Lately with all the holidays I've been thinking a lot about religion,
specifically christianity (which I'm not really part of, I'm Jewish), and even
more specifically the concept of Heaven and Hell.  Many people I've spoken
to and books I've read seem to treat these as actual places where you can
experience either pleasure or pain.  My question is how is it that people
believe, or rationalize out even, that you can experience these sensations
if your body is left here to rot on earth?

Any thoughts?

35 responses total.

It all depends on where you place the line between body and soul.  If you
don't believe you have a soul, that you are just a body, than the above
question cannot possibly make any sense to you.  If you believe that all of
your thoughts are your soul, all your emotions and thinking patterns, than
of course the concept makes sense.  Heaven and hell would be places of extreme
emotional pleasure and pain.  Hell would be a place where you are entirely
alone, without God or anyone else to comfort you.  A place where you are
permanently lonely, and just short of emotional death.  Heaven is where God
and only God is, the only force, there to love you and then make you as happy
as you've ever been.  This whole heaven/hell thing is dependent on the idea
that you believe that two forces are in the universe.  Good and evil.  Each
have their home bases.  Heaven is where you would be happier than you can
possibly imagine here on earth, hell is where you would be sadder than you
can possibly imagine here on earth.

Hmm. I'll have to think about this question a little more before I respond.
Good question, though.

"T'were better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven."  (Milton)

"Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens."  (David Byrne)

Nice quotes, Rob!! Still thinking though.

These are very intresting points that have been brought up.  As stated 
above the dualistic interpration of the afterlife is a point first brought
about by Descartes.  An intresting quote by John Milton from Paradise Lost
offers some insight into the question of Heavan and Hell.  "Some make a Hell
out of Heavan and a Heavan out of Hell."

 
Then there is the old joke about the card hustler who gets hit by a cab just
outside the casino.  He dies (of course) and when he awakens, he is sitting
at a game of poker with a million gold chips in front of him.  He is in awe!
After an hour of playing, and _never losing_ he wanders over to the slot
machines.  Wonder of wonders, he can't lose at that, either!  He then turns
to the guy next to him and whispers "I thought heaven would be a lot more
interesting."  The man starts visibly and says "Who told you you were in
heaven, fella?"
 
But then, that's just me being overly cynical.
 

 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise , as some men count
slackness;but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance.
 But the day of the Lord WILL come as a theif in the night; in the which the
heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat,  the earth alsoand the works therin shall be burned up.
 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons
ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherin the heavens
being on fire shall be disolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent
heat?
 
 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new
earth, wherin dwelleth righteousness.
                                                              II PETER 3

...Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of
man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
                                                      I Corinthians 2:10


==============================================================================
==============================================================================

If God is all loving, then noone is truly condemned, and even Satan is in somee
way God's own. Besides, If God made everything, how can He make something that 
isn't acceptable to Him?

Playing devil's advocate...(God's advocate?) for a moment...
God made the world, and the *first generation* of life, according to the
bible, but later generations he can only control indirectly...nor does the
bible ever state, that I know of, that God is actually omnipotent.  So, given
the judeo-christian version of god, it is certainly possible for something
God cannot accept to exist

but would he, or, to twist the question a bit, is there anything that
God could create that isn't acceptable to him? stretch the word 
"acceptable" as I use it, please...

...being as the judeo-christian god is not omnipotent, he could very well make
a mistake

If he were omnipotent, he could still make a mistake. He could correct
it somewhat expediently, though. ;)

were you looking for the word "omniscient?"

good point carson

I remember reading a book by Carl Sagan ( Broca's Brain ), that may provide
an answer to this interesting topic. Here is a summary of what I can
recollect:

A psychiatrist who had conducted research on people using psychotropic drugs
, and people who had near death experiences (NDE), reported similar 'visions'
and hallucinations - i.i. their vision of hell was something red, burning
etc..., and of heaven, as seeing a bright light at the end of a tunnel etc..
The remarkable thing about these similarities was that subjects chosen for
these experiments were of different race, religions and background. The
heaven/hell concept is most predominant in Judeo-Christian religions. Yet
people affiliated to other religions reported similar descriptions of heaven
and hell. And these descriptions also correlated with people experimenting
with psychotropic drugs.

