The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

Definitions usally are. Dog = 4 legged creature. 4 legged creature = dog. Circular..I don't see what the problem is. The first half of the argument sees 'righteousness' as a shorter way of saying "actions/thoughts God approves of (whether he or someone else engages in them)". If you'd like to use the word "Zog" to mean the same thing then by all means. We'll just insert that word into the Bible instead of Righteousness.The second half of the argument sees the Bible (or God if you prefer) going on to give examples of acts/thoughts/motivations God approves of. And ones he doesn't - which is, you'd agree, his perogative. entitlement.Combining the two halfs we conclude that righteousness is what God approves of and some examples of same include: patience, love, gentleness, anger at unrighteous things (such as puffed up pride, green eyed jealousy, selfishness), selflessness, humility.- Bizarre? There's nothing inherently inappropriate about vengence or retribution (our justice systems incorporating elements of both). Nor need an unrighteous war (let's suppose Germany's instigating WWII) deflect from righteousness acts that might occur during it on the German side.- The Christian message isn't an a la carte menu, Straggler.The only Christian message worth it's salt is that you, Straggler, are a lost sinner and currently stand in completely wrong relationship with God. Should that situation continue to your dying day then you will spend eternity not only separated from the love of God (a love I might add, whose benefits you currently enjoy) but you will be exposed also to the furious anger of his wrath against your sin. Your sin Straggler. There is good news however, a way into right relationship with God has been made open to you, by God, through the finished work of Jesus Christ. You only need believe and you will be saved. You need not worry yourself about how this works - but can take comfort from the fact that God himself will extract your answer from you regarding whether or not you wish to avail of his gracious offer.Compatibility issues between the Christian message and God's vengence and retribution against sin diminish in the light of Jesus' Cross. God didn't do what he did because your sin is an irrelevancy.- Justifications tend towards higher ground. When you yourself are the highest ground there is, the need to tend towards higher ground attains zero. It's not a circular argument, it's an argument that has wended it's way to the summit.Justification is to God as Northerly is to North Pole, Straggler. An irrational notion.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This reminds me of Plato's Euthyphro dilemma (which interestingly predates Christianity by several hundred years) in which Plato's fictional character Euthyphro gets into a metaphysical discussion with Socrates about how the virtue of piety (goodness) is derived. The basic question when related to the god of Christianity (vice the pantheon of Greek/Roman gods and goddesses) is: Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?If God wills what is ‘good’ because it is good in of itself, then he bases his decision on what to command on what is already morally good outside of himself.. If moral goodness exists before God issues any commands, then moral goodness is independent of God’s commands. Therefore God’s commands aren’t the source of morality, but merely a source of information about a preexisting moral code.However if good is good because it is commanded by God than nothing is good until God commands it. However, if nothing is good until God commands it, then what God commands is morally arbitrary. As a result, God would have no moral reason for commanding as he does. That is morally speaking; he could just as well have commanded anything else. This problem is exacerbated when we consider that God, being omnipotent, could have commanded anything at all. For example, he could have commanded polygamy, slavery, murder, etc (which he actually does in the Bible). If this divine command theory is true, then these things would be morally good. That doesn’t seem right, though; even if God had commanded these things they would still be morally bad from a rational and sensible person. This Divine command theory, then, must be false.Either way someone who advocates divine morality attempts to argue, both are refuted through sound logic.(Paraphased from here: The Euthyphro Dilemma)I would appreciate both Iano’s and any others feedback on this remarkable expose and argument on divine morality.

---

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

The Dilemma is difficult to reconcile. The bigger problem is that no matter what, morality becomes subjective.We could argue that enslaving people who are seen as members within your society is wrong because it doesn't promote the common good and cause internal strife. But what about slavery of people outside your society? Is enslaving someone who is a stranger to your society wrong and why?How about denying illegal immigrants access to basic services? How about female circumcision? What about mistreatment of animals? What about another culture's ideas about the treatment of women? Are any of these morally wrong?The argument leads to moral relativism and there is no authority from which to argue that something is right or wrong anywhere else except from within your own society. Things like human rights or natural rights become a non-issue on a global scale. After all, how can anyone justify telling someone else what is right or wrong based on one culture's ideas if there is no moral authority except what is derived from man.The argument for moral authority from God does simplify matters in that people can argue that a higher power makes the rules, like how the American Government is the lawmaker in American society and determines what is legal and what is not. Even the Dilemma is weakened if we can argue that God, being wise and all-knowing, knows what is better for humanity in the long run. Thus, even if we can't see it, God may have good reasons to say that murder is immoral just by virtue of knowing what would happen if murder wasn't immoral. The argument then becomes, "Whose God(s) is right?"You know, God would make it a lot easier if God just one day spelled out a message in the stars telling everyone if God exists or not.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

Fortunately, the God of Christianity predates Plato by a decent amount. And He is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow..- Firstly, I've changed your word 'wills' to the italicisd word 'command' three sentences up so as to accurately reflect the conundrum as you state in the first sentence of the quoted section above.Secondly, how do you conclude that his expressing outward to us what is good (by way of information) necessitates that good being/existing outside/apart from himself. I mean, if goodness is sourced within God and he tells us about it...Thirdly, if God is the source of good then we can say 'it is good because it is commanded by God' as a matter of logical conclusion.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

But for all these examples you give, I can also show opposite examples i.e. impatience, intolerance, hate, harshness, anger at trivial things, selfishness, pride and other vices exhibeted by your god in the Bible. In other words he doesn't follow his own rules or like we say in the military "do as I say, not as I do".You and other Christians try to rationalize it away which fits perfectly into the second part of Plato's Euthyphro dilemma in which nothing is good until God commands it and therefore what God commands is morally arbitrary. Using this logic we have no choice or ground to stand on to say if anything God does is wrong or bad. So God could order genocide, enslavement of enemies, murder of women and children and we would have to call that good solely because God wills it. I really do not understand how Christians get around this paradox.

---

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

What a nice unsubstantiated and meaningless statement. Your point?A logical statement is a logical statement, whether it comes from Plato or someone else. If you throw logic out why are you even on this discussion board. Are you trying to appeal solely from emotion? What is your point here? I fail to see your point here.If God wills something, that he means he wants/chooses something to be done. A command is an outward spoken act of someones will is it not?God willing what is 'good' is synonymous with God commanding what is good is it not? If God did not will it, he would not command it and vice versa. There are two horns to this dilemna. Either good (morality) is good unto itself apart from God or it is part of God's nature itself. The above statement you quoted is part of the first horn of this dilemna not the second. If you are arguing for the second to be true than the first must be false and vice versa. Hense why it is called a dilemma. Than you advocate the second horn of the dilemma and therefore good (morality) is actually arbritary because it is based on the capricious nature of God in which he can say or do anything and we would have to call it good and righteous no matter what. The question than begs to be asked, how do you know God is good? Which of course is moot because according to the second horn of this dilemma God is always good no matter what because God=good. Therefor good is a useless term and EVERYTHING is based on faith. God could order the holocaust or the slaughter of innocent children and we would have to call that good.Does this make sense?

