The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

The rationale for justifying any of my beliefs stems from an overarching belief that the Bible is the word of God. Once I've accepted that, there isn't much need to justify any specific belief arising from that overarching acceptance: God says it's so - who am I to argue with God?So the question might turn to God's rational/justification for Hell.- If wanting the Christian viewpoint as frequently expounded by most on this site the the word isn't reward. The word is gift.- Fate of wouldn't be quite the words either. Decision of would be a better fit. That is to say: it is the expressed will of a person that refuses that which would save them, which is, in effect, a choice for Hell.I'd agree that Hell would be as appalling as appalling could be.- Distilling things down we see that the 'justification' for people ending up in Hell centres on their choosing to end up there. Assuming this an accurate summation (leaving aside the technicalities of how someone, an atheist for example, might choose for something they don't consciously believe in), I don't see much room for objection.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It might help divert you from this view if I were to highlight something said. ..and point out that their wilful refusal isn't comparable to someone unknowingly taking a particular course at the toss of a coin.The person who ends up in Hell did what they knew to be wrong..by suppressing the knowledge they had told them what they were about to do was wrong. Then they suppressed the guilt and shame that follows wrong doing. And they persisted along in that pattern their whole life through.The only significant difference between them and those 'in heaven' is that those 'in heaven' didn't carry out suppression 'til the bitter end. They did wrong of course, they suppressed knowledge, they suppressed guilt and shame. But not 'til the bitter end. And because they didn't, they became convinced about the pickle they were in. And turned to God to resolve it for them. They turned to God because God has designed it that those who don't wilfully reject him to the bitter end will find him.What sits at centre of things isn't the horror of heaven or the bliss of heaven - such things are a consequence of what sits at the centre of things. What sits at the centre of things is:"what does your heart love: truth and light or lie and evil".Once that question is answered with finality, your relationship with God is established (or not, as the case might be). One could say of Hell that it is all about darkness and evil and lies - but without the benefit of the light which makes dark deeds so 'pleasurable'. It is a godless place.Let's face it: the pleasure of sin and darkness involves spitting in the face of goodness and light. Without light around there is no pleasure from sin. Ask any end-of-the-line addict.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That manner in which contradiction-at-first-sight aspects of the Bible are resolved is a matter for another discussion. Needless to say, vast quantities of so called contradictions are resolved with relative ease (the 80/20 rule springs to mind).The OP accepts that the Bible teaches Hell as commonly understood - extremely horrid, inescapably permanent. There is, therefore, no onus on a Bible believer to justify this particular doctrine - although the believer is entitled to wonder about God's rationale for Hell and use what God says on the matter in his wondering. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

According to the Bible, you have a knowledge of good and evil (or right and wrong). That you don't believe in God or believe that your sense of good and evil stems from God doesn't change the fact that you know good from evil (argue the Bible). We can clearly conclude: IF (biblical) God THEN you do know good from evil. And your knowing good from evil means that you know you're going to do wrong, are doing wrong, have done wrong. It's this wrongdoing that forms the raw material that will lead to your salvation or damnation. God's method of salvation actually utilises a persons wrongdoing (and what arises from their wrongdoing) in the process of their salvation (if it's the case that they end up saved). The wrongdoing wouldn't involve not going to church (God is nothing if not reasonable: what on earth would you be doing in church if an unbeliever?). It wouldn't even include not believing (in conscious fashion) in God's existence (although only a fool says in his heart: there is no God).- Everyone "actually" does wrong. Lying, cheating, hatred, spite, envy, malice, lust, greed, selfishness, pride - the list is endless. And when what's holy defines lust as existing on a par with adultery and hating thoughts on a par with murder... Well let's just say that we can assume you're able to stand up and plead guilty along with the robbers, murderers and abusers Which means there are no 'good' people. Sure, some people will rack up a lower evil score than others but what does it matter if this apple is more rotten than that apple - all that rotten apples are good for is to be thrown out. Hell is God's rubbish dump (Gehenna, one biblical word used of Hell was in fact a dump outside Jerusalem where the cities refuse was discarded)

I gather it's a place in which evil can reside and in which God can pour out his wrath on evil. God is just: evil will be punished That in us which tends towards rejecting God (with our rejection being effected through our rejecting what God stands for; goodness, truth, light) is driven by our desire for evil. If Hell is a place for that which is evil then it forms the ideal place for people who's hearts desire isn't for what God represents.In this life we get exposed to both good and evil. And we love that which is good and (our hearts are warmed by stories of selflessness). And we love evil (our hearts thrill as getting our own way ie: being selfish). Gods intention, I believe, is to find out which we'll plump for - for eternity. And on the basis of that choice we face Heaven - wherein dwelleth only righteousness. Or Hell - wherein dwelleth only darkness.Heaven or Hell. It's all (all goodness) or nothing (no goodness).Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Have you tried thinking about whether a wrathful against evil/sin God could justify such a punishment?- Incorrect. Anyone who is saved is saved through Jesus and there is 'no one who comes to the father' except through Jesus. If this includes Abraham, saved through Christ but who lived before Christ was born, it includes everyone who is saved: anywhere, anytime.- See Abrahams example above. Or any OT character.You appear to hold to a works based salvation (perhaps you're a Roman Catholic or Mormon?)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

