Total Posts:133|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do the religious really believe in heaven?

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:02:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Yeah. They believe in Heaven, but the funny thing is asking them to define the idea of "heaven." I told a theist i am scared of the idea. I am scared of immortality. How can i live in heaven if i fear being forever in one land? Answer: You will be perfect. You will be in complete bliss. Okay... then i ask what do i do in heaven? I am in complete euphoria ... cool. Then what? Eternity is a long time. Plus, i don't even like the "pure bliss" scenario that is being presented. What? Everyone is going to look like a 1940s classic conditioning film my Sociology teacher played for us? That actually sounds scary... Oh, but ... you'll be perfect and just know... I laugh at their idea of heaven. They can't make sense of the implications of an eternal paradise. Heaven for me would be a character out of an anime action comedy. How do theists account for that? How will i have my heaven if it doesn't agree with another view of heaven?

Now... i am an agnostic atheist with an inclination towards spirituality. It actually happened answering the very questions i just presented. What is heaven? Well, that is subjective isn't it? So, at this point some sort of multiple "paradises" view would be needed. Correlating that with science... we would have to make sense of the "virtual" reality idea. Also, two parts of a multiverse hypotheses. I recall there are 6 levels... i may be wrong. The two i find that would fit a "spiritual" platform are our universe having multiple universes within itself... or the last idea. Multiple everything - anything is possible (i favor this view). I think "intelligence" is another force, and i can't prove it. However, i can speculate which has turned out some interesting conjectures on the idea.

I call the idea of this extra force in the "universe" a source, which is short hand for: Intelligence, sentience, consciousness, imagination etc. as one entity. Just like time and energy; i understand they also need defining. The gist of my idea is that this source evolved, and has been evolving, infinitely (but finite, as it moves forward). I believe we are all pieces of it... but, different. As in, we have our own group source or individual. It again gets subjective, but that is the point. If there is one truth, it would be a truth that makes sense for everyone. Long story short. Us being our own source, our own entity, traveling forward infinitely ... well, then the idea of heaven would just be the next experience. Ie. like the one we are in now. Making experience, being alive: Heaven.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:16:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

The concept of heaven and hell have varying interpretations. I often interpret it in a similar manner as Karma is interpreted in. That is, your actions will result in your spiritual development in this material world, and when your physical body decays, your soul moves on to the next world. The more spiritually developed you are, the more "in heaven" you are. To draw an analogy, it's similar to how a fetus develops parts of the body in the womb of the mother so it may function after birth.

Heaven and hell could also be interpreted to mean states of existence in this world.

Regardless, every religion which shows some kind of heaven also does not endorse suicide. Suicide (or killing of infants) would deprive an individual of their ability to spiritually develop. Furthermore, the killing of others is often a spiritually detrimental act, as it is often done out of hatred or anger. It would thus not be beneficial to take the lives of others or yourself, as this would be contrary to the idea of spiritual development. It is best to make use of our limited time in this material world to whatever good we can.

I'm sure you should find that last statement to be agreeable regardless of your religious affiliation or lack thereof. To argue beyond this point would merely be accusing a certain group of people of dishonesty, which only serves to agitate those who believe in what they say.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:33:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

First, I am going to assume a few things and clarify others. I assume you are talking about Christian and God related religions, as you are using the word "Heaven" which specifically applies to those religions. I will also assume that you understand the basics of these religions and that other posting on this board are not involved in what I am going to say. For clarification, I am presenting what is considered the LDS, or Mormon, point of view, but in now way represent the entire religion. Now, in the words of my AP Lit teacher, down to the meat n' potatoes:

1. Yes, we believe in a Heaven, or paradise, where those who have been judged to live there will exist after this life. If you want to go into more detail to this specifically, let me know.
2. We are concerned with life for a few reasons, several due simply to human nature. As a species, similar to nearly every other species, we instinctively want to survive and live. It's simply part of our genetic code. Some people do overcome this but it does exist. Secondly, some fear where they will stand after this life. They are unsure as to the position they will take in the life after this one and so do not want to die simply due to uncertainty. Another is that we want to stay with those we love in this life and generally as a people, we enjoy systematic life. Death is a very powerful way to destroy normal life. On to why we are upset, it also stems somewhat to human nature as well as other things. We will miss those who go before us as we will no longer have them with us while in this life, but many find comfort in that we will still see them again and that they are not lost to oblivion.
3. On to why we don't kill infants. First, that is plainly murder. Bad. Second, life is meant to be lived. Just because death is a part of our existence doesn't mean we make it the only part. Going to get a little Buddhist here, but its about the journey, not the destination. In this case, how we take that journey decides our destination. I can foresee the point that there are still those who die infants and in the LDS religion we understand that they are still raised beyond this life and given the choice to accept or reject God, Christ, and the Atonement. If they choose to accept, they are given the highest possible place within Heaven as they were robbed of the opportunity to live on Earth but are still presented with choice.
4. We do believe what we claim, being that we go onto a life after this one. There may be some who do not, and I cannot speak for them, but for those of us who do, death still presents pain and sadness despite our knowledge of what comes after. This is what makes us human, not hypocrites of our religion.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:39:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Yeah that's why abortionists are god's elite troops of salvation, all of those innocent souls straight into heaven.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 10:17:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 3:16:24 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

The concept of heaven and hell have varying interpretations. I often interpret it in a similar manner as Karma is interpreted in. That is, your actions will result in your spiritual development in this material world, and when your physical body decays, your soul moves on to the next world.

Spiritual development? What is that exactly?

The more spiritually developed you are, the more "in heaven" you are. To draw an analogy, it's similar to how a fetus develops parts of the body in the womb of the mother so it may function after birth.

Analogies are only useful when you are talking about real, known things. You haven't even explained what spiritual development is yet and how it occurs.

Heaven and hell could also be interpreted to mean states of existence in this world.

Huh? So after death we stay in the universe? And what are "states of existence"?

Regardless, every religion which shows some kind of heaven also does not endorse suicide. Suicide (or killing of infants) would deprive an individual of their ability to spiritually develop.

Yet accidents happen. In fact for the vast majority of human history infant mortality was the leading cause of death. So billions have been denied the opportunity to "spiritually develop" (whatever that means). How is that fair?

Furthermore, the killing of others is often a spiritually detrimental act, as it is often done out of hatred or anger.

But this would be an act of mercy for the good of the individual. The longer a person lives the more opportunity they have to sin and lose their ticket to heaven. Isn't it better to mercy kill them young before they get into serious trouble and jeopardize their "immortal soul"?

It would thus not be beneficial to take the lives of others or yourself, as this would be contrary to the idea of spiritual development. It is best to make use of our limited time in this material world to whatever good we can.

This doctrine of "spiritual development" is new to me. I thought that the only criteria for getting into heaven were to be a genuine believer and not to sin (too much) or at least repent when you had done so. When did "spiritual development" enter the picture? Surely you are not claiming that without a certain level of this spiritual development you cannot enter heaven? That would consign all humans who died as innocent children to hell, would it not?

I'm sure you should find that last statement to be agreeable regardless of your religious affiliation or lack thereof. To argue beyond this point would merely be accusing a certain group of people of dishonesty, which only serves to agitate those who believe in what they say.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 10:38:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 3:33:14 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

First, I am going to assume a few things and clarify others. I assume you are talking about Christian and God related religions, as you are using the word "Heaven" which specifically applies to those religions. I will also assume that you understand the basics of these religions and that other posting on this board are not involved in what I am going to say. For clarification, I am presenting what is considered the LDS, or Mormon, point of view, but in now way represent the entire religion. Now, in the words of my AP Lit teacher, down to the meat n' potatoes:

1. Yes, we believe in a Heaven, or paradise, where those who have been judged to live there will exist after this life. If you want to go into more detail to this specifically, let me know.

Okay.

2. We are concerned with life for a few reasons, several due simply to human nature. As a species, similar to nearly every other species, we instinctively want to survive and live. It's simply part of our genetic code. Some people do overcome this but it does exist.

That is the primitive response but we can think. This is about using reason.

Secondly, some fear where they will stand after this life. They are unsure as to the position they will take in the life after this one and so do not want to die simply due to uncertainty.

We are discussing killing children as young as possible. There is no problem with their standing, surely?

Another is that we want to stay with those we love in this life and generally as a people, we enjoy systematic life. Death is a very powerful way to destroy normal life.

Mass suicide solves that problem.

On to why we are upset, it also stems somewhat to human nature as well as other things. We will miss those who go before us as we will no longer have them with us while in this life, but many find comfort in that we will still see them again and that they are not lost to oblivion.

See above. Mass suicide/killing means you would be with your loved ones immediately.

3. On to why we don't kill infants. First, that is plainly murder. Bad.

So? It is a mercy killing. Since when don't Christians ever commit murder?

Second, life is meant to be lived.

So is the afterlife and it allegedly lasts far longer. Why waste time here when it's meaningless?

Just because death is a part of our existence doesn't mean we make it the only part.

What does that have to do with the proposition being discussed?

Going to get a little Buddhist here, but its about the journey, not the destination. In this case, how we take that journey decides our destination.

Why struggle here on Earth and possibly jeopardize your immortal soul when you could go straight to heaven? That makes absolutely no sense.

I can foresee the point that there are still those who die infants and in the LDS religion we understand that they are still raised beyond this life and given the choice to accept or reject God, Christ, and the Atonement. If they choose to accept, they are given the highest possible place within Heaven as they were robbed of the opportunity to live on Earth but are still presented with choice.

Exactly the point being made. Dispatch all children immediately and give them a guaranteed place in heaven.

4. We do believe what we claim, being that we go onto a life after this one. There may be some who do not, and I cannot speak for them, but for those of us who do, death still presents pain and sadness despite our knowledge of what comes after. This is what makes us human, not hypocrites of our religion.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 5:24:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 10:17:22 AM, dee-em wrote:

Spiritual development? What is that exactly?

I think it means development of the soul through virtues such as patience, kindness, compassion, steadfastness, detachment, and so forth. Some people may understand it differently than I do.


Huh? So after death we stay in the universe? And what are "states of existence"?

Again, I refer to my likening of heaven and hell with karma. Perhaps this quote from Hinduism will explain it better than I can:

"Samsara, the transmigration of life, takes place in one"s own mind. Let one therefore
keep the mind pure, for what a man thinks that he becomes; this is the mystery of
eternity."

Generally speaking, when I say state of existence, I refer to how "developed" your soul is. For those individuals whose minds are not pure and are filled with hate, they live in hell. Try not to think of hell with preconceived notions as places. When I said that heaven and hell could exist in this material world, I did not mean that you die and then go to some place called heaven or hell. I meant that, as you live right now, your thoughts and actions shape you.


Yet accidents happen. In fact for the vast majority of human history infant mortality was the leading cause of death. So billions have been denied the opportunity to "spiritually develop" (whatever that means). How is that fair?

It is unfortunate, yes. I do not understand your point. I also believe that souls can continue to develop in the next life. The question becomes why we have this material life to begin with if we can continue to develop in the next life. I wouldn't know the best answer to this question (I merely have ideas), but maybe someone else would. Instead, I think about it in terms of the analogy brought up earlier. Development of the unborn child occurs before birth, but even after birth the child continues to develop. A different kind of development, of course, but it is merely an analogy to facilitate my understanding of the situation.


But this would be an act of mercy for the good of the individual. The longer a person lives the more opportunity they have to sin and lose their ticket to heaven. Isn't it better to mercy kill them young before they get into serious trouble and jeopardize their "immortal soul"?

Your comment concerning "their ticket to heaven" seems to have many notions of what heaven is, as if it's some place you have to have certain qualifications to get into. Again, I think it is better to think of heaven as a state of existence that can be the result of your own actions.


This doctrine of "spiritual development" is new to me. I thought that the only criteria for getting into heaven were to be a genuine believer and not to sin (too much) or at least repent when you had done so. When did "spiritual development" enter the picture?

You are merely describing the views of some religious people. I have always seen spiritual development in the picture in every religion.

Surely you are not claiming that without a certain level of this spiritual development you cannot enter heaven? That would consign all humans who died as innocent children to hell, would it not?

I believe I've already established above that I do not think of heaven and hell in terms of places that you enter (i.e. it's one or the other). Thinking of it in terms of being allowed into heaven if you have certain qualifications usually doesn't make much sense to me.

The way you direct your comments at me mirrors the arguments against the currently popular Christian notions of heaven or hell.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 5:33:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

My family is alive and needs me. I need to be here for a time to profess the Gospel. I can do many good things here before that future date.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
rnjs
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 6:48:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

: Because we are human and we don't always know if those close to are going to heaven,and in some cases we can be reasonably sure they are not.

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

:In a way,killing an infant is doing them a favour,but i would never agree with purposely killing anyone ,other than in defending others.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Unfortunately many do not live as they should,seemingly forgetting that we are supposed to represent the Lord. Also their are many people and/or organizations that are Christian in name only.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 8:37:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

"Oh, your mom died? ...well, CONGRATULATIONS!!!" I have a feeling this comment would not go over well!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 10:13:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I am not concerned with staying alive. And I am not upset because of death. But obviously it is sad if it is not possible to see someone who is important. People can be upset, If their friend goes for example to long trip. Yarning means that person misses someone. It doesn"t mean that person is upset because of friend left to travel or to death, but because friend cannot be seen in long time.

