Forums → WEPR → Heaven and Hell?
| 811 | 182760 |
I am catholic so I believe that there is heaven and hell. I do beleive that you have to do good in this world to be able to go to heaven but if you do evil and bad more than good in this world I do believe that you will go to hell.
Heaven it is hard to concept the thought of living for eternity in heaven and that everything would be perfect and everyone would be nice and kind.
Hell it is also very hard to think that you will be punished for many years until getting the chance to go to heaven. Also you could be in hell for eternity suffering if you do very bad things in this world.
What is you thought on heaven and hell?
Do you beleive in heaven and hell?
Do you think you will go to heaven or hell?
Is God really real?
Discuss, it can be short or long answers or views.
- 811 Replies
Do you think Reincarnation is true? It is an intriging thought? (A question for everyone)
Do I? I used to, since as an ex-Buddhist, reincarnation is a central theme of what was my religion. Back that up with the countless stories my mum swears are true about reincarnation, and I did believe it when I was young.
Now? Not really. I haven't seen any actual proof to give me hope.
Oh did you post the proof on previous pages because I must have skipped over that then. Could someone maybe explain how they aren't first hand accounts?
The Codex Sinaiticus. Ever heard of it? According to BBC, there are several differences between the Codex Sinaiticus and the Bible anno 2012.
- The Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament. One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.
- The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection,
- Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".
- Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.
- Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
But out of that. I wonder something, maybe you could give an answer to that. Almost everyone was illiterate in the middle ages. Except clerics and some nobles.
The people didn't know what was written in the Bible, and if it has been changed or not. What they knew was what the church told them for centuries.
Monks writing the Bible over and over for years. And, rewiting the Bible took very long. Next to this, monks were humans too, right? So they also make mistakes, like everyone.
My question is; How do you know that non of these monks made any mistakes while copying the Bible? And how do you know the Bible isn't changed if just clerics and some nobles knew what was written in the Bible?
Greetings
Do you think Reincarnation is true?
Reincarnation can't be the whole story, as shown by the problem of new souls.
Simply put, there are more people on Earth now than there were yesterday. Accounting for these new 'souls' is not possible on a strict reincarnation account. New souls must be introduced.
Then you run into metaphysical and theological problems of why some souls get sent and other don't, and what is the status of these souls that are, so to speak, circling the airport. Do they exist somewhere, or are they popped into existence as needed?
Of course, there are some accounts of reincarnation that state that some humans can be reincarnated as lower life forms (for example, an insect). But does that mean that every insect, frog, bird, etc. has a soul? Now the problem of new souls has been shifted one step back but is made much, much more challenging.
Of course, there are some accounts of reincarnation that state that some humans can be reincarnated as lower life forms (for example, an insect). But does that mean that every insect, frog, bird, etc. has a soul? Now the problem of new souls has been shifted one step back but is made much, much more challenging.
As far as my scant Buddhist knowledge is, I don't think we believed that every single organism had a soul, but that unworthy humans were just reincarnated into baser life forms, until they could somehow prove they could become humans again.
As for the circling question, the particular strain of Buddhism believed that you did spend a certain fixed amount of them in Heaven or Hell, before downing some solution to forget our past lives, before becoming reincarnated, and no one waits.
Don't ask me why, that's what I was told.
How do you know that non of these monks made any mistakes while copying the Bible?
One instance of such a mistake is in the Book of Exodus. Moses and the Jews are fleeing the ancient Egyptians and, according to most modern Bibles, they exit Egypt with Moses parting the Red Sea.
The Hebrew term is Yam Suph, but this was mistranslated at some point. Suph does not mean 'red' - instead it means 'reeds'. There are plenty of marshy swamps between Suez and the Mediterranean Sea, however. Of course, the crossing wouldn't have been so... dramatic.
One instance of such a mistake is in the Book of Exodus. Moses and the Jews are fleeing the ancient Egyptians and, according to most modern Bibles, they exit Egypt with Moses parting the Red Sea.
The Hebrew term is Yam Suph, but this was mistranslated at some point. Suph does not mean 'red' - instead it means 'reeds'. There are plenty of marshy swamps between Suez and the Mediterranean Sea, however. Of course, the crossing wouldn't have been so... dramatic.
Calling the early kings in Egypt pharao's...
Greetings
as shown by the problem of new souls.
Simply put, there are more people on Earth now than there were yesterday. Accounting for these new 'souls' is not possible on a strict reincarnation account. New souls must be introduced
Mind explaining what new souls are?
@Reiki000
How do you know that non of these monks made any mistakes while copying the Bible? And how do you know the Bible isn't changed if just clerics and some nobles knew what was written in the Bible?
The problm is we don't know if the monks made a mistake copied the Bible. Lets define religion:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
So this means that there could be mistakes in religions and that religion might not have scientifict evidence that there religion is real. Because as it said religion is about specific beleifs that could be right or wrong. But scientists can't prove that it is wrong or that it is right. But there is a subbstancel amount of books saying that God is real.
As for the circling question, the particular strain of Buddhism believed that you did spend a certain fixed amount of them in Heaven or Hell, before downing some solution to forget our past lives, before becoming reincarnated, and no one waits.
Good point. I also studied Buddhism for a number of years. In the tradition I followed, Mahayana, death and rebirth was cyclical until the soul would be reborn as a Bodhisattva. For Mahayana Buddhists, attainment of Nirvana is not enough because it does not alleviate the suffering of others. The Bodhisattva would help guide others to attain Nirvana, with the ultimate goal of alleviating all suffering. Eventually, the practitioner can attain Buddhahood.
Mind explaining what new souls are?
If we take reincarnation to be true, then the population of humans would remain equal, or less if people are reincarnated into animals. However, the world population has been rising astronomically, so does that mean that there are souls being constantly produced?
Mind explaining what new souls are?
New souls are just what they sound like. Every day more people exist on earth than the day before. So their bodies must be occupied by souls. But all the souls have already been 'recycled' into other bodies or are otherwise occupied. So you need new souls for these new people.
Let's say I have 12 soda cans. I can recycle the material and make 12 fresh soda cans. But if I want 13, I need more material. In this analogy, the soda cans are human bodies and the material is souls.
Nice to know that we attain sainthood by our own means rather than being canonized by a Pontiff! *Cough*
I once tried consulting some Buddhist books I got from the temple I frequent. Unfortunately, we have nowhere as centralized a text as the Christians or Muslims, which again clouds the theological debate field when so many ''authorities'' claim to know such and such.
My problem with that whole reincarnation into 'higher' or 'lower' life forms is that it includes a subjective notion of good and bad that doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. Does that mean that karma is thinking like humans? Or that the whole idea is a human thought construct? The latter seems much more reasonable.
Unfortunately, we have nowhere as centralized a text as the Christians or Muslims, which again clouds the theological debate field when so many ''authorities'' claim to know such and such.
Very true, but that was also one of the things that really drew me to Buddhism. The idea that all this information was available and you were encouraged to think for yourself and decide what made sense. As long as you follow the eightfold path and look to eliminate suffering where you see it, you can't really go all that wrong.
But at the end of the day, the idea of soul (reincarnated or not) just didn't sit well with me. I could never really accept the idea. I also didn't like the deification of Gautama after he explicitly said not to deify him - that he's just a man. So I fell of the wagon, so to speak.
In Rome, in the year 93 AD, the Roman historian Flavius Josephus published his extensive history of the Jews.
I've already pointed out that Josephus is not a reliable source. Even if it was it's still a third hand account at best. As such this does not support Jesus's existence.
But what the dicsiples were so scared of them being found out and being crucified too because they beleive in what Jesus taught them. This could sugest why the actual gospels were written so long after. Also the disciples could have been writting sortly after Jesus died but did not want to but all the gospel together and make a Bible yet because of the fear of being caught.
If we are to believe the stories in the Bible the disciples had already gotten away without punishment even though they could have been. Also the length of time would almost assuredly leave non of them alive to write even the first of the four. As for them writing shortly after, this is not only unsupported but just speculation on your part.
Could someone maybe explain how they aren't first hand accounts?
Besides the fact that the disciples would all have been dead due to old age by the time they were written? The style in which they are written suggest third parties rather than the disciples them self. The language they are written in is wrong. Given who the disciples were their language would have been Aramaic, however the Gospels were written in Greek.
Interesting thing to note the first of the four written (Mark) had no authorship attributed to it until the second century. Also it had additions tacked to the end of it (16:9-20) to better put it in line with the other three. So what we have isn't even the original Mark. The other three likely copied Mark reinterpreting the story and adding to it. We can see this in there style. As we follow each one in chronological order (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) from the way they were written the story becomes more fantastic and magical. This is exactly what we would expect from works of fiction.
Another problem with using the Gospels as evidence is when cross reference with each other and historical facts they don't match up. They are also self contradictory between them when it comes to events.
To bring this rant back around on topic if the stories aren't real and this is the only place we hear of the concept of Hell as a place of punishment, where does this leave the validity of Hell existing?
You must be logged in to post a reply!