Well, if paradise is already perfect, and perfection demands no change, least it is not perfect on itself, how can heaven be populated, and how can anyone enter heaven?

To get anyone into heaven would be to change heaven itself, thus denying it.

Is heaven empty, then, and doomed to be empty forever?

That brings a whole new meaning to the term "hell is other people"

-haha, good point.

i guess that's why there a need to conceptualise a being that's perfct, which of course, would be the "god" and those who are similar to him. in christian/catholic sense, i think that would be the enlighten ones like the angels and the apostles who has descended to heaven who has escaped earth sins. for the buddhist, nirvana and so on.

but then, you have a good point. who could possibly populate heaven if the whole point of humanity is being flawed?

but according to my Christian friends, the notion of heaven and entering it is all in the matter of faith. so i guess the heaven and paradise is a bit different as well. but i dont know, if both are built on the grounds of perfection, i dont think anyone would be there at all.

Then again, this whole notion that hell is a pit of suffering is really very recent. The original idea was that hell was the absence of God. Paradise didn't have harps and singing and togas (and what's the point of an eternal toga party with no booze anyway?). It was simply being in the presence of God and hearing His Word (Damn, I'm even starting to pronounce capitals like that).

Does that change views of whether suffering is evil? If we can no longer use paradise and hell as dimensions? If anything not present in paradise is inherently evil, that would make all of creation evil as the only thing in paradise is God. All of creation being evil is not a viewpoint I'm firmly against, especially on bad days, but it's worth thinking about.

If we're going with a more modern view of heaven and hell, we have to ask whether this is valid, why we believe it to be valid and why God created the previous view (assuming we're accepting for now that he wrote the bible).

Also, I appear to have lost the ability to type, so sorry for any typos I fail to pick up.

Could reality be, in fact, then, hell, and the fact we hope, albeit hopelessly on salvation be no more than another, more subtle, punishment? Once we are outside paradise, and cannot expect to enter it ever, no matter how we behave, since it´s perfect nature exclude ourselves, wouldn´t this be hell, by the sheer definition of hell, that is, the eternal absence of Divine Grace?

I think the idea is that He is present here as part of the Holy Ghost thing. We are, therefore, not without the presence of God on this Earth. I think there's supposed to be something about God turning away His face, in a similar vein to the way Jesus asked him to turn His face away when the whole crucifiction thing is going on and the sun then stops and Jesus dies. I always saw parallels there.

Is hope a punishment, or does it make it less bad? I'm not firmly fixed on either side, but I would instinctively say that hope allows us to to focus on something other than our own deprivation and could, therefore, make things much better. An alternative interpretation would be that we would go mad having this level of suffering and hope allows us to continue, thereby increasing the torment that can be inflicted.

If reality is hell, how come we die? The fact that we die implies that one could leave hell. If not, we would have to be reincarnated into this world to begin the torture again. So that means reincarnation would be true. If there is no hope of ever interacting with God (because this plane of existence has "the eternal absence of Divine Grace") then, functionally, God does not exist (at least for us).

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner. The reincarnationist aethists have it!

As a side note, anyone else think we're gonna have to announce a Capital Letter Amnesty after this?

(Ooops. Deleted double post)

Well, yes, the fact we die might invalidate hell on earth. We cannot accept reincarnation, because we are dealing with a set of beliefs, to begin with, else the whole essay is pointless.

Either we accept the paradigm or discard it, we cannot adapt it to fit our conclusions.

But, yes, would be interesting to start this over, setting on a different set of beliefs than catholic/protestant/muslin/Jewish tradition.

I'm no theologian (which I suppose should exclude me from the conversation altogether) but I'm struggling to see just where religion fits at all into the modern world.

As an agnostic, I find it incredible that religion in it's current forms still exists today. Picking up on the points made about it being basic health and safety, I also feel that many rules were imposed back when the church had a lot more power over a population which had no real concept of understanding of the world they lived in. So there must've been some clever people who decided that the hard to understand elements were all "God's Will" and therefore explain away any tricky questions with the stock answer of "because He has decreed it".

But we understand more now, and as a result the church has lost some of it's power. So is it all still necessary? You could argue that it's only faith that binds communities together, but how much of it is useful and how much is pure dogma?

From what I can gather, there are three base elements to any religion:

1. Life guidance - this is the basic principles to leading a good life, which I would basically sum up as "Try not to do stuff that hurts other people and you should be okay." The truth is, we all know this anyway, it's basic common sense.
2. Support of self - this, for me, is where religion helps the individual. Perhaps knowing there's an omniprescence which will guide you, or a hope that there's something or somewhere better they can go to, or perhaps even a feeling of support and strength. I can see how this would work, I've seen people who use their god to assist them in life and for me, that's fine. It's better than drinking or taking drugs at least.
3. Sense of belonging - People, on the whole, are not solitary creatures and crave acceptance. This is why we enjoy pigeon-holing, because being classified as something is comforting, it helps you feel that you're not isolated. Even people who hate being classified secretly want acceptance. So being part of a religion, meeting up at church, having a common interest, strengthens the pack instinct.

I don't disagree with any of the above and for the most part I've been able to fulfill these without actually choosing a religion of any kind.

Beyond this, everything else is stories and propaganda designed to control the populace, and that's the bit I take issue with.

Why should I be told I'll go to hell because I don't believe in a god? I live a good life, I don't hurt anyone, why should I feel the heat of hades just because I didn't think some monotheistic overlord was worth bothering with?

Why should I be part of a group which insists they are right and everyone else is wrong, to the point where they cause death and destruction of innocent people? And this isn't just a swing at the Muslim extremists, I'm perfectly well aware of the centuries of Catholic and Protestant malevolence as well.

And what about all these fringe sects? How many have we seen where the leader is either a mentalist or a thief? Which fringe do you choose, the one where you'll get burned alive or the one that costs you £500 a month to be a part of?

I think that too much is made of religion on the whole. Hence I don't think any religion is best. I'd much prefer to live my life based on a philosophy of being a good person and if there happens to be an afterlife then I'll be judged on my life and not whose team I was on. Except I don't believe there is one. I believe that we are all energy, and as per good physics law, energy is neither created nor destroyed, so when we die our energy becomes something else, like a tree, or a cow, or maybe a couple of fieldmice.

Heh, perhaps I'm a reincarnationalist atheist after all

If I recall correctly early Judaism didn't even *have* the concept of Heaven and Hell. It wasn't until the Jews left Egypt and came into contact with Zoroastrianism (and the 'King of Kings', i.e. the Persian emperor) that they were influenced into adding it to their faith.

Yeah that's right, Judaism and the religions that followed it (Christianity, Islam, whathaveyou) have a great deal of their belief structure based on the beliefs of a religion that was not only persecuted heavily by them, but by now is practically non-existant.

Good point, but I think the concept of hell was more likely introduced to try and control the populace. The same sort of nonsense happened with the Christian sects.

The thing that really gets me about the various Christian faiths (with the exception of Roman Catholic, who shun the New Testament), the portrayal of Jesus is of a white man. If he was born in Nazareth from what were ostensibly Jewish parents (or at least his mum was) then why would he be white? Possibly because nobody in a predominantly white country at that time would accept a non-white messiah?

Thing is, I can just see too many holes in organised religion for me to be able to invest in them.

I question your assertion of logic here, mostly because your possibilities are fundamentally flawed, grounded in the cosmic egoism that marks religion as humanity's Enormous Box Of Infinite Stupid. You seem to be ignoring far more likely possibilities; that even if there is a Creator, no matter how ill-defined, It doesn't give a monkeys what people believe, or even notice we exist at all in the infinity of the known Universe; or that there simply is no God at all. In either case, religion is at best a moral placebo, at worst an amoral hinderence to the development of humankind (mostly the latter, I believe), and there is no afterlife.

Doctor Doom, please keep things civil; there are religious people on this board and a modicum of respect will help us all get along. We certainly can't have a debate if you're going to be this rude.

Mostly born out of Medieval and Rennaissance perceptions I guess. How many of your everage European Jo-shmoes had even seen a person with dark skin outside of the Mediterranean ports? Coupled with that, Jesus was supposed to be "Our savior!". That's the key term there, "Our". With a term like that you identify the person with your own community, be that in customs, dress, and general appearance.

If you go out east to the Coptic churches (for example) Christ *is* depicted more frequently as having dark skin, and he's certainly dressed differently. I feel simply because it's a different crowd.

Even the most monolithic and indivisable faith is, to some degree or another, syncretic. There will always be some local variation even if it doesn't boil over into heresy.

I guess at that time most people would've been clueless to the location of the biblical towns except for those that live there, so there would've been some level of ignorance as to what he would've looked like. I guess, in the absence of pictorial evidence, it was never likely he'd be portrayed any differently.

But in this day and age, surely these ancient imageries can be brought more up to date? I mean, we all know where the Holy Land is - especially since it appears to be in the middle of perpetual insurgency - and most people understand that Middle Easterners have darker skin than us pasty Northern Europeans, so why perpetuate it? Laziness? Maintenance of the status quo? Or purely because, as much as we try not to be, we're basically still xenophobic and would be hard pushed to accept a foreign messiah?

Of course, I'm still plugging at the Church of England element a bit here, as it's the only one I really know having had the blatant attempts at indoctrination at the hands of my old school. But even therein lies an issue; I think everyone and his canine sidekick knows that the CoE was inaugurated on the back of the arrogant and selfish Henry VIII wanting to get divorced from his first wife and the Catholic church refusing to allow it. Okay, fair enough, there were separatists prior to that, but they were persecuted and murdered for their allegedly heretic beliefs prior to the king deciding he preferred their stance on divorce. Not that I should complain about divorce, I've benefitted from the same ruling some centuries later, but if religion can be chopped around so easily by a single human being (albeit a very powerful one) then who can possibly make any informed choice about which one is right?

Which just leads me back to my previous statements on what I believe are the basic tenets of religion which should be followed by everyone, the so-called "good life", regardless of which god they choose to believe in.

I personally believe that any theological debate is just that; a debate. Nobody will ever be swayed by an argument if they can counter-argue with reasonable points. I've never met anyone who has taken up a religion on the basis of such a debate. It's like politics, we all have a standpoint and we won't change it unless something happens to us directly to make us believe we need to change.

I'm not saying this discussion is pointless, I think the comments made so far by the majority are sensible and have been thought-provoking. But as for an answer as to which one is best, it's all too subjective. I think the answer is "whichever religion the individual chooses to follow and suits their needs is the right one".

Do I win a prize?

I think by now it's simply become a cultural artifact. Like judges wearing wigs or the drive for individual freedoms it's more representative of society rather than religion itself. We *know* that it makes more sense to portray Jesus having dark skin, but is that worth re-drawing/painting every representation of him? Surely it's more important we try not to draw attention to it, and think of him as an all-inclusive figure rather than pointing out features that could be used to divide? At least that could be one interpretation. Laziness? Maybe.

Also I think there is a passage in either the Bible or contemporary sources that says that Jesus was actually fudge ugly, not the beautiful ideal of man that he's usually portrayed as. We don't show that because... well... we don't want to.

Your point about the CoE is a good one though. Henry VIII was made the Defender of the Faith after writing a particularly good letter condemning the protestant reformation.... something which was promptly thrown out of the window when he needed to take control of the church. However as you pointed out fact is fact and belief is belief. If someone believes something there's no point debating facts. Henry's supporters would read into the situation what they wanted, and his detractors would see another thing. For some he simply saw the light, for others he was an opportunist or worse.

The discussion is all academic really. One mans truth is hardly comparable to anothers.

And that's one of the main problems. It's hard to live a 'good life' when peoples views change on exactly what that means. It's almost a theology in itself, clouded by emotion and belief more than logic and fact. Then when you throw in the consideration that some people feel that one can only live a good life when it agrees with 'scripture'....


In short I'm not sure if it's possible to have the 'best' belief structure. Belief by definition is subjective and the broad stretch of humanity can not be painted with the same brush. It's only possible to tag something with the title 'best' or 'worst' when there are a series of objective criteria by which they can be judged... and there just isn't.


By the way I jumped into the conversation after skipping a few posts so it might have been covered. Sorry!

I think the whole blue-eyed jesus comes to the fact you need to portray Jesus the way would be is best viewed by it´s subjects.

African and latin "Jesuses" are darker than american and european ones, we have some outright black Virgin Marys here in Brazil, including the patron saint of Brazil Virgin Mary of Aparecida)



In asia, Jesus have oriental eyes.

[quote name='Calantyr' date='May 16 2008, 05:54 PM' post='356655']And that's one of the main problems. It's hard to live a 'good life' when peoples views change on exactly what that means.[quote]
This is an intriguing point: What exactly do we mean when we talk about the definition of "a good life"? I understand that one person's viewpoint on this would vary from another, and even from situation to situation, but surely there's some common ground? I mean, for the sake of argument, the following would probably figure very highly in most people's lists of things to do in order to live a good life:

• Don't do anything which you know will adversely affect someone else, regardless of whether that is the intention or not.

Yes, it's a very short list! But for me, this should be the basic tenet of a good life; anything else is just filler. Killing, stealing, adultery, rape, violence... these are all things which knowingly affect others adversely.

Of course, we do need to consider where to draw the line, and this is where the discussion comes into play. For example, is it acceptable to commit adultery if the relationship isn't happy and it's going to break down anyway? What about euthanasia? Is violence towards another acceptable if the recipient did something to you or your family? At this level, I'd say it's up to individual conscience.

Take an example: Some bloke walks up to you and says your daughter is a slag. What do you do? Talk to him? Argue? Tell him to *expletive* off? Punch him in the face? Hospitalise him? Kill him? I think most people would go with the expletive as being acceptable, but rising to violence isn't. Now, let's say you saw this bloke punch your daughter. Now what would you do? In this case, reasonable force would be more acceptable, so violence is now okay.

So I think there are a few rules:

• Don't kill anyone, unless they ask you to AND they are already dying from a fatal disease which is causing them great pain AND you you could do it without feeling guilty.
• Don't bestow violence on anyone unless they start it, and then only use reasonable force to stop them.
• Don't steal stuff. Ever. You want it that badly, pay for it like everyone else does.
• Don't cheat on your other half. Trust is the cornerstone of any relationship, and once you're proved untrustworthy it's a tough tag to get rid of.
• Don't rape anyone. Ever. There's no possible benefit from invading someone against their will.
• Always look after the children. These guys are innocent, don't go corrupting them early.

But on your example, if the guy punched your daughter, but is not continuously doing so, the violence clause would not be applicable, since you would be allowed to use it to stop them from perpetuating said violence, which is not, as a rule of thumb, the case.

Your example would be a swift punishment, much in the same venue of an eye for an eye.

I guess that all depends on what you would classify as violence. If I saw someone punch my daughter, I'd step in his way and probably shove him away from her. I'd probably not raise a fist unless he continued to do so himself. However, the act of shoving him could, in some circles, be classed as an act of aggression and, therefore, violence.

Yes, I suppose the high road is to talk rather than use aggression, but when someone is already being aggressive or violent it's unlikely they're going to respond to words; one would still need to physically intervene.

'S pretty much it. Unfortunately, most religions openly flout this principle daily. And not just the usual crap that's of detriment to women (every single Abrahamic religion is anti-feminist and you can't pretend otherwise), hateful towards homosexuals and inherently xenophobic. Indoctrinating children and conning adults daily into believing that glorified storybooks are factual documents, undermining scientific and historical facts in churches, on television and in schools because they don't fit the story, is massively harmful. Actively lying to people about gods, prophecies, miracles and eternal souls holds back the development of the human race, and frankly makes billions of people miserable.



I MEAN IT, GUYS. NOT EVER.

I've no idea who this advice is meant for, tbh.

Rapists, presumably.

I'm not sure it's going to convince them! But I'm willing to give it a go. Next time I see a rapist, I'm gonna tell them, "Hey! Don't rape anyone. Ever!" I'll let you know how it goes.

See, if only the police had thought of this tactic!

I feel the best religion would be one headed by a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being.

Now if only I could find one.... Yarr!