---

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

OK. In summation, why do I believe in Heaven and Hell...I'm not sure that I give them proper thought, but it was always my understanding that Hell was never directly created for disposal and storage of humans...it was to be the place where fallen spirits went. Humans ended up there by default, having chosen to follow said fallen spirits. But again...I don't give this stuff a lot of thought. As a side-note, I saw your signature, and it reminded me of something that I just read from Henry Hazlitt "And as Mark Twain has remarked, "When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or
any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition."Anyway, back to the topic.... That cuts the argument rather short, however. For the sake of argument, are we allowed to bring the Bible into any sort of questioning? After all, IF God exists, and has given us the ability to reason, should we fear questioning Him? I believe that God interacts with humanity in the present realm and under individual situations. I don't believe that God judges us based on what the book said in the past. Yet surely God understands human psychology and knows that people are often in denial. Does He expect us to overcome our own defense mechanisms? Could it not be argued that those who do willfully reject Him are just in a weaker state of mind and either have more of an addictive personality or more of a skeptical inquiring nature about them? Personally I believe that if God is judging us, He takes all of our defense mechanisms into account before passing judgment. And speaking of judgment...one more thing. Why can't God give those headed for Hell the option of ceasing to exist? Wouldn't that be an act of benevolence on His part? I mean, why force people who have chosen to reject Him to suffer? Whats the point there? Edited by Phat, : mistake#1

I really dont see why this is so difficult to understand. The existence of God, his will and his morality is a straight forward LOGICAL proposition. God is all there is in existence, everything is God mateial, it follows therefore that any decision determined by him is therefore absolute and complete.If one wishes to argue that this makes God responsible for others evil actions, it must be remembered that free will exists in them and thoughts are both real and unreal at the same time. Thought are produced by a mechanism made by God, but the thought is independant of God because it posesses no reality in and of itself and is a result of a FREE MORAL DECISION. Yet, it has no tangible existence, except as a contemplation, yet that contemplation does posses reality in that it can be comprehended, understood and evaluated. It is because of these qualities that HE holds an individual responsible, as a result of freewill. Keeping in mind there is nothing in existence except God in the first placeThis is the distinquishing marked difference between man and beast and the way in which we are created in Gods image.DA, it is really a straight forward LOGICAL PROPOSITION that cannot be assaulted in any real fashion. if you think it can be have at itEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ok, so everyone does bad things. I can agree with that. How, then, does one make it to heaven? If to do so, one must ask for forgiveness from God, then he is essentially condemming all unbelievers to Hell, merely because they don't believe. (All are evil, only believers will ask forgiveness from God, therefore, all nonbelievers will go to hell) So God doesn't believe in recycling? It still seems over the top to condemn someone for eternity for something they did during a life of, at most, 100 years. The punishment should fit the crime for the punishment to be just, otherwise it's capricious and unworthy of respect at all. Ironically, I think the exact same way, only in opposite. Only a fool would believe, in their heart, in a God...it just makes no sense.

Well at least we agree that simply defining gods actions as righteaous is a flawed and circular argument. None of which addresses the circularity of the situation here.If gods actions are not righteaous by definition then by what measure are they being declared righteaous?

Playing devils advocate (no pun intended), if God is everything, that means God is both good and evil. It also means the choice and morality are just an illusion. We are all pawns in God's game of chess with no willpower of our own. We think we have choice but we really do not. It is all pre-programmed into us by God and therefore morality, good and evil do not exist. But if God is everything and created everything that means he created evil too. And again what is your definition of good and evil? You fall right back into the trap of Euthyphro moral dilemma's which you have failed to address. What does "thoughts are both real and unreal at the same time" mean? How can something be both real and unreal at the same time? These are diametrically opposed terms. Something cannot exist and notexist at the same time, correct. Else we fall into the paradox of Schrdinger's cat. Even thoughts either exist (are real) or do not exist (are not real). I will accept that thoughts and acts can be independent of God for the sake of this argument but the question is by what standard are you using to measure whether these thoughts and acts are good or not. If you judge them solely on what God wills or commands than the question that is begging to be answered is: How do you know what God wills or commands is good? To attempt to logically deduce whether God is good is futile and ends up in a moral condundrum and in circular reasoning. The only answer is that you have to place 100% faith that God is supposedly good without knowing for certain whether this is actually the case. God can come down to Earth, commit murder, enslave people, brutally massacring innocent children or command that you "kill your children" and you would have no choice but to say this is a good act according to this logic. And what is God's image, morally speaking. That is the question. How do you define God morally?

