The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

And there's an old tribe from Palestine that considers male infant genital mutilation not only acceptable but a requirement for membership. Culture is a funny thing, innit?[/derail]

Son let me explain something to you that is fundamental to debate. I am claiming it has no substance, itwould therefore be a nonsensical idea to show you what that substance may be, since I dont believe ithas substance, yet has existence of some type. Now you can refer to it as a physical process or thehearing of it as an ILLUSION if you wish, but you would be obligated to provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE tothis contention.Now I mean by substance anything , verifiable from a touch and see experience, something that can betested in a testable way. I cant believe you dont know what I mean by substance. If I am wrong show me a thought or why what I am hearing is an illusionEAM writes:Oni writes:So if you are saying you are hearing your thoughts, (which you just implied)but it is not audible, how isthis happening, where is it and what is it. Identify the part of the process without telling me it is anillusion. If it is an illusion how does it work, to produce an abstract idea and identify that part in thePROCESS for me. Dont just keep telling me its there.You have worked yourself into a position you know isimmposible I do agree that it is apart of the process, but there must be something more in an abstract form. Nowwatch this, if Im wrong, and its only a physical process, exlusively, you should be able to PINPOINT theTHOUGHT ITSELF and explain, why and where, when you HEAR IT, it is only an illusion, where in theprocess does the illusion take place and what is the, ILLUSIONARY EXACT POINT and how does it happen.Please explain Yoda, this should be no problem since its all a physical process. I did My simple friend, if I knew this there would be no mystery or question on my part. But to answer yourquestion directly, its called an ABSTRACT THOUGHT. Again if I am wrong show it to me in your elaborateexplanations Weeeeell, I never...... Does this illusion of hearing happen as a result of the physical process, if it does could you pleaseidentify it in the process for me, along with the abstract thought If you didnt mean it was an illusion, as apart of the process, what did you mean, where does the illusion take PLACE?I suspect you cant follow the debate because you are making statements you cant support, but hey wewill overlook that if you are willing to move forward. Did You HEAR me audibly, just then? ThIs would be your responsibility not mine, Ive already told you I dont know what it is or how it works, II can only tellyou that it is there and I can hear it and respond to it. If it is not something else, PINPOINT IT for me , show it to me from your very scientific methodology, Ill wait as long as you need me to.We all know thoughts exist, we just dont know how or what they are exacally. God evaluates us from them and holds us accountable for them. it is an unbelievable process"the word of God is quick powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword......"." and is a decerner of the THOUGHTS and INTENTS of the Heart (mind} HebrewsEAM

EMA,I think you and Oni are talking past each other.Without sensory input of some type there really would be no cognitive thinking process because there would be nothing really to think about and thereby no thoughts. And without the brain and the biochemical processes of thinking, sensory inputs such as "hearing" would be impossible. Therefore, hearing is a part of the thinking process as well as visual, taste, smell and tactile input. Saying that hearing and thinking are two different processes is ludicrous. They are part of the same biochemical processes. It is like saying that one can operate a computer using a microphone without the CPU being present.As far as hearing thoughts in your head; where else are you going to "hear" thoughts and other sounds. Again hearing and thinking are not always seperate, distince processes rather they are processes which utilize overlapping regions of the brain itself. Therefore hearing and thinking sometimes overlap. In one's brain one can distinguish between internal thoughts and external auditory input because the brain is able to determine where the sensory input is coming from i.e. the eyes, the cochlea in the ear, etc. However, the two are not always 100% distinguishable and sometimes the brain has trouble distinguishing between the two especially when chemical imbalances in the brain are involved i.e. schizophrenia, etc. and psychodelic drugs are taken.This is my understanding of how things work based on my limited education (I did take a college psychology class once upon a time). Hope this helps.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

I didn't ask you that, I asked you to define what you mean by "no substance." You evaded it again... The question isn't if I know what "substance" is. Sure, I do. But you said it had NO substance, and I'd like you to be specific as to what you mean by that. Of what type? No I didn't. No I'm not implying it either. I have not told you anything is there. I said "thoughts" are the reaction to stimuli, they exist in reality, and as such IF god is all of reality, he is our thoughts as well.That's how this debate between you and I started and I have held to that the entire time. There must be? Why?All the evidence shows that there isn't. That there isn't a place in the brain where multiple "thoughts" hang out. All the evidence points to thoughts being the reaction to stimuli.YOU have claimed it's some abstract 'thing" but when pressed to define it and/or explain what you mean, you just repeat "It's an abstract thought" over and over.No one in science claims "thoughts" are an abstract thing. If you're making this claim then please defend your position with a clear explanation as to what you mean. If you would understand the process, you would understand that there is no such thing as a "thought" in and of itself, what we call "thoughts" are simply the reaction to stimuli.That's why god is as much a part of our "thoughts" as he is everything else, because it's stimuli (which exists) and reactions (which happen in reality). REALLY?You claimed with much authority that thoughts don't exist, then that they do but have no substance, then you claimed they were outside of existence, then you claimed they are not real, and so on and so on.Everytime you're confronted to explain what you mean you change what you mean.Lets go back to your message that sparked all this in the first place:

quote:

---

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.

---

Sounds like YOU THOUGHT you knew what it meant and how it works. Now, you don't know what it means or how it works?You should be a politician, dude. Speak for yourself. Science has a complete understanding of it, you should look it up.I can help: thought

quote:

---

Representative reactions towards stimuli from internal chemical reactions or external environmental factors.

---

You see, even wiki knows what they are. It's no mystery. It's not some abstract thing. It's the reaction to stimuli. It involves chemicals and outside factors. It's not an "unbelieveable process" at all. If you would have taken the time out to try to understand this, you would already know that.And - due to our thoughts simply being chemical reactions to stimuli, god is our thoughts and he is responsible for them. As I stated when we began this debate.If you'd like to add anything else I'm game to continue, but if not, then I think my point has been made and you have been shown where you are wrong.Thanks,- Oni

Hi DA,But my argument is not about "thinking" or any other process.This debate between EMA and I is about "thoughts" and what they represent in reality.He is ignoring the scientifc definition of what a thought is (reaction to stimuli) and replaced it with a nonsensical explanation about a "no substance, abstract thing," as if that explained anything at all.Our central nervous system processes the information communicated to it by neurons in response to stimuli, and we have words that represent this processed information. So we don't "hear" our thoughts, we try to represent our outside world with words in our brains, and we recognize the words.- Oni

Hey Onifre,Good talking to you again. It really makes no sense if we can't even define what being "real" means.But thoughts are just the abstract products of the process of thinking. In other word "thoughts" are a human contrived concept to describe the chunks of information produced by the biochemical process of thinking using our brains. Agreed. That is why definitions of these words need to be agreed upon, otherwise argueing for or against "are thougts real" is silly. "Hearing" itself is part of the "interpretation of senses" process conducted by the brain. Without the brain, there is no "hearing".
I think the riddle "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is apropos here.It is the brain in which "hearing" takes place not our ears. The cochlea of our ears just recieve sounds and convert them into an electrochemical format that our brains can analyze aka "hear".Our brains though can distinguish between our internal cognitive "thinking" and the act of hearing in most cases, as I discussed before. Either way, "hearing" sounds and thinking are processes of the brain. Thoughts are just snippets of information created by the act of thinking. Therefore to ask if thoughts are real is like asking if information is real. 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

Really? I didn't know that. Which tribe was this and is it still in practice?

---

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

I'd imagine you are being sarcastic, but he is referring to circumcision. (You know, the thing that is commanded in the bible, that involves the surgical removal of the male foreskin)I actually withstood A LOT of family pressure, and refused to have either of my sons submitted to the barbaric act of circumcision. I couldn't morally alter their bodies in such a significant manner without their consent.

I thought he was referring to something else.My information on the matter is that female genital mutilation is far more traumatic than circumcision.Male circumcisions are apparently a more common process in the US than one might imagine. Certainly, I don't know of any males that have suffered from it later on in life.Female genital mutilation is the total removal of the external female genitalia, a process, I imagine, to have far more long-term consequences. Which is why female circumcision doesn't adequately describe the horror that a little girl goes through during the process and what she suffers from later on in her life.And so I thought he was talking about something similar on scale to female genital mutilation.ABE: From the WHO website, female genital mutilation "can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths."

quote:

---

Long-term consequences can include:

​

* recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
* cysts;
* infertility;
* the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) is surgically changed to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth, and sometimes stitched close again afterwards;
* an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths.

---

Contrast that to the MAYO Clinic website for the cons of male circumcision:

quote:

---

Circumcision also has drawbacks, including:

​

* Surgical risks. Excessive bleeding and infection are uncommon, but possible. The foreskin may be cut too short or too long or fail to heal properly. If the remaining foreskin reattaches to the end of the penis, minor surgery may be needed to correct it.
* Pain. Circumcision hurts. Local anesthesia can block nerve sensations during the procedure.

---

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : changed eternal to external

---

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

Having yet to be exposed to such things I'm forced to ask: will I too have such reverence?Edited by lyx2no, : Subtitle change; clarity

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

Changing your child's body in such a way without having the ability to receive their consent is wrong, regardless of which one is "far worse" and "more widely accepted".

the fact is that Hell is a myth invented by Christians who were influenced by Plato.the idea of Hell didnt begin until the middle of the 2nd century by christian teachers who were trained in greek philosophy. The myth of hell came about because they were teaching another myth...that of the immortal soul. That myth created the question of where souls go to when they died and hell was used to explain where bad people went, while heaven was used to explain where good people went.the truth is that hell is not a real place of fiery torment...its the grave and nothing more.The scripture in the OP about "death and hades (hell KJV) was hurled into the lake of fire" proves that hell is not a literal place.If even 'death' & 'Hades' (The King James Version translates haides as hell) goes into the lake of fire, how can it be a literal place??? It cannot be a literal place for death is innanimate and hell is apparently already burning. Death and hell cannot literally be burned. But they can, and will, be done away with, or destroyed which is what the 'lake of fire' really symbolises. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Peg,I know you are a Jehovah's Witness and do not believe in hell but how do you square this with these scriptures: If you disbelieve in hell as a JW it is not based on the Bible of the mainline Christians but on your own JW dogma. I have no clue, maybe they were metaphors/figurative language to symbolize that death would not exist for those going to heaven/hell. You will have to take that up with the main branch Christians. To me it is all human contrived and so it makes not a lick of difference.The whole point is that I can not understand how Christians who believe in hell (which would not be you), can justify that God would be a good God for sending billions of people to be tortured in hell for eternity. I guess for JW's, Catholics (since they believe in purgetory) and select other Christian sects they can rationalize this by playing down hell. However for fundamentalists and mainline Christians this is still an issue.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

I can buy into this theory Peg. However, it flies into the face of a large segment of Christiandom and the Bible they believe in.

---

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

quote:

---

Matthew 13:41,50 writes:

​

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

---

what happens to something when you throw it into a fiery furnace? It gets destroyed. This is what jesus is refering to...the destruction of the wicked. Just as the days of Noah, God sent a flood to destroy all the wicked. Just as the cities of Sodom and Gomorah, God destroyed them. The thing that all these events had in common was that people were killed. This is what Jesus is refering to when he said they would be thrown into the 'fiery furnace'

quote:

---

Matthew 23:33 writes:

​

You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

---

the word translated 'hell' comes from the greek word Hades and Sheol. Both these words mean the grave. So Jesus is talking about 'death' again. You have to realize that the meaning ascribed to 'hell' is not the same meaning that Jesus had in mind. Later church teachers changed the meaning.

quote:

---

Matthew 25:41, 46 writes:

​

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

---

fire is a symbol of destruction, so again Jesus is using 'fire' to describe what will happen to those who are 'accursed'. They will be destroyed forever as an 'eternal punishment' for their wrongdoing.

quote:

---

Luke 16:22-26 writes:

​

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

​

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

---

this verse is often used by christians to prove that hell is a real place, however this is a parable that Jesus gave to describe the spriritual condition of the 'rich man' and 'lazaras' the poor man.
It was a condition of spiritual approval by God. The rich man represented the religious teachers (scribes/pharisees) and the poor man represented the common people. The story is seen to be allegorical by the fact that rich man says
"father Abraham, dip your finger in water and drip the water on my tongue that I may find relief from my anguish"the anguish was not a literal burning, for a few drops of water would in no way sooth the rich man...rather the anguish was that their authority as spiritual teachers of the law had been taken away from them and given to the poor people...or those who became Jesus diciples. These were now richly blessed by God, whereas the rich man had lost the favor & high position he once had.

quote:

---

Revelation 14:10-11 writes:

​

That person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.

---

revelation is full of symbolic language and this is one example of such language. You cannot take this literally, it is understood in its spiritual application...that would take me a while to explain but it basically has to do with 'the wild beast' or political organizations and those who choose to worship such organizations. They recieve the wrath of God in the form of 'torments'. These torments are not physical but spiritual.

quote:

---

Revelations 20:11-15 writes:

​

Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them.

​

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened — the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds.

​

Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death — the lake of fire. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

---

here you have another verse that shows that hell is not a literal place. Notice how 'Hades' gave up those dead in it? Hades is 'hell'It is death. Death gave up those in it...this is a prophecy about the future resurrection of all those who have ever died on the earth...the good and the bad.
So these dead ones have been freed from their condition from the place they went 'hades' or 'hell'if hell were an eternal place of torment, why are these ones coming back from there??? thats right in a way...its based on our understanding of the scriptures. The JW's have looked very carefully at the original meaning of the words in the OT and NT and they use the meanings as the words were when they were penned...not what they later became. I agree with you, that is an issue. IMO it really shows that they do not really undestand God. The hell that they teach cannot be justified, it is an abhorent idea and one that God would certainly not want to be attributed to him.The idea of burning anyone in a fire is something that God detests. The Pagan nations used to practice child sacrifice and at times even the isrealites got involved in this practice and have listen to what God told themJeremiah 7:30, 31. They have set their disgusting things in the house upon which my name has been called, in order to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.For a christian to promote the idea that God wilfully would send anyone to a firey hell of torment is paramount to being an antichrist.
God detested that practice from the pagan nations, and he punished his own people severly when they did it, so how can anyone make the claim that this is something that God does? Its contrary to Gods personality and standards and morals and everything he is. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.