If you commit suicide will you go to Heaven or Hell
Debate Rounds (4)
Let us now imagine a strange situation. A businessman comes home one evening, he is a Hindu, so are all his children. His son and wife are at his brother's wife, he had left his twenty-three year old daughter home alone. It is now 4:00 pm, he knocks on the front door and calls to his daughter but he receives no answer. He turns the doorknob and finds that the door is unlocked. He goes inside and calls out his daughter's name, but the house seems to be empty and she does not return an answer. However, going towards the kitchen he sees the backdoor opened and assuming that his daughter is in the backyard of the house he says: "Sumita, you left the front door open, don't you know that that is very dangerous?" But again, no reply comes from outside.
Going outside now in the backyard he smells a strange scent like roasted flesh, and as he turns to the right, a horrible sight greets him. There are the charred remains of his daughter sitting on a pile of charred wood, burnt to death. He instantly screams and begins to cry; as he approaches the body, he notices a Tulasidasa's Ramayana open on the ground close to the pile, and looking on the opened pages he find an underlined sentence where the goddess Sita threatens to burn herself in fire as a sacrifice. Now it suddenly dawned upon the distraught father, his daughter had taken the Ramayana seriously and practiced suicide that she may go to another life.
The father lamented his woe now that he had given his Hindu child that new Ramayana he had bought three weeks ago at the Maha Sabha headquarters. Yes my dear people, though you have just read a story, the point illustrated is that not only does Valmiki's Ramayana encourage suicide, but so also does Tulasidasa's version, and it is a mistake for the Maha Sabha to even think that every schoolchild should have a copy of that scripture. In the Hindu scriptures, God as Rama and Brahma, even Sita all condone suicide, it is presented as a type of human sacrifice. Let us read it in the Ramayana:
"O Lakshmana," the Lord Rama then said, "abandon all stubbornness and misgiving, and listen: whatever the world may say, good or evil, if you obey not my command but counter it with all manner of replies, I will put and end to my life. You will then be ashamed of yourself and become a prey to endless grief." Tulasidasa Ramayana, p. 675.
Here one of the Hindu chief gods threatens to commit suicide to motivate his brother to obey his words. This is not the behaviour of God, it is the behaviour of sinful man, but if a Hindu god could do it, why then cannot his follower? Here is another more horrible account.
"When Lakshmana left Sita in the forest and returned to Ayodhya, he was terribly upset, he went into the palace and cried piteously before his mother, lamenting over the severity of punishment inflicted upon Sita. Upon hearing it, the mother was so disquieted at heart that she fell unconscious …Rama was beside himself with grief when he saw his mothers so distraught and wailing. How can one describe the weeping and lamentation that the queens made? They all grieved about the terrible misfortunes which had befallen them. Hearing this outcry, Rama accompanied by Bharata went to the palaces and comforted the queen-mothers with many a discourse imbued with spiritual wisdom, as a result of which their hearts were relieved of gloom and delusion, and they said "By looking upon you, Lord, as our ordinary human son, we had yielded to error and lay caught in the toils of delusion. Now be pleased, O Lord of the world, to grant us that devotion to yourself which is so delectable, unwavering and supremely holy and which the sages and penitents and ascetics assiduously seek." Whatever boons the queen-mothers named the all-gracious Rama granted. Then, with their minds thoroughly cleansed with them and with profound reverence, the queen-mothers consumed their bodies in the sacrificial fire. Having consumed their bodies in the sacrificial fire they all went to the world of their husband." Ibid, pp. 677-678.
There are many implications in this account. Here Rama who is god did not stop the queen-mothers from committing suicide, in fact he granted them blessings that cleansed their minds, and in practicing human sacrifice by burning, they killed themselves. This means that human sacrifice as suicide is okay to god, thus he did not stop it. Here we see that Tulasidasa's Ramayana does indeed encourage suicide, because the queen-mothers went to a world to meet their husbands.
Now who is to stop a Hindu from copying this evil act when he is in great distress? Even though this type of sacrifice was practiced at that time, here the Hindu scriptures and gods encourage it. Now here is Sita, Rama's wife and a goddess threatening to do the same thing.
"Then exhorting them, Sita said, "set Hanuman and Jambaran free forthwith, my sons, you have brought disgrace to your house by striking Shatrughna, Lakshmana, Bharata and Rama unconscious on the battlefield. Providence has inflicted widowhood on me, so now abandon all grief and build the funeral pyre of sandalwood and incense so that I may immolate myself with my husband." Ibid. p. 704.
But then Sita was discouraged from doing this deed by the sage Valmiki. Now this was not a test, this goddess was going to kill herself, something completely unlike the behaviour of the true God. The Ramayana quoted from was translated by a Hindu professor in India, the book was printed in India and is sold in puja stores throughout this country, so that Hindus cannot say other wise in an attempt to fool people rather than admit that the Hindu religion is wrong as it justifies ungodly things. But here now is another Hindu chief god doing it also:
"On seeing this first-born creation consisting of goblins, ghosts, and demons, the unborn deity Lord Brahma, abandoned his life." The Linga Purana, Pt. 1, 41:41,42,p. 167. Then in another Purana we have this:
"In utter frustration, Brahma began to cry. The ghosts (bhuta and preta) were born from these tears. Brahma was so disquieted at having created these awful creatures, that he committed suicide." Kurma Purana, p. 28-29.