---

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

The problem is that if you look at the examples of God's behavior in the Bible and even his creation of heaven and hell, he falls into the same trap and is a hypocrite to his own commands. You don't think a person who demands others to worship him is not being prideful? How about someone who commands the enslavement of other people? You don't think that is wrong? Or the advocation of sex slaves (even of someone's own daughter)? The commanding of abusive behavior, both physically and mentally? How about the murder of innocent children? Throughout the Bible he has taught hatred and intollerance. How about the damnation of everyone to eternity in eternal torment, torture and suffering worse than the worst mass murderers on Earth? Everyone one of his own supposed rules he has just about broken.Therefore using this logic, God should damn himself to hell. Or is God above his own moral law. Therefore the axiom "Do as I say, not as I do" fits well here.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.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

You have to believe he exists first. Which means, you must believe the premise to be true before you accept anything else. That is not a logical position, that is a logical fallacy. Well then how can you follow this reasoning with... Is a thought some how outside of existance? Is that what you're saying? That thoughts happen somewhere outside of existance?Because if they don't, if they happen in existance, and if your god is "all there is in existence," then it follows that so are your thoughts a part of god as well. If it can be comprehended, evaluated and understood, then it is a part of existance, a part of reality. If god is all there is in existance, then thoughts are a part of him as well. You can't have it both ways.- Oni

Whilst a definition is circular, it isn't an argument. Nor am I sure what kind of flaw you can point to. We'll use the word zog instead of righteous because it appears you've hang ups about the latter by virtue of attaching your own meaning of righteous onto God - something you're not prepared to do. So, Zog is a word used to describe "that which God does and things which, if done by others, are approved of by God"Would you agree God is Zog by definition? If so, we can proceed... ..tomorrow.

My point was to correct the wording in one statement so as to make it consistant with the other one, the other one being the subject of discussion. In deciding command = will you are jumping the gun. For example..- Not necessarily. For example: God's stated reason for issuing commands was to ensure that sin would increase. Yet God doesn't will/want people to sin.

quote:

---

Romans 5:20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

In other words, God knew that issuing a command would stimulate mans natural rebelliousness into deeper/more sin. Pride simply hates being commanded what to do afterall (I think we can all agree ).If I commanded you to scale a 100ft wall unaided .. or else face drastic consequences, it clearly couldn't be because I actually wanted you to scale a 100ft wall unaided. Or necessarily that I wanted drastic consequences to befall you.God issues impossible-to-keep commands to help us come to the conclusion that we can't keep God's commands. The problem isn't that there's anything inappropriate with Gods commands, the problem is we're sinners - and that's why we can't keep them. God want's to convince us that we are sinners.- I'm plumping for the option that good is intrinsic to God's nature and I've issued the query above to you. Here's the relevant statement of yours again: I mean, if God is morally good and issues no command, then moral goodness exists before God issues any commands. But moral goodness wouldn't be independent of God - yet you say it would be.Could you explain?- This part of the dilemma relies on God being capricious in fact. If he isn't then the dilemma is resolved? I'm supposing God consistant in his goodness. I'm also supposing that goodness might not always appear good to us (as in a child having it's hand smacked as it's about to touch a hot saucepan)- Emotionally yes but in any other sense, no. Rejecting God as a standard of good doesn't supply you with a standard of good. It leaves you with a vacuum which you can fill anyway you like (classic idolism btw: God out, own ideas in). Which means there is still no such thing as good and your objection to God ordering the Holocaust is denied any solid foundation.In arguing that God is good - even when children are slaughtered, I'd point to God's ultimate good goal - which has to do with the ultimate defeat of evil and the salvation of men. If the terror and privations of Auschwitz for example, are what it takes to bring a man to his knees before God, and it results in that mans salvation, then Auschwitz - although the product of evil and not God's will - will have be turned to an ultimate good.In the measure you keep your eye on Gods ultimate goal does his supposed capriciousness diminish.Edited by iano, : No reason given.