In response to Con’s questions, I say that once death occurs, the spirits vanishes. What the living might think about is only to meet their needs. What’s written in books is only to comfort those of us who are still alive. The children of a dead father would like to think that their father is in a beautiful and peaceful place, but only to feel better. Whether we realize or not, the thought of where WE will end up always comes after we wonder where our loved ones will. I prefer not to drift off our topic; this response came to end any further questions Con might have about my view of the afterlife. I would like to focus on how we should act today, and not on what may happen in the future.
As I said, religion is a spiritual message. Love, kindness, forgiveness, and so on… They are all spiritual, and that’s where the line is drawn. Any further obligations are set by man and man himself. They are to show people the way of receiving the true way of religion, but at the same time, to keep the world from falling into total chaos. As we all know, individuals differ in levels of morality, therefore, religion is needed to control them.
My point is the following: Do we really need guidance? Shouldn’t we raise our children in a way that they can reason and process why they shouldn’t do wrong? Why they shouldn’t commit sins?
We can be smarter than living in the constant fear of hell. We can draw our own “hell “; our ethical and moral hell, and not the hell portrayed in books that tell people what to do.
Con has contradicted himself, after the following: “Perhaps Heaven and Hell is used as motivation to do good for some, but for other people it has been motivation to commit terrorist acts.”, and later saying “But if someone is trying to decide what is right, they use their brain just as much as anyone else. Once they decide what a moral action is, it is only then that Heaven and Hell would have any influence on them. They still have to decide whether or not to do what is right.”
One of the main reasons why I started this debate is because of heaven and hell becoming (in specific parts of the world) extremely brainwashing that the population almost never uses their brain, but instead relies on heaven and hell. It has become ultimately repressing, that some populations lost their minds. They may seem religious, but beneath that thin cover are awful awful things caused ONLY by allowing religion to control every sect of their lives.
That is not the case in more civilized parts of the world, but the idea is always same. Some say that religion is for the weak. I say that the strong are those that benefit from religion but never make it stronger than them. We control ourselves, we are not animals, and we don’t have to be guided.
I am aware that this debate may not end, and the votes might be based on individual beliefs, however, it’s always healthy to debate even radical ideas such as this one.
Pro claimed I contradicted myself. But I didn't, and I don't know how he thinks I did. People can figure out what a moral action is. But for example, radical Muslim terrorists have used the motivation of heaven to against their moral conscience. Maybe that is part of Pro's point.
My opponent must understand that our view the future is crucial to how we must act today. If there is nothing beyond this life, then we should be seeking pleasure. If there is heaven, then we should be looking for heavenly awards rather than earthly pleasure. This brings up the question - shouldn't we be looking out for our own well being over others if there is no punishment for evil?
Pro believes we should eliminate hell and make moral decisions based on our own moral sense - that is his resolution. This way we wouldn't live in the fear of hell. But neither would we live in the hope of heaven. In the end his view is only correct if...
1. Heaven and hell are indeed fake, man-made concepts.
2. Humans actually have a moral conscience (which I believe they do, but still, this must be certain). My opponent confuses me when he suggests humans need no moral guidance but then admits that we need guidance from a parental standpoint.
3. Heaven and hell are adversely controlling people. The Christian view just wouldn't work with Pro's concept because it isn't dependent upon how good or bad a person is. Isn't Pro being just as much brainwashed as anyone else? If not how so?
Pro almost seems to think there is no relation between a person's beliefs and a person's religion, even though they are one and the same. If someone picks up Mormonism for the sake of a moral code or moral motivation, does it really make them a Mormon? Not if he doesn't actually believe what Mormons believe. It's not as if people are holding on to some religion that they think someone made up for them. They genuinely believe it, that is why they live their religion. And they live their religion just as much as CyberS lives his own religion. CyberS's religion is that we should believe whatever the hell we want as long as it is tailored to God's morality that is instilled within each of us. If we live according to this morality then we will be happy and content. Then we will die and consequently cease to exist. Please, correct me where I am wrong.
This has been a fun debate, i thank my opponent for participating.
MrCarroll forfeited this round.