Of this Purana we are told: "The Kurma Purana is most sacred. A person who reads it attains Brahmaloka. A person who reads only one chapter of the text is forgiven all his sins." Ibid. p. 95.
Could you also imagine that the Hindu scriptures teach suicide as a means of atoning for one's sins. The worst sin of all is to kill a bramana. A sinner who does this should make a hut of dry grass and leaves and live in it for twelve years. Or he may fast himself to death or commit suicide by jumping off a cliff. Immolating oneself or drowning oneself are also acceptable forms of penance … A woman who burns herself to death on her husband's funeral pyre makes atonement for all the sins that her husband may have committed." Garuda Purana, p. 33
Certainly we can now clearly see that the Hindu scriptures encourages suicide. But what would all this mean? That the Hindu religion, if followed seriously according to its teachings would cause much chaos and corruption, thus the religion is false. Therefore one must: "Come out of her, my people, that you be not partaker of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev. 18:4. Amen.
"If you commit suicide will you go to Heaven or Hell[?]"
First of all, my opponent's post doesn't really have anything to do with the topic. My opponent's argument basically just says that because of one contrived, ridiculous example in which someone decided to burn herself because Sita did it, Hinduism propagates suicide and is therefore invalid.
The post is irrelevant, but I'd like to take the time to point out that this argument is incredibly absurd. My opponent is assuming that suicide is, no matter what, completely unethical. My opponent believes that this one, small, miniscule point invalidates the entire religion of Hinduism, because suicide leads to chaos and corruption. How? After reading all that, I don't think there's any way of knowing.
Secondly, and onto the topic of the debate, my opponent is quite clearly a proponent of Christianity. This is evidenced by his quotations from Christian scriptures. Heaven and Hell are very much parts of Christian faith–eventually, you'll go to one of them. Therefore, if you are a being, and you exist in this universe, both of which you must be to commit suicide, you will go to Heaven, or you will go to Hell. Thus, the answer to the question "If you commit suicide will you go to Heaven or Hell[?]" is "yes."
Thirdly, assuming my opponent is not a Christian–since Heaven and Hell aren't really defined here, nor, as far as I know, are they explicitly defined as specific, tangible places, anything can be interpreted as Heaven or Hell. Therefore, anything that happens to anyone can be interpreted as a Heaven or as a Hell; thus, if someone commits suicide, he will to go Heaven or Hell.
Fourth, assuming my opponent is a Christian–my opponent believes that suicide is grounds for invalidation of a religion. Clearly, according to him, suicide is something truly horrible, something that would cause "chaos and corruption," and is presumably then an act that is blasphemous against God. Blasphemy against God is grounds for condemnation to Hell. Therefore, suicide = blasphemy = condemnation to Hell —> someone went to Hell = someone went to Heaven or to Hell.
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round.
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round.
I've had two years of English in high school so far, and I never really enjoyed the aspects of the books we read that make novels great–things like language, metaphors, etc. Also, my freshman teacher is a good teacher but also a massive dick, so he's just not good for people who are just coming into high school, and my sophomore year teacher was just not good at life (as it pertains to teaching.)
Anyway, after spending an entire quarter reading and analyzing this book, in the kind of class we had (great teacher, discussions pretty much every day) I've come to appreciate the mastery that goes into a great novel.
Surely some of you have heard how the book contains many "boring whaling sections." Indeed, probably over 2/3 of the novel is unrelated to the plot. Some of my favorite parts of this story are the frequent digressions into absurdly detailed descriptions of the most mundane objects. Why? Well, without them, you'd miss the entire damn part of the story.
One of the best of these sections is chapter 47, The Mat-Maker. The narrator, Ishmael, through whom Melville gives all his takes on life, is weaving a mat with his friend, the cannibal, Queequeg. He spends the first paragraph illustrating the disinterest of the sailors in the creation of this boring object, whose ultimate purpose is simply to be trampled. The sailors are more interested in the plain blue that is the vast ocean. Queequeg is idly looking upon the same monotonous water.
Yet, in this mat, Ishmael sees the essence of the existence of man. I don't know how many of you are weavers, but I'm not, so I had to search for some of the terminology he uses. The "straight warp" is the threads of yarn that run vertically across the "Loom of Time," as Ishmael calls it. In the straight, unwavering passage of this yarn that lays the foundation for the creation of the mat, Ishmael sees the staunch in which fate sets the foundation for life.
Next, Ishmael looks at his own hand, which acts as the shuttle, weaving the yarn horizontally along the vertical warp. This is free will, as the shuttle weaves the yarn however it wants–but only along the parameters set by the vertical warp, fate.
Finally, in Queequeg's sword, which "carelessly drives home every yarn" sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly, Ishmael sees chance. The sword is the final part of the creation of the mat; it has the final say in all things, no matter how the result affects those involved.
Ishmael sees the coexistence of fate, free will, and chance, as they "interweavingly" work the mat, while the rest of the sailors can't keep themselves awake as they lie all along the ship.
Crazy stuff, eh?
How does this relate to the topic at hand? Well, Moby-Dick is an effing great book. So great, in fact, that one might decide to start a religion about it. In this religion, if you were to commit suicide, you would go to either Heaven or Hell, because Heaven is anything you enjoy and Hell is anything you don't enjoy, and in theory and arguably in practice, you're bound to have some idea whether or not you'll enjoy not existing.
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.