What is the common thing that unites the entire human race regardless of race,
religion or background? Birth! One explanation offered to these
visions/hallucinations, is that somewhere in our brain, our memories of being
in a 'secure and cocooned' fetus (heavenly?), and the actual process of birth
( extremly violent with the outcome of 'seeing' light for the first time ),
is recorded. And somehow , these memories are 're-played' during NDE's or by
consuming certain drugs.

My opinion is that due to limited understanding of how the brain functions,
the idea of separate soul Vs body gained mileage because it was ( or is? )
the best theory to explain how we all function. Maybe in the future, as we
gain more light on the 'mysterious' functioning of the brain, this riddle may
be solved.

The problem with that is that they're switched.  The light at the end of the
tunnel is 'heaven', so it should be linked with the womb, not with birth.

So what's * heaven * Daniel?

I'm not proposing an alternate theory...I'm always better at claiming people
are wrong than at explaining what is right :)

 :)))

Yes, I agree, it is much easier to prove someone's
idea is wrong than to actually come up with the 
answer that's right. There is also something to be
said for actually forming your own opinion and
discussing it with others, rather than semi-blindly
quoting the bible. I'm not trying to get down on
anyone, I'd just like to see discussion rather than
interuption. I have read of some experiments where
the white tunnel/life flashing by thing was
reproduced and that it is actually caused by a
chemical process in the brain that can be duplicated.
Whether this is just a chemical process or a step
involved in the release of your soul from it's 
physical container is a pretty tough question.
The problem is that we don't understand enough about
the human brain's physiology regarding thought and
memory to really come up with a solid answer.

I heard a theory once that any of the sciences, no matter how concrete, is
really just the study of how the human mind works--how it interprets data and
draws conclusions, etc.  While I think that's going a bit far in some cases,
I would be hard pressed to find a clear line between religion and psychology.

===========================================================================
===========================================================================

Just my two cents worth....

The concept of "Hell" has an interesting history, and a short one in respect
to the length of time we two-leggeds have been walking around on this ball
of dirt. The Hebrews had no place called hell that I am aware of. This is a
christian belief, post-christ teaching, as is the concept of Satan. When Jesus
spoke of the place of eternal fire, the original word in Hebrew meant place
that always burns and was a referance to the garbage dump, which was always
burning. Later this concept was misconstrued and used as a fear tactic to
control the masses. This does not mean that there arn't negitive spirits in
the world, just that there isn't a conspiracy against your immortal soul.
============================================================================
 ==========================================================================

THINK ABOUT IT.

Well, you're right that before christianity, there was no 'hell' as punishment
for sinners that I'm aware of, but that's because in earlier religions *all*
dead souls were viewed as going to a place like hell.  The Babylonians, the
early ancient Greeks, etcetera, viewed the realm of the dead as an unpleasant
place for *everyone*, good or bad.  The real breakthrough in Christianity was
not the concept of hell, but the concept of a heaven accessible to ordinary
people, not just mythic heroes and demigods' favorite sons.

Orinoco, that well may be true for Western Religions, but not so for the
Eastern Religions nor the aboriginals of Australia, nor the native peoples
of the Americas. The was no hell here on the North American continent until
the arrival of Europeans, pardon the double meaning...

Yes, I was speaking about western religions in particular.  Belive me, I am
well aware of the existence of a 'heaven' in aboriginal religion, or of
nirvana.  
FWIW, though, your statement only holds true for western religions.  Some
sects of buddhism, for instance, belive in the existence of various hells as
well as nirvana.
What I was trying to point out is that hell was nothing new for the early
christians.  Heaven was.  There exist religious groups (for instance, some
buddhists) who do not belive in a hell.  For them the concept of heaven would
be nothing new, but hell would be.  
Also, everything in christianity is a post-christ teaching.  Christ did not
write any of his teachings down, and by some estimates even the four gospels
of the New Testament were not written until some fifty years had passed since
Jesus' death.  This is not specific to christianity--very few early religions
leaders wrote down their teachings for posterity.  Unlike christianity, most
religions that were based on an oral tradition died out.  Again, yes, there
are exceptions, including Native American and Aboriginal religions, but the
vast majority of sects, cults, and movements that sprung up over the ages have
been forgotten because their oral tradition was broken and they hid their
teachings from unbelivers.