We are (I argue) placed on this earth in order that one central thing can is determined w.r.t. our position before God. Do we desire to be eternally exposed to God as righteous beings (in which case the relationship between us will be pleasant/loving because God loves righteousness)? Or do we want to be eternally exposed to God as unrighteous beings (in which case the opposite - because God hates unrighteousness)?(Don't worry that people aren't consciously aware of the stakes - God see's the heart and gleans our final answer from that place. Consider the heart as the highest plain, and the consciousness a lower one)Once our final answer is obtained, there is no need to revisit things. If a person desires unrighteousness, their desire is granted. What basis, other than sentimentality, would you pose for a persons desire not being granted - if granting a persons desire is Gods uppermost goal?I'm reminded of the farce that was the EU's Lisbon Treaty - recently subject to referendum in Ireland. A year ago we voted 'NO!' to that same treaty but that wasn't the answer Europe, or our government wanted. So we were asked to vote again - having our arms suitably twisted to ensure a 'YES' vote this time round.Is that what you're suggesting God does? Keep asking and twisting our arms until we say Yes?- It's not all that relevant how God achieves it. The fact of the matter is that he does - rendering that part of your objection void.For what it's worth. The mechanism of salvation appears to hinge around a person believing God, not believing in God or believing in Jesus (see Romans chap 4 where Paul, in explaining the mechanism of salvation, uses Abraham as an illustration of to how salvation is wrought). Although the following example shouldn't be taken as resulting in a persons salvation, it is an obvious example of how a person can believe God without believing in God or believing they need salvation.Q1: Do you believe in GodA1: No. I'm an atheistQ2: Do you believe murder is wrongA2: Yes.Conclusion: This person actually believes God - even though they don't believe in God. God says murder is wrong, this atheist believes murder is wrong > therefore this atheist happens to believe God on this matter.What is it a person must believe, in order to believe God unto salvation, is a more complex matter but the point is that everyone, everywhere and at everytime are in a position to believe God in the matter pertaining to salvation. God is not contrained from operating anywhere and at any time.Is he?- The context of that story sees a rich young ruler asking "Good teacher, how do I inherit eternal life" And his various works are laid out for us to examine - because it was by his works that this young ruler sought to inherit eternal life. Literally: how do I do it? What must [/i]I[/i] do? What steps must I take?Do we really suppose this man to have kept the law as he said he did? Do we accept his self-assessment? Perhaps he kept the literal law as written down in the OT - but given that Jesus has expounded on that law elsewhere (by equating anger with murder and lust with adultery, etc) we have excellent reason to suppose not. I mean, can't we suppose this ruler to have been angry in his life - if not committing actual murder? Or to have lusted over a women - if not actually having committed adultery?Rather than debate the young man on the subject of the law, Jesus looks elsewhere. And his eye falls on a false god this ruler is worshipping. The false god of wealth.Why did Jesus say that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealth-worshipping man (for that is the context: wealth worship) to enter God's kingdom? He said it because wealth-worhsipping men can't do what it takes to inherit eternal life. If they could, they wouldn't be wealth worshipping men. And if it wasn't a rich young ruler and his wealth, it would have been you and whatever your particular god is. Or me and mine.It's impossible for anyone to enter heaven by own effort because all have something that Jesus' eye can fall on. Which is why he did what was necessary for us to inherit eternal life. How do I inherit eternal life? I can't. Jesus inherits it for me and gives it to me as a gift- Compassion at the time? Illustrating his divinity? Illustrating a spiritual truth (most certainly in his healing the blind)? There is probably no end to a study one could do on this topic- ..or this topic- For sure he was. And in more ways than one.He is a perfect example for those who have God's Holy Spirit within (who empowers those in whom he resides to follow Jesus' perfect example).He is a perfect example for those who don't have God's Holy Spirit within. His example is meant to show how impossible it is for someone to live up to his example. His example is meant to show the lost they are lost.He is a perfect example for those who would fool themselves into thinking they can earn their salvation. Being blind they might suppose themselves following his example in some measure* only to have his perfect example show how far short of his example they actually fell*the trouble for those lost souls who insist we should try our best to follow Jesus example .. is Jesus' failure to mention the word 'trying' anywhere in connection with commands that folk live as he lived. It was "live this way or else.."- As pointed out, an OT character who believed God (on a matter having nothing to do with Jesus I might add) was justified by God. Christ is the means whereby Abraham was justified. It is on Christ that Abrahams transgressions were laid. Thus, it is through Christ('s provision) that Abraham is saved.I'm not of the opinion that folk today have to have heard of Jesus in order to be saved anymore than I'm of the opinion that folk before Christ had to have heard of Jesus in order to be saved. The mechanism of salvation hinges, I suggest, on believing God. Believing in Christ might well occur after that - if access to knowledge of him is available. But the fulcrum of salvation is believing God.I'm not sure what you mean by believing in the presence of Chirst after we die.- I suppose my own approach is to accept what the Bible appears to be saying on the matter whether I like it or not. And work from there.There is a time for forgiveness (forgiveness involving the offended party paying the price of the offence themselves) but if the offender doesn't want their offence paid for, if they flat out refuse that an offence has even taken place, then I don't see how the offended can pay the price. It would be only by overruling the will of the offender that forgiveness could be applied.But what if the persons will was held sacrosanct? Even if that will says "NO!" to God.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

If relying on own good living to suffice then I'd guess so.Having said that, I'm sure that many folk who have satisfied God's criteria for salvation (and are thus saved), haven't heard of the biblical God or his son. They might well labour under notions of having to live a good life to please whatever god/energy they happen to think runs things. And might in some way direct their lives so.Indeed, supposing yourself as having to live a good life in order to enter heaven is something that befalls even faith-alone Christians, who know better. Working-for-your-salvation is a lie that is so throughly ingrained in the cultural psyche, it's extremely difficult to shake off at all times.- Not at all. I remember reading a book entitled "Whatever happened to Hell" by John Blanchard, a few years back and being left completely depressed for a couple of weeks afterward.I figure there is some mechanism whereby what you would expect to be the case (missing loved ones, anguishing over the fate of them ..or even the most wicked) is resolved so as not to be the case. The aforementioned book tied together some biblical strands in suggesting that the person in Hell won't exist as they did here on earth. Something quite fundamental about them will have been taken from them prior to their entering Hell. Namely, the image of God in which they were made.Try as I might, I can't see how I'd anguish over the tortured existance of a personhood who bore no relationship to anyone I ever knew or loved.

No. I'm saying that this is a world in which we are exposed to good and evil and in which we do good and evil - whether we're firefighters or doctors or in the military ...or not. It's a world in which we get to (effectively) decide which realm we want to spend eternity in: one in which there is only good, or one in which there is no good.Consider this world and our existance in it a temporary sampling ground which determines our main eternal event- Could you highlight some of the unrighteous acts carried out by yourself and those crew members for the sake of balance?It's worth nothing that conscience is a God supplied entity. So if you carry out good acts, driven by conscience then credit for those good acts attaching to yourself and your crew mates alone ... becomes problematic.- Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Er.. definitions are, by definition, circular.The defintion of dog = 4 legged creature that goes woofThe definition of a 4 legged creature that goes woof = dogEdited by iano, : No reason given.

For the purpose of this discussion we're supposing God and Hell exist. Remember?

Let's define righteousness as acting/thinking in a way that God approves of.So when you sacrifice your time and money for the benefit of others (assuming your heart is moved to benefitting others and not motivated by whatever pats on the back that might be forthcoming) then that could be considered a righteous act*(taking into account my point on who it is that powers your righteous acts.)- Remember the mode we're in in this thread. Has there been a progression? Or are we in a phase of civility this past (very) short while. Has there been a time in the past when the disparity between wealth and abject poverty was as gulf-like as it is today - taking into account the means at our disposal to be fully aware of this gulf?

Aha!If stepping outside the bounds of "God exists and the Bible is his word - for the purposes of discussion" then we are in a "can you prove God exists" mode. Which I'll happily admit I can't.Sorry for the confusion (although I'd appreciate your mentioning that you're stepping outside the topics mode when planning to do so - we could offset wasted time)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sure thing.. although I may be offline later. Consider too.. ..that God is righteous by this definition. God clearly acting and thinking in a way that God approves of Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It's not a matter of reasoning. It's a matter of definition - a definition involving a decsion to let one word equate to some other words.A word of some sort or other is required to describe "a persons acts/thoughts/motivations which conform to Gods will". 'Righteousness' happens to be one the Bible picks. If we find that Gods' own acts/thoughts/motivations "conform to Gods will" (which they can't but fail to) then by definition he too is righteous.By definition D.A. - not by reasoning Hopefully you will grasp that if the Bible defines righteousness so then God is, by biblical definition, righteous. Whether he is or not in fact, depends on the Bible being God's word. If it is then God is most certainly righteous - what with him being in a postion to define words