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do.

How would killing be best thing? I think best thing is that people can live.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 2:10:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 5:24:13 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 2/11/2016 10:17:22 AM, dee-em wrote:

Spiritual development? What is that exactly?

I think it means development of the soul through virtues such as patience, kindness, compassion, steadfastness, detachment, and so forth. Some people may understand it differently than I do.


Huh? So after death we stay in the universe? And what are "states of existence"?

Again, I refer to my likening of heaven and hell with karma. Perhaps this quote from Hinduism will explain it better than I can:

"Samsara, the transmigration of life, takes place in one"s own mind. Let one therefore
keep the mind pure, for what a man thinks that he becomes; this is the mystery of
eternity."

Generally speaking, when I say state of existence, I refer to how "developed" your soul is. For those individuals whose minds are not pure and are filled with hate, they live in hell. Try not to think of hell with preconceived notions as places. When I said that heaven and hell could exist in this material world, I did not mean that you die and then go to some place called heaven or hell. I meant that, as you live right now, your thoughts and actions shape you.


Yet accidents happen. In fact for the vast majority of human history infant mortality was the leading cause of death. So billions have been denied the opportunity to "spiritually develop" (whatever that means). How is that fair?

It is unfortunate, yes. I do not understand your point. I also believe that souls can continue to develop in the next life. The question becomes why we have this material life to begin with if we can continue to develop in the next life. I wouldn't know the best answer to this question (I merely have ideas), but maybe someone else would. Instead, I think about it in terms of the analogy brought up earlier. Development of the unborn child occurs before birth, but even after birth the child continues to develop. A different kind of development, of course, but it is merely an analogy to facilitate my understanding of the situation.


But this would be an act of mercy for the good of the individual. The longer a person lives the more opportunity they have to sin and lose their ticket to heaven. Isn't it better to mercy kill them young before they get into serious trouble and jeopardize their "immortal soul"?

Your comment concerning "their ticket to heaven" seems to have many notions of what heaven is, as if it's some place you have to have certain qualifications to get into. Again, I think it is better to think of heaven as a state of existence that can be the result of your own actions.


This doctrine of "spiritual development" is new to me. I thought that the only criteria for getting into heaven were to be a genuine believer and not to sin (too much) or at least repent when you had done so. When did "spiritual development" enter the picture?

You are merely describing the views of some religious people. I have always seen spiritual development in the picture in every religion.

Surely you are not claiming that without a certain level of this spiritual development you cannot enter heaven? That would consign all humans who died as innocent children to hell, would it not?

I believe I've already established above that I do not think of heaven and hell in terms of places that you enter (i.e. it's one or the other). Thinking of it in terms of being allowed into heaven if you have certain qualifications usually doesn't make much sense to me.

The way you direct your comments at me mirrors the arguments against the currently popular Christian notions of heaven or hell.

Which is really what this thread was about. It was directed at Christians and Muslims.
Peace.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 2:13:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 10:13:50 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I am not concerned with staying alive. And I am not upset because of death. But obviously it is sad if it is not possible to see someone who is important. People can be upset, If their friend goes for example to long trip. Yarning means that person misses someone. It doesn"t mean that person is upset because of friend left to travel or to death, but because friend cannot be seen in long time.

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do.

How would killing be best thing?

Because you would be immediately sending them to paradise.

I think best thing is that people can live.

The assumption is that death is not the end of life (as paradoxical as it sounds). Isn't that the concept of an afterlife?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:37:08 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 3:33:14 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
4. We do believe what we claim, being that we go onto a life after this one. There may be some who do not, and I cannot speak for them, but for those of us who do, death still presents pain and sadness despite our knowledge of what comes after. This is what makes us human, not hypocrites of our religion.

And my point is... that's what makes folks like you hypocritical.

Simply put, you believe that you are going somewhere better than this life when it is over, and yet you are sad at the thought of you or those close to you going there. That is contradictory, and can't just be dismissed as "human nature".

Regarding my point on infants, I presume you believe that infants who die go straight to heaven. I also presume you believe that heaven is a place where not everyone goes. If so, then by allowing an infant to grow up you are subjecting them to the possibility of missing a place in "eternal bliss" just so they can live a measly 70 or 80 years here on earth. That is absurd and contradicts how we treat our children in every other aspect of life. We always do things that our children will not like because we know it will benefit them in the long run. If you guys really believe what you profess, then why on earth do you act differently when it comes to the biggest consequence of them all?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 5:06:07 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 2:10:36 AM, dee-em wrote:

Which is really what this thread was about. It was directed at Christians and Muslims.
Peace.

Okay? My original post still stands.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:21:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:32:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:21:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
Yes, the point is the one you have just called TRUE.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 2:45:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 2:13:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
How would killing be best thing?

Because you would be immediately sending them to paradise.

How do you know that? What if you kill one, just before he would become righteous, which is needed for one to get in to eternal life?

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 2:52:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:32:25 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:21:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
Yes, the point is the one you have just called TRUE.

So... No. That's fine. I was just curious.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:26:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 2:52:13 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:32:25 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:21:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
Yes, the point is the one you have just called TRUE.

So... No. That's fine. I was just curious.
What? Why didn't you get it before? Since you now claim to get it?
Are you lying or are you telling the truth?
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 4:02:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 3:26:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:52:13 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:32:25 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:21:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
Yes, the point is the one you have just called TRUE.

So... No. That's fine. I was just curious.
What? Why didn't you get it before? Since you now claim to get it?
Are you lying or are you telling the truth?

Truth.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 4:05:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 4:02:47 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:26:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:52:13 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:32:25 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:21:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
Yes, the point is the one you have just called TRUE.

So... No. That's fine. I was just curious.
What? Why didn't you get it before? Since you now claim to get it?
Are you lying or are you telling the truth?

Truth.
So abortion is god's way to get more people into heaven?
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 4:08:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 4:05:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 4:02:47 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:26:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:52:13 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:32:25 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:21:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
Yes, the point is the one you have just called TRUE.

So... No. That's fine. I was just curious.
What? Why didn't you get it before? Since you now claim to get it?
Are you lying or are you telling the truth?

Truth.
So abortion is god's way to get more people into heaven?

No. That's not His plan, but He is able to have some good come from an evil act.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 4:41:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 4:08:16 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 4:05:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 4:02:47 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:26:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 2:52:13 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:32:25 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:21:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:01:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:09:03 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
Yes, the point is the one you have just called TRUE.

So... No. That's fine. I was just curious.
What? Why didn't you get it before? Since you now claim to get it?
Are you lying or are you telling the truth?

Truth.
So abortion is god's way to get more people into heaven?

No. That's not His plan, but He is able to have some good come from an evil act.
Abortionists are the most selfless people on the planet, they are prepared to sacrifice their own salvation in order that they send as many innocent souls as they can to heaven.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 5:35:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/ wrote:
I have always wondered about this. The majority of religious folks believe that when we die, those of us who meet whatever requirements they believe, go to "a better place". So if that is the case, and you really believe this, why are you concerned with staying alive? And why are you upset when those close to you die?

I tend to think that religious folks don't really believe what they profess, or at the very least are not anywhere as confident in their faith as they profess. If their beliefs were true, then killing an infant would be the best thing that one could possibly do. But you sure don't see anyone taking that proposition seriously, except those who would be confined to a psych ward.

I could give plenty more examples, but you get the point. Those who profess belief in an eternal afterlife of bliss contradict themselves by the way they live, which makes me think that they really don't believe what they claim. Thoughts?

Killing an infant is always bad for the killer.
It's ideal for the fetus at least.

True... but did you have a point?
Yes, the point is the one you have just called TRUE.

So... No. That's fine. I was just curious.
What? Why didn't you get it before? Since you now claim to get it?
Are you lying or are you telling the truth?

Truth.
So abortion is god's way to get more people into heaven?

No. That's not His plan, but He is able to have some good come from an evil act.
Abortionists are the most selfless people on the planet, they are prepared to sacrifice their own salvation in order that they send as many innocent souls as they can to heaven.

It's actually selfish to thwart God's plan.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 5:40:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this.

I doubt that many sane people could not be the tiniest bit concerned about dying. They may believe their claims but still have an open mind and they probably have an understanding that this isn't scientifically proven and therefore there is a chance that they're wrong.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:49:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 5:40:21 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:21:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I have always wondered about this.

I doubt that many sane people could not be the tiniest bit concerned about dying. They may believe their claims but still have an open mind and they probably have an understanding that this isn't scientifically proven and therefore there is a chance that they're wrong.

If we Christians are wrong, so what??? What happens when we die then?? Nothing, so there's nothing to worry about
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax