The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

Am I supposed to feel any different than I did before? Am I supposed to somehow know God at this point versus merely knowing about Him? Is it possible to be saved and yet not even worry about religion at all?Do actions count more than beliefs? Will beliefs (so imparted due to salvation) be cheerfully done in all cases? Finally, is it essential to belong to a church or could I go on being independent from organized religion??Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

"Okay, now I've become a born again Christian. What's next?" Is that what you're asking ?It would be nice if you were sincere. Since you probably are not what's next is of course more of the same for you -collecting arguments, disputing, mocking, ignoring, trying to debunk, nullify, render irrelevant, reject and otherwise sneer at the counsels of God for yourself.With your mock conversion, isn't that the next thing on your agenda?Am I being too hard on you ?I apologize if I am. If ...Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

DA writes:Whoa, I think we just made history here at EVC, two opposing sides are in agreement on a point, thatsgreat. I was realating this to the topic simply to demonstrate that God is indepenent of ones thought asa result of thier freewill, another amazing creation. Wow, progress is a many spendored thing. Whoa, even more progress here. I would agree in these instances. Again more agreement, this has to be some kind of record.
In the instances you are dealing with extreme and fringe situations that could influence ones decision. God nor the courts would hold these individuals accountable probably in such extreme situationshowever, if I could point out just one example where these types of situations dont exist, it woulddemonstrate that freewill actually does exist.i would point as well that making no decision in a situation where out side stimuli is present is alsomaking a decision. In other words, freewill can exist and is real whether a decision is made or not.Again, when dealing with absolute rule in the form of omniscience, IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, leaves you nological alternatives. One has no other means on which to base a decision, other than to IGNORE the forceof that logic and ignore the principles set out by omniscience. Indirectly atleast, it seems you havechosen that path.If heaven and hell are a problem for you from a LOGICAL standpoint, be happy with your decision andmove forward, like Carl SaganIf nothing else here you seem to be remotley OBJECTIVE, which is a very good trait and I dont mean to indirectly imply others arentEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Whats so wrong with questioning what I have been taught? IMB, God is not going to shun me for challenging Iano. Everyone on this board has definite beliefs and opinions, and my intention is certainly not to mock God. After all, if God is as powerful as we believe that He is, I could hypothetically be flat out against Him and it would not make one bit of difference. Any good belief system should be able to stand every assault and challenge against it. Right?

I know I did. I didn't believe God existed the morning after my salvation but I had this peace descend on me and I knew that "everything was going to be okay" without having a sense of what "everything" might include.God moving in by his Holy Spirit would cause a difference in your life. Feelings included.- Knowing God exists by way of his making that known to you need not be instant. It wasn't in my case at least and I know of people for whom it was a lot more slow than in my case.- I don't know what you mean by religion.Because God takes up residence in a person and because one purpose of his doing so is the sanctification of that person I'd be loath to thinking a person wouldn't concern themselves with aspects involved in sanctification.- Count more towards what?- Many beliefs are imparted due to studying God's word. If someone hadn't access to Gods word then I would imagine certain beliefs wouldn't be imparted. Paul wrote his letters to believers to impart beliefs. If he hadn't then those folk and us would, presumably, remain ignorant regarding them.- Essential for what? Not your salvation in any case.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Oni writes:This is simply to easily done, but it is not necessary here. My intimation was that morality from anobjective omniscient standpoint is a simple straight forward logical proposition, that cannot bechallenged in any serious manner, that is assuming he DA was speaking about and using the samesource of the scriptures to mount his acusations against God. My illustration about the existence of Godis the exacally the same Sure belief CAN BE seperate from logical propositions and conclusions, but that does not mean a logicalproposition and conclusions cannot be demonstrated to be accurate, given enough evidence in the formof logical information twords a conclusion. Your being to restrictive with the word belief, the dictionarynotwithstanding, my belief can be rooted in the best possible logical deductions available, which rendersthe conclusion believable, whether it is proved or not. This is really funny. Your asking me to provide you with objective evidence for something I DONTBELIEVE HAS SUBSTANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, how can I do that ?(laughing really hard while writing) Butwe both know they are real in a sense, because we can hear them in our minds and see thier effects inaction, but the affect is not the thought itself.I didnt say they dont exist I said they have no substance, or appear to not have substance.Secondly, I tole you that I simplified my response to NO SUBSTANCE, verses OUTSIDE EXISTENCE, senseno substance would be like not really existing. Nope, these are the processes that produce a thouhgt, look carefully at the words in the definitions. Athought cannot be described or captures as you would a picture. if a thought has substance in reality itshould be avalibe to translated into visual stimuli. My guess is that it cant be. but what do I know Im justa bag of hammers. Really? duh, thats the whole point, but I can hear them cant you? great, now explain to me how you hear the words in your mind. Explain the action that creates and letsyou hear them as if you were being spoken to. Youve only explained the process which leads to thethought, not what the thought is, nor have you showed the substance of the processes end result, thethough itself I didnt say it happens outside this process, I said the thing it produces (a thought), the end result of theprocess has no substance, or it seems to have none. if it does show me a thought, or simply tranfer athought into images. if it has substance you should be able to do this with no problem, correct? Ohyeah thats science fiction I assumed by spoken words you mean Audible noises from the vocal cords. If you mean the word "Blue"as spoken by a mouth, then NO, it has no substance in reality, other than a contrived definition then explain how you hear the thoughts in your mind. If as you suggest here, that is all thoughts are, anEFFECT processesd by your body, the body is producing something, an abstract idea that is heard andwhich has no substance, yet produces cause and effect, after the chemical process is complete the mind produces an abstract idea, that is a result of the process, that I can hear and act upon. if theyare not independent in some sense, it should be easy enough to show the properties of the thought ortransfer them into images, somehow, correct? Then reproduce it, show me its properties, show me the end result of the process yes but it has no substance that is identifiableWhos Ringo? god created freewill to regulate thouhgts. freewill and thoughts are abstract concepts with no substance,much like your arguments, ha ha, just kidding. God does not regulate this part of his essence, eventhough it is under his essence, but not his mind. absolutley no contradiction Creating freewill and giving it is not the same as controling it Your to smart of an individual to see that neither of these explain the CONCEPT of freewill. You would dobetter in trying to explain why freewill is not freewill
No.1 wrongNo.2 wrong I f you are going to question the motives of the God of the Bible, Jesus whoever, then talk about the motives and behavior from the same source you derive your complaints. If you want to talk about whether he actually exists find another thread. Here it is being discussed whether Heaven and Hell can be justified from a Biblical and logical standpoint assuming he exists in the first place.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

The question is not whether there is outside stimulus or not. There is ALWAYS outside stimulus unless you live in a vacuum (and then you would be dead). The question is to what extent does the outside (and inside if you are talking about the human body including the brain itself) stimulus overrides one's ability to rationally make a decision. The very definition of free-will requires an ability to make a decision. Free-will is predicated on the ability to make decisions/choices. However you are right in that an actual decision does not have to be made just that the ability to choose is there. Just want to make sure that is clear. This is your interpretation of what the Bible says.If you are specifying that if one believes in the God of the Bible than one has to believe in moral absolutes, than that is a statement of faith and belief not of logical necessity. It depends on your interpretation of the Bible. Some religious people push for more moral relativism than others. This is based on your belief. Note I am not saying you are wrong just that there is no logical necessity for this to be true except within your own worldview. In other words you can argue it either way. You are making a logical case for moral absolutism in regards to your religious faith however there are others of your faith that believe that moral absolutism is not a requirement. And yes you can say they are really not Christians but again this is based on your belief not logical necessity.I am not saying one way or the other, the whole purpose of my thread here is to discuss how Christians can advocate for the existence of heaven and hell yet at the same time advocate that the God of the Bible is a god of love and peace. To me the creation of hell seems contradictory to the Christian message of love. These to me seem to be morally incompatible concepts. I am just asking Christians how they can logically and rationally explain this.Whether or not God really exists is immaterial to this debate because that is not where I am trying to focus this discussion. My goal for the thread is to focus on the justification of hell from a Christian perspective using the tools of logic and deduction. Not indirectly. Directly I have chosen the path to not believe in the God of the Bible for a variety of reasons which are off-topic from the current discussion. If you would like to discuss this in another thread or personal emails I would be happy to. Actually it is not heaven and hell but the religious believer’s acceptance of the concepts of heaven and hell in relation to the concept of a "good" god that troubles me. I am happy with my decision and am moving forward. I just like to discuss many different subjects and one of these is the psychology behind religious belief.BTW, Carl Sagan is one of my heroes. If you go to my youtube account you can see this. Thanks. I know I am not always objective and am an errant human but I try to be objective whenever possible and try not to let emotions overrule the rational part of my brain.DAEdited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Add message subtitle

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I will let go of the "logical" portion of this discussion because it's off-topic.I'll find a thread we can discuss it in when I get a chance, if you'd like to continue there.There is enough in your post to fill many threads. I'm sorry, what?! Did you say you can "hear" your thoughts? Audibly "hear" your thoughts? So you're saying "thoughts," this abstract thing which you originally claimed (with much confidence I might add) does't exist, now exists but isn't made up of sub-atomic particles, atoms, etc?Are you saying they exist (now) but have no fundamental structure?Am I anywhere near close to understanding you? No, no, follow it properly. Obviously the "thought" must come before the reaction, right? You think THEN you react, right? So the process that produces the "thought" is the neuron that carries the stimuli to the central nervous system since that is what happens before the body can react.So lets follow it in action:(1)Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system.(2)The central nervous system processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action.So, first you receive the stimuli - (then something occurs) - followed by a reaction.Now, if the reaction is after the thought, then the thought is before the reaction. If the thought is after the stimuli, then the stimuli is before the thought.So, first stimuli, then thought, then reaction.Going with that, if neurons communicate the presence of the stimuli to the central nervous system, and the central nervous system sends the information to the body for the reaction, somewhere in between that is where the "thought" takes place, does it not?Now, if you can't pin-point anything made of any "substance" ie. has no fundamental properties, then what in fact are you talking about that takes place after the stimuli BUT before the reaction? And WHERE does it take place?The REACTION is the end result, the "thought" happens before that BUT after the stimuli. So where does it happen? OR, could it be that that's all a thought is? Are you allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong in what you thought a thought was?Could a "thought" simply be a reaction to stimuli dictated by the central nervous system? - If not, if there's more to it, then please explain. No I cannot audibly hear them. I have the illusion that I hear them, but I know better than to think there is an audible voice in my head. Crazy, insane people usually can't tell the difference. I don't presume you're one of them, so I can only assume you mean the "illusion" of an audible sound. I don't. And I hope for your sake you don't think you do either. But again, the "thought" is not the end result. That's where you are making your mistake. The "thought' is somewhere in the middle of the process. Remember - first stimuli - then thought - then reaction.Once again:
The REACTION is the end result, the "thought" happens before that BUT after the stimuli. So where does it happen? OR, could it be that that's all a thought is? Are you allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong in what you thought a thought was?Could a "thought" simply be a reaction to stimuli dictated by the central nervous system? Please explain further, don't just say, "it's not the same." We're here to learn from each other, I can't understand what you mean if you don't explain it.Also, you mis-read what I wrote and answered something I didn't claim.What I said:

quote:

---

So, god created freewill and he chose to give it to mankind. In other words, god CONTROLS who
receives "freewill".

---

Note: I'm saying he controls who receives it. Do you disagree that he controls who receives it? WHY are they wrong? Please explain WHY you disagree, don't just dismiss it. Fair enough. I re-read the OP and it seems it's refering to only the "Christian" definition of god, I wasn't aware that it was specific. Which I guess that means that Jesus is both the son of god and somehow god too ... so there are 2 gods?Sorry I never understood that - not a Christian myself.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

It is but one single act of rebellion (shooting that dirty dawg between the eyes) and one single act of surrendering (fully accepting the act as a wrongdoing). Both occur without believing God exists - and are but an example to show that there is no problem in principle with total surrender to a God not yet believed in.That, remember, was the context of your question: - If God has indeed installed in you a knowledge of good and evil and you do evil you are in rebellion against the restraint placed on you by your knowledge of good. And given that God = good you are in rebellion against God.And when it comes to Hell, it is your rejection of goodness that sees you sent to an environment were no good is.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Yet it is implied in the Bible and preached by many Christian fundamentalists that hell is more than just the absence of God/good and it is not non-existance. Rather hell is taught/preached/implied to be a place of eternal torment.Here are some excerpts from various Christian sources including the Bible to help shed some light on this: Also The Christian Doctrine of Hell and The truth about hellTherefore to get back to the heart of my original OP, the question being asked is how do you square this with the Christian cornerstone teaching from the #1 source God/Jesus himself in which he states that God is good. In other words, How can a good god create, judge, and sentence people to hell. Why does god have to send non-believers to this god-forsaken place (yes I intended that pun) in which the worm-never dies and the fires and torment never cease? Why not non-existance or a place to rehabilitate one’s self i.e. purgatory. Why does God not spell it out that he exists? Why supposedly show up for 20-30 years out of tens of thousands of years of human history and not even show one iota of evidence that he really exists for over 2000 years since? Why make it a guessing game as to whether he exists or not and then send literally billions of people to excrutiating torment for eternity for guessing wrong?To me it does not make a lick of sense. To me it is all human contrived nonsense in order to psychologically (and sometimes physically) force people into their religious worldview.I am not trying to be mean, I am just trying to figure this thing out rationally. And who can argue with this? Sorry, just had to throw some humor in such a serious topic Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

So salvation is not by faith but by believing God, and you go about believing God by what you do... your works.ABE:Off topic here. If you want you can reply to Message 298.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe

So, as long as you feel guilt, remose, or regret, you're "surrendering" and thus are able to go to heaven? I'm getting very confused, as again, this would imply that everyone short of psychopaths and achizophrenics (or others with mental illness) are able to go to heaven, and the only people being punished in hell are those who couldn't do anything about it anyway. Again, while I acknowledge that some people do bad things, they almost always realize they did wrong, even if they don't admit it to anyone else. So, I think you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who actually rejects goodness.

Oni writes:Your last post was very through and very funny, I mean that in a nice way ofcourse, I will get to it and DAs progressively today, sorry for the delay, very busyEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

What about all the times the average person doesn't feel remorse or regret? What about all the times they excuse themselves with self-justification?- See above.Also, whilst a person might consider having done wrong at or after the point of having done wrong, they frequently don't continue feeling the effects of wrongdoing. Time passes and the pain of guilt and shame diminishes - but the wrongdoing stays a wrongdoing. There is a central figure in event person who can accomplish the trick of dispensing with the price for the wrong done. And that person is the offender.Which would indicate their suppressing guilt and shame. Or their suppression of the truth ..to put it another way. Or their refusal to love the truth .. to put it yet another way.All of which is something used by God in the mechanism of our salvation. He knows that guilt and shame will be suppressed. And he knows we will keep on doing wrong. Which means there is the potential for an explosion at some point - with all that buried truth bursting to the surface of our consciousness and overwhelming us.If it does we will be convinced we are indeed rotten. And so we will be saved. If it doesn't it will only be the result of a persons continued suppression preventing the truth surfacing. And so they will be lost.They did it to themselves they did.. and that's what really hurts.

The only time someone engages in justification to themselves is when they know they've done wrong. You don't need to barter with the angel on your shoulder if the little devil doesn't speak up. People may not admit to anyone else that they've done wrong, they may give as many justifications as they can think of...but that just leads to Shakespeare's "The lady doth protest too much."Unless you know you're doing something wrong, you don't nother coming up with a justification for it, you just do it. When you have to convince yourself, then you're at least aware of the possibility you've done wrong. I've actually seen most people go too far the other way, they feel guilt and remorse for doing things that are actually good.Anyone who truly doesn't think like that would be a psychopath. Brain chemistry and historical environment have a huge effect on people's actions and feelings, and if the reason for a bad action or lack of regret is brain chemistry, then how can that be something to be punished? So, what you're saying is, people should feel guilty and bad about everything they've ever done for every minute of their lives? I don't know about you, but that sounds like the worst kind of life to live, and anyone that requires that kind of life is a sadist who should be stopped. Or, to put it the best way, they've felt bad, they've gained acceptance that they did wrong or tried to find recompense for it, and have moved on resolving to do better the next time. If people turn a bad choice into a learning experience and decide not to do something similar in the future, then I think they're completely justified in no longer feeling guilty about it unless they stop to think about it. Thinking themselves rotten is one of the worst things they could do. I'm truly saddened that that's the feeling you apparently have about yourself. I don't agree with about 99% of the things you post here, but I think you're a very worthwhile individual and would feel a sense of loss were you to cease. People who feel themselves rotten are clinically depressed and should seek help. People make mistakes, learning from them and moving on is the healthy thing to do; dwelling on them and sinking further and further into guilt until you consider yourself rotten is just about the least healthy thing you could do. It is for people like that that we have psychologists, mental health doctors and clinicians.For any god to be considered good, he would want us to learn from our mistakes, use that learning to make better choices in the future, maybe help teach others to make better choices, and then feel better and move on with your life. A god that wants you to feel so full of guilt and shame as to consider yourself without redeeming quality at all, again, is a sadist and should be stopped. I'd go so far as to call a being like that as close to my perception of Satan as makes no difference.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.