The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

So are you saying that everyone who devotes their entire life to literaly saving people's live i.e. a doctor, firefighter, an EMT/Paramedic, police officer etc. does so out of selfish reasons and unrighteous reasons? They are unrightous in their motives to help people? You are kiding me right?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

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.

Q3: Ever wear a wool/cotton blend?A3: Well, yeah.Q4: Eat shrimp?A4: Um, yeah.Q5: Ya know you're pretty well screwed then, right?A5: ButQ6: Ever let the white sauce on your plate get a bit unruly to the point where it touched your turkey, you heathen son of a

---

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

Do you honestly believe that everyone who rejects the Christian worldview does so because they deliberately want to defy a truely good and righteous God that they actually believe in?You really think we are that stupid?No, the reason many of us reject this worldview are because of several reasons including:a. There is no evidence this god exists and their is no scientific evidence the god of the Bible exists.
b. The god of the Bible is a hypocrite based an open and unbiased reading of this book.
c. Most of the people who ascribe to this worldview do not follow their own preachingThere are very few if any people that wake up everyone morning and say "I believe the God of the Bible exists and is a good God but I choose to disobey him because I want to". To say otherwise is naive.If we had evidence this god existed and that he was good, NO ONE would disbelieve except for the mentally insane or those who are absolutely self-centered and morally impaired i.e. mass murderers, etc (who really probably fall into the first category of the mentally unhinged and insane).

---

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

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.

Wow, that is pretty sadistic Iano. So if you are sitting at the side of your mother's bedside who is battling with cancer and you knew she was not a believer, you would not anguish that she would be spending eternity in hell? You desiring this feeling of anguish would be wiped away when you get to heaven is even more troubling.That is really sad Iano, I had more respect for you than that.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

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.

Define righteous. And you know this because what? Because a book or a religious person told you so. Again circular reasoning.Besides if this were true than their would not be a progression in human rights throughout history brought on by the accumulation of human knowledge.

---

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

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

How is this: circular?Circular reasoning means your are trying to support a claim by restating itself using similar words and implying it is the truth without actually investigating its validity. That is not the case with the above. A definition is not necessarily a claim it is just an attempt to define the meaning of a word which is all I am asking you to do for the word "righteous".Stop avoiding the question.Again, how are you defining righteousness. If you want to use religious words to do so fine but just stating the because the Bible so does nothing to bolster your argument.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 am asking specifically about the definition of righteousness (since you are using it in your argument in your post) not whether heaven and hell exist or not.

---

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

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?

Dont mean to butt in here, DA, but try and stay focused. Your are reasoning from the faith and belief thread and your perspective is one of a biblical nature. that is your argument is from a book we are assuming to be true FOR THE SAKE of argument. Proceed as if the doctrine of hell is TRUE, if for argument sake only.Dont interject another principle as to whether the Bible is true in the first place, that is separate argument. proceed on the question of hell as if it is true and the God of the Bible is its author.Do you understand?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

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.

I am accepting heaven and hell true. I am asking for Iano's definition of the word "righteous". Not to be rude, but you seem to be jumping to conclusions here and not following this argument.Just because I accept that heaven and hell are real for the sake of argument does not mean I have to accept every concept from the Christian worldview on face value i.e. the term "righteous". I am just trying to clarify what a Christian defines as "righteous".If one says "righteous" is accepting everything God does or advocates opens up a whole can of worms i.e. the advocation of murder, etc. Do you really want to go there?

---

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