Yes, much was lost because much was hidden. In the first years of the
christian church, especially when christ was alive and shortly there after,
christianity was a "mysterious" religion. Much was taught only to the
initiates...  As for the concept of hell, i'm not sure that the early
christians had this notion. Christ spoke of a place which always burns and
was making a referance to the garbage dump in the city, which was always
burning. He was saying that those who didn't live in God's Law would be thrown
away... The concept of a hell came later as the original intent was not
understood by those who came later, and used again against the masses for
control purposes.. At least this is my understanding of the origin and
evolution of the Christian concept of "Hell".

moonowl--*everything* in christianity came later.  It is pointless to argue
about what Christ 'really said' because we'll never know.  
BTW, how do you know it was a reference to a garbage dump?

The original word used in the text, as related to other references from that
time, indicate that the phrase "place which is always burning" refers to the
dump. By going back to the original texts and their meanings, we get closer
to the original intent of the teachings of Jesus. And then again if we
subtract the added meanings of later and modern times, we can glean a closer
truth than that presented in the main stream. I believe that there are over
six hundred different ancient manuscripts quoting Jesus-- a far greater number
than those only found in the bible. So maybe we can piece a closer truth
together?

moonowl--yes, but remember that those manuscripts are just that--quotes.  Many
of the early christian groups had less compunctions than current christians
do about 'messing with' the bible, and some of them strayed quite far from
the original.  I would find it hard to belive that both the gospel of
Eve--which treats sexuality as sacred, advocates rituals that we would think
of as orgies, and I belive refers to a female deity--is quoting from the same
source as the four gospels of the New Testament--which are fairly
straigh-laced and has a thoroughly male God.
I'm not trying to dispute this 'place which is always burning' thing, but out
of curiosity I'd like to know where you heard this--I do want to know more
about it...

I will find the source for that for you. I came across that years ago in a
book on the history of the bible. I like your point about the gospel of eve,
for it speaks clearly to the "pagan" origins of the jewish, therefore
christian religions. It is interesting to me because the first thought I had
was "and all the great cathedrals of Europe were built in honor of Mary." I
also like it because the ancient religions, that is the pagan religions all
hold sex as a sacred thing, not something bad. 
I also recall that in the original hebrew, the name of Adam is neither male
nor female, it is genderless, which speaks to the belief that G-d is neither
male nor female, but both. When Adam was split, Adam became man and woman,
representing the two parts of the Creator.
Another concept which has changed through time is the concept of sin. Again
going back to the original texts, the term "sin" is an archery term, which
simply meant "to miss the mark". It had nothing to do with committing an evil
act. 
Viewing the changes in the concepts mentioned in a partiarchal, power-over
light, we can begin to understand why it was/is important to view these
concepts in this way, for the stripe empowerment out of the hands of the
individual and establish a fear-based mode in which the status quo may
opperate. For me, going back to the original ideas allows me to understand
the self-empowerment of Christ's words: "The world will not end with them
running around, saying "Look at this and look at that". The end of the world
will come when you change the focus of your eye and see that the kingdom of
God is all around you." {from the gospel of james}. This attitude of still
being in the garden is truely a pagan concept.

Just some of how I see things... what's your slant?

Johnny

I hope somebody will see this response! The last (and the only) one I
had posted was number 14 where I quoted Carl Sagan's book , 'Brocas
Brain' for a possibe (or plausible?) explanation for origins of heaven
and hell. 

Good to see that the responses have taken a good turn, especially on the
discussion of hell, and its possible origins.

An interesting digression, and I hope it will inspire someone to
'corroborate' (or disprove? what is the opposite of 'corroborate'?) what
I am about to say, especially the linguists in the audience:

Want to know where the origin of the word 'Father' in English comes
from?

It is supposed to be derived from Germanic (or Latin?) word for Father
which is 'Pather' (or something similar! I am not very familiar with
most European Languages - I got an E in French!!!!). This word is
derived somehow (maybe there are lot of intermediate forms) from the
Sanskrit word, 'Pita' which I am very sure means 'Father'.

Now the interesting part is that 'Pita'  means (I am not really sure
about this) release from the hell 'Pit' where supposedly a man goes if
he never fathers a child!!!!!! The conflicting aspect is that some
Hindus believe that there are many 'levels' of Hell and Heaven (often
termed as netherworld in Hindu mythology), and others talk about endless
cycles of reincarnation etc..  Budhism has borrowed lot of these
concepts from Hindu mythology.

I too agree with Johnny that the 'original message' of most religious
thoughts which was suppose to empower ourselves, somehow gets corrupted,
and a organization comes into place that thrives on fear and ignorance
of the masses. People now talk about mind control as if it is something
new, but even a cursory glance at human history shows how it was so
prevalent by systematic use of religion to further 'worldly' gains.

Sadly even modern Hinduism as practised by people from my country are
the degenerate forms without really understanding the spirit of the real
message. The early founders had laid down a system where they actively
encouraged speculation of the origin of the universe, and pursuit of
truth, and allowing people of various backgrounds to 'debate' their
various ideas. The underlying 'culture' for this debate was a true
belief in the spirit of life, and freedom of thought, ironically, much
like the way we debate now using the Internet!! This is evident from the
analysis of the ealry scriptures which have somehow accomodated so many
ideas that the 'origins' of these speculations are lost in time (imagine
if all of our ideas were compiled into a 'holy' book about speculations
of life an death!!).

Infact, the very arrival of Buddhism in India was really a backlash at
the systematic establishment of Hinduism as a organized religion,
dominated by priests whose sole purpose was self-aggrandisement (sounds
familiar in the context of European history???). The founder, Gautama,
was a Kshtriyan (warrior) prince who was repelled by the domination of
these priests in all aspect of daily lives. It is not a coincident that
Buddha talked about rejection of idol-worship, and other rituals that
controlled the masses, the very seeds of thought which were also in
Upanishads and later spread to other parts of the world. Ironically, in
India , Buddhism was 'suppressed' by a clever deception, by making
Buddha an 'avatar' (reincarnation) of Lord Vishnu!!! Such tricks were
employed by Christian priests in later Middle-age Europe by power of
'ex-communication' or 'sainthood'!!! 


Hope my digression was interesting. Can't wait for your responses!!!

Actually, jrm, I think that's a false etymology.  "Father" does come from the
Indo-European root *Pitar, which is the word behind the German "Vater", Irish
"Ather", Sanskrit "Pitr"...(and, for what it's worth, the James Earl Jones
"Darth Vader")
Pit, though, comes from a different root - according to the Oxford English
Dictionary, it's from the Latin word "Puteus", meaning to cut.  So, I don't
think the two are related, unless it's a very distant link.

As for the 'organized religion' bit - I've gotten the impression that it goes
similarly with most religions.  Even Christianity was once much more open to
dissention - mystery cults with practices taht would now be considered
completely heretical were springing up all over the place.  It is only once
the Roman Catholic church came to power that these dissenting ideas started
being supressed.  Sounds quite similar to the situation you describe in
Hinduism, actually.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion orinoco regarding origin of words.
Actually, when I used the word 'Pit', I meant the 'Sanskrit word' which
makes up the word 'Pita', meaning father. 'Pita' is also used in most
North Indian languages which are mostly derivatives from Sanskrit. I
don't know what 'Pit' (or 'Pitr') really means but I think it refers to
some kind of 'hell' (garbage dump maybe???) Do you have any info. on
that?

With recent discoveries in Science and technologocal advances, if we
were to start a new 'religion' (or a belief system), wonder whether such
terms like heaven and hell will have any meaning. In some sense
reincarnation is true - e.g if people were buried or cremated, the atoms
that compose the person are merely redistributed, quite possibly in the
food chain (earth worms, maggots and plant life in case of burials, and
marine life in case of ashes - in Hindu traditions the ashes are
ritually dispersed in a river or ocean). Proof? Energy is neither
created nor destroyed but transformed from one form to another, and from
Einstien's special relativity theory, matter and enery are two sides of
the same coin (E = m.c.c ). 

Ofcourse the assertion that a person can be 'demoted' or 'promoted' in
the next reincarnation depending upon the actions of the present life is
dubious. While their social implications are profound, how this can
dictate the redistribution of atoms seems highly implausible.

I guess the idea of a paradise or escape from endless cycle of
reincarnation is just a reaction to the insecurities people face in
their day to day lives, so such beliefs can somehow alleviate the pain.

Guys,my two cents worth of opinion.I feel,personally that heaven and hell are
in our minds.And ,I dont know who said this,the gates to heaven and hell are
next to each other.Our mind,or more precisely ,our inner consciousness that
we could refer to as our soul is refered to in Indian philosophy as a
reflection of God,It is pure,beyond all action and is yet a silent witness
to all our deeds.Now,if we were to do anything wrong(i woulkd define wrong
as something which is harmful to the larger interests of life),our conscience
behaves as a judge.Thats what all religions have been preaching from a long
time.God is interested in getting us to his kingdom,but our egos in the shape
of morals,values etc.prevent us from leaving the fruits of all our actions
on his table,so to say.I want to judge myself and thsi leaves me with feelings
of guilt,exhaltaion,anger,greed etc. while if I had been detached,I would be
closer to God and his devotees.Thank you all for giving me a patient
hearing.Happy debating.

OK, here's my two cents.  Life is about relationships.  Those with
healthy relationships have a healthy life.  Relationships range from
isolation to intimacy (a deep sense of being known and loved).  I
believe that hell is ultimate isolation (from God and man) and heaven is
ultimate intimacy (with God and man).  I think this comes much closer to
capturing the nature of heaven and hell than does the pain/pleasure
model.

Mankind seems to have a great reluctance to being transparent,
especially when it comes to percieved faults.  In other words, we have a
tendancy to hide.  When he can no longer hide, man has a secondary
tendancy to lash out in self-defense or shift blame to someone else. 
These two tendancies move man toward isolation.  

The Genesis account in the Bible if very revealing in this matter.  It
says that after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they realized that they
were naked (vulnerable?  faults exposed?).  They sewed together fig
leaves to cover themselves.  When God came looking for them, they hid. 
Even when God did find them and asked them about what had happened, Adam
tried to blame Eve (and even God) and Eve tried to blame the serpent.

These tendencies to hide and "hurl" help to explain how two people can
be completely in love with each other, get married, and five years later
feel completely isolated from one another.  What happened?  They "missed
the mark."  As someone correctly pointed out above, one of the words
from which "sin" originated was "hamartia" which is an archery term
describing the distance between the bullseye and where an arrow actually
landed.  The gospels record that Jesus summed up all of the "law and
prophets" with the following standard for living:  "You should love God
with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as
yourself."  He seemed to be saying that this is the mark.  This would
mean that sin is acting in a way which is not characterized by love;
something of which every person (willing to be honest with themselves)
has been guilty.

Sin has two results: one for the sinner and one for the one sinned
against.  The sinner knows guilt and the one sinned against knows fear. 
These two things are the biggest enemies of intimacy and the biggest
allies of isolation.  As explained above, our natural reactions to guilt
and fear are to hide and if necessary (specifically in the case of
guilt), shift blame or lash out.  These reactions cause a
self-perpetuating cycle which moves us toward greater isolation and
whose ultimate end is the isolation which is hell.

However, in Christian thought, there is a way to end this cycle.  The
solution to guilt is forgiveness and the solution to fear is the
security found in unconditional love.  The suffering, death, burial and
resurrection of Jesus Christ is said to purchase our forgiveness and
demonstrate unconditional love.  Christian belief says that trusting
what Christ did for us and not what we can do for ourselves (since
nothing that we could ever do could be compared to what He did) will
allow us to enter a relationship with God.

Once in relationship with God, we find that we can no longer hide
anything from Him and that nothing we can do can ever hurt Him or cause
him to reject us.  In a sense, we have no choice but to be transparent,
yet are not as afraid to do so, since we are secure in God's love.  Our
relationship with Him teaches us how to be truly intimate with one
another.  We become caught in a new cycle of forgiveness and love which
leads to greater intimacy and ultimately to the intimacy of heaven.

Admittedly, this is a rather simplistic look at religion and
relationships.  Especially since many can attest to achieving varying
levels of success in relationships apart from religion, and many who are
very religious still suffer varying degrees of isolation.  On the whole
of it, however, I think it sums up what many believe about heaven and
hell (who consider themselves Christian).  I throw it out for discussion
with the hope that it will cause deeper reflection and not as an attempt
to repudiate any other opinions on the matter.

personally, as being raised in a christian family, and going to a christian
school, I am inclined to say that your soul will live on in either heaven or
hell, without your body.   You will no longer need your body to experience
pleasure or pain.  Great question though.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss