The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

Fortunately, God's system of salvation doesn't appear to require that you first believe in God in order that you be saved. Rather, it appears that you are first saved, then you are given evidence of Gods existance - after which you will (not unnaturally ) believe in God. In my own case, I asked a heartfelt forgiveness for my sin 6 months after I was saved (and about 4 months after I became aware that God existed). It took that long for me to be 'educated' sufficiently so as to appreciate my sin as being truly sinful. It meant that my asking for forgiveness was a sincere event.You might have read me saying that even unbelieving people believe God all the time. For example; an atheist who believes stealing is generally wrong, that child molestation is always wrong, that murder is always wrong .. actually believes God - in spite of their not believing in God. This because the persons conscience tells them so, the conscience is 'Gods voice' so believing conscience is believing God. All without believing in God.Similarily, a person brought by God to the conviction that they are a hopeless sinner might not attach the word "sinner" to themselves (because they don't believe in God or sin at that point). But the lack of correct label doesn't change the suffering and anguish that comes with such conviction. The convicted considers themselves vile, perverted, broken, a mess, hopeless, evil, depraved, rotten .. or perhaps all of these things. They know themselves to be wrong doers and can't simply re-jig their moral compass to turn themselves into right-doers.Such a person would find a certain resonance with this section of Romans 7. I've removed spiritual words and replaced them with more secular ideas to render the passage reflective of the state of mind of the convicted Gentile ( unbeliever).

quote:

---

So I find this force at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my innermost being I delight in goodness; but I see another force at work in my mind and bodfy, waging war against my innermost desire and making me a prisoner to the evil at work within my mind and body.

​

What a wretched man I am! Who or what will rescue me from this body of death?

---

Everything God desires is contained in this last sentence. A mans reliance on himself, his thinking he can operate without God in his life is relinquished and man surrenders himself up to whatever it is that would save him from himself.God's criteria for saving a man having been met (mans surrendering his rebellion) there is no impediement to God saving the man and so the man is saved, and has God reveal his true existance to him.- He does apparently. This heaven and earth will disappear and be recreated into a new heaven and earth in which only righteousness dwelleth. It promises to be wonderful: imagine, no selfishness, no pain, no slander, no hatred..- Condemnation for sin committed is but part of it.Hell appears primarily to be a place where people who don't desire an environment containing Gods love (..the products of which we enjoy in part in this life: relationship, joy, peace, creativity, wonder, happiness..) get to spend eternity. They were created as eternal beings and their plumping for such an existance is not a reason to alter their being eternal creatures.Gods wrath expressed against sin need extend only to withdrawing his love. I mean, what would an existance be like without all of the above benefits but one spent with our (an others) ability to be proud, hateful, depressed, hopeless discontented, complaining, ungrateful..If not Hell-ish? And this posts title only adds to the misery of it all.I'm inclined to think a 'lake of fire' as being words chosen to convey in worst possible terms what Hells existance would be like. I don't think the temperatures will be necessarily elevated.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

So God is stacking the deck against us. He creates us premeditatively knowing that we are doom to hell and then further eggs us on. Why does this not make me feel all warm and fuzzy all over. I think there is good and bad pride. Good pride i.e. pride in one’s country and in one’s own abilities, etc. can help spur you on to do further good works. Bad pride just like any other virtue you over-indulge in turns into a vice.Do you really think that people who do wrong in the first place are even going to look to God’s commands for guidance? To me this makes no sense at all. Why spur the people who are actually trying to meet God’s approval to do badly?Furthermore, what a hypocrite the Biblical God is for demanding people to worship him. This is the ultimate apex of pride. It is called vanity. How do you expect people not to be prideful when you demand people worship you. That is the most vain and prideful act I can think of. Wow, so God put all this in place just so he can send everyone to hell. I can’t think of a more evil and despicable plan. Even the worst human atrocities doesn’t touch this one. Let’s take this analogy a little further. Let us say God is a parent and we are the children (the Bible uses this analogy a lot). You tell your child to climb a 100 foot wall unaided or face dire consequences, which of course he cannot do. Your child of course not having any other recourse is going to try to climb the wall. However as he does so you say, I didn’t expect you to try to climb the wall by yourself. I just wanted you to realize that you couldn’t climb the wall and that you need me to help you. And then if they didn’t believe you, worship or praise you for being so mean to them you shoot them in the head with a gun. Not much difference, except that shooting them in the head would be considered lenient to sending them to hell for eternity.Ok, have to run to work, will address the rest of your post later.

---

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

That's the subject of another discussion. The contention in this one is that what God commands is not necessarily the same as what God wants.- The context indicated the kind of pride in question. The kind that doesn't like being told what to do by another - for simple 'not being tolds' sake.- Gods commands are written into peoples hearts whether they profess belief or not. Everyone has a conscience and are guided by it at times and reject guidance by it at times. It's not a matter of whether they look to God for guidance, it's a matter of God guiding them whether they like it or not. Everyone is subject to the process of salvation or damnation - we don't get a choice in that.As to why make things harder for people who would like to meet Gods approval by their own efforts? Because doing that won't save them. A little bit of sin (having strained to the utmost not to sin) means damnation as surely as does a lot of sin.God is holy - he doesn't abide with unholiness, no matter 'small' the unholiness. Think of us as buckets and unholiness as a hole. Whether we've got a small hole or a big one in us, we're useless if water carryin is our purpose.- I take it that my point "what God commands not necessarily = what God wants" is taken?- We? I mean no offence but while the Bible would describe me as a(n adopted) child of God, you (assuming you are unsaved) are not described thus. Currently your position is described variously as being; 'a child of the devil',' an enemy of God', 'one conceived in inequity',' one who is under the sway and rule of the wicked one'- Why would they not believe me? Whilst I might not want those negative consequence that arise out of their failing to climb the wall to occur, negative consequences will arise from not climbing the wall.The proud, haughty, God-hating sinner has another recourse, he can turn and rely on God to help them climb over his impossibly high commands. God can't help the height of the command (God is holy and can't not be holy, nor can he be less holy). Nor can God help there being negative consequences for failing to keep his commands (one definition of holiness might be stated as 'wrathful against sin'. S o God can't be but be wrath against sin). But God can help them over his commands if they will but turn to God for help (for God loves them and wants that none face his wrath against their sin).That is the only recourse they have - turning to God. Exposure to the size of the wall is intended to dissuade them from a futile attempt at climing the wall. It is interesting to note how many people look at Jesus example and point to salvation arising out of following his lead. Except that Jesus never said that we should 'try our best' to follow his commands or else. It was only and ever 'follow his commands or else'. God doesn't change - whether God of the Old or God of the New Testaments.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi again Phat,Your question was nested in a post to Dev.A. and I only picked up on it now.My point mainly was that it's not up to me to justify Hell. Rather, it's up to God, should he chose to do so, to justify Hell. Of course, the question becomes: does God justify Hell in the Bible to which I'd say (very) apparently so.As for questioning God? There is a point to which we can go but if we're not happy with the answers he gives we would do well to sit back down in our seat on which hangs the marker "Here sitteth one of the created (and created with limited understanding) - this seat is not a throne"- Perhaps it's because the means whereby a person rejects what God stands for (righteousness) involves delight in what God doesn't stand for (unrighteousness). Unrighteousness is the currency of rejection and a love of unrighteousness is seal on a persons eternity.Sentimentality aside, why would it be considered benevolent of God to withdraw from a person that which the person has set their heart on. Wouldn't it be like offering a product and having the person purchase it - only to find that the box is empty?That the contents of the box turn out to be of an intensity that appalls even those who took delight in evil .. is neither here nor there. The point isn't that we know the full consequences of our choices*, the point is that we have sufficient balance in options so as to indicate where our hearts desire lies(a fact that causes us no trouble when making choices generally. We readily accept that unknown consequences attach to our choices and accept those consequences as part of the deal)-A more simplistic answer to your question would be that God is not one-dimensional benevolence. God is, it appears, as much wrath against sin as anything else. Given that, how is God-is-wrath to find satisfaction if God-is-benevolent snatches the object of Gods wrath away?It would appear to harmonise better if God's love gets hold of the object of his love and God's wrath gets hold of the object of his wrath. Better that is, if one is focussed primarily on God's satisfaction and not ours - which is surely a rational thing to do.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

OK. God is zog. By definition. Thus whatever god does is presumably zoggy by definition? In fact God is incapable of being un-zoggy by definition.So how can we ever know what is zog and what is not without knowing the mind of God at any given time?I want to live my life in a way that is consistent and zog. But how do I ever know what is zoggy and what isn't?In any choice, any course of action, how do I know how to be zog so that I can avoid hell and achieve heaven?

DA writes:This is actually just the opposite of what I said and donsrtrated. Things can be God material without being Gods conscience. freewill in a mechanism of human exisistence and is by itself both God material and separate from his essential existence. There is no game where freewill is involved. there is no pre-programmed anything, these are your unwarrented conclusions without dealing directly with my arguments. You have simply set my position aside without considering its validity, there is no evil except that which proceeds from a mind that possess free will, that is a thought process. hence Jesus' statement:"It is not that which goes into a man that defiles him, but that which procceds from his heart (mind) I have addressed that so called delima by the proposition I set Out, it is counterfactual to that position Negative, pay attention. It is real in the sense that it proceeds from a physical verifiable mechanism, the mind, they are not real because they have no actual subtance, no reality, but can be observed, demonstrated, examined and evaluated, and are therefore independent of even Gods exsistence, because they have no actual reality in and of themselves Because he is all that there is in reality or existence, it would follow logically that any decisions or deteminations from him would be the ultimate source of knowledge or morality. There is no other source outside of God to base a decision. While you may not like this conclusion, it conclusion is inexcapable. its the simplest of all propositions By logical absolutness.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

O writes:In this instance we have already determined that he exists, for argument sake, that is not a contention. When questioning the quality of a diety or anyone for that matter it is assumed you are granting its existence atleast temporaily, to see if the specific item can be jutified by its overall character, as described by the same source from which derive your contention. This is not a logical fallacy.If you wish to fall back to the idea that he may not exist in the first place, then the quailty you are describing is of no consequence in the first place, in other words ther is no reason to assume the validity or invaldity of its measure, pitted against a possibility of non-existence in the first place. Such an argument would be nonsensical Its outside of exsistence beacuse it has no SUBSTANCE in reality in and of itself in the first place. Plus you are ignoring the freewill that drives or initates the thought in the first place. god is not responsible for a thought derived from an independant mind. thats the beauty of being created in his image.Besides existance and salvation, the thought process is the most amazing of all creations. It has a kind of reality with no reality another mechanism namley the mind of another is doing the evaluation of thoughts, the thoughs have no reality and are therefore independant and non-exsistent of both physical realities and Gods basic essence. God may control and know every thought from eternity but they are indepedant of his total existance because they have no actual reality. Only the mechanism and the creation of freewill can be said to be under Gods control, if he so desires, but he lets the individual choose and produce THOUGHTS that are soley the decision of the individual.EAM

So, what you're saying is that 90% of people will go to Heaven and the ones who won't are either psychopaths or schizophrenics. I guess that sounds good for me, but I have an issue with God punishing people with mental disorders...it's not their fault. I don't know of anyone, other than mentally impaired people, who think stealing is ok, murdering is just a good night out, and child molestation is something to do when bored. I know people have engaged in those activities, but pretty much all of them know it is wrong and either try to justify it or feel guilt. I was talking about the rubbish heap...what happens to the souls in Hell during this time of recycling? Are they just left there and forgotten about, or is Hell not actually eternal? I dare you to find anyone who doesn't want joy, love, wonder and happiness. There are people who feel so despondent that they don't think they will ever again feel those things while they live, but never have I found or heard of anyone who didn't desire those things. This seems to imply that no one goes to Hell. And this is where I get to the point where I can no longer call God good. He withdraws his love from the people who need it the most. You cannot say he has done everything in his power to help those who, apparently, want to live in a place full of hopelessness and fear/anger. It just stops making sense that someone with the powers that God has, and the implied wellspring of eternal love and patience is good for turning his back on those who are less than convinced of his existance. It seems to em that the only people who fit your criteria for Hell are the mentally impaired. Why would god punish people for something that isn't their fault?

I think the wisdom of Homer applies in this case:

quote:

---

...it's because God is powerful, but also insecure, like Barbara Streisand before James Brolin. Oh, he's been a rock.

---

But then why do people, many of them Christians, say that "God helps those who help themselves" if what God really wants us to ask for help? But doesn't this make God contradictory? God will always love what God loves and God will always be angry at what God is angry at but if God believes in forgiveness, then why must God always be angry at those people in hell and why can't God forgive those who repent in hell? More to the point, why does hell have to be eternal?And if God can stay angry at someone for an eternity, can I stay angry at someone until I die?

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

The more I think about this the more it seems logical to me that if there is an Ultimate Governor of the universe who necessarily has nothing and no one greater or truer than Himself, it is His responsibility that any revolt against Him can not win.Eternal damnation is the impossibility of winning against God. To revolt against God only to melt peacefully into non-existence would be to win against God. Eternal punishment makes this impossible.As fearsome as the idea is, in my latter Christian years, it makes sense in kind of fearsome way. But so because there cannot be and is not anything truer and more righteous than God. Apparantly, the final bond between men and women and Christ is to be so close in eternity that marriage or kinship pales in intimacy to it. We read that in eternity the redeemed no longer marry or are given in marriage. This most intimate union between human beings will not rival the oneness between the saved and thier Redeemer who died and rose for them.In this life we do not fully see things the way God sees things. So we may stagger at the thought of loved ones having perished. The time to be concerned for that is now. But in eternity when we see things fully the way God sees things we will be in full harmony with the Divine Will.The time to interceed in prayer, in petition and announcing the gospel message is now today. God will hear our prayers and save them. I don't worry about how I will feel in eternity future. I concern myself with what I can do for their salvation today while there is opportunity. I notice passages like this: The effect this has on me is that the witness of the "holy angels" testifies the purity of the sentence in justice. And that the Lamb, the Redeemer Jesus looks on, also testifies that He observes the just recompense for spurning His death for them on His cross. He as the Son of God died for them that they might be saved. His agony in separation from His Father in His loving sacrifice and torment for their sins has been rejected.With the "holy angels" He now observes their just reward for spurning the salvation of God which had been extended to them.Likewise, I notice that in the pouring out of the final bowls of the wrath of God, both the angels and the redeemed humans declare that God's judgment on the rebels is righteous and just: It is the "righteous judgments" that have been manifested. There is nothing perverse, unfair, unrighteous in them.I have to consider that I still need to be conformed to the image of Christ more in my being. To love what God loves and to hate what God hates is my destiny in eternity. And I perceive that there will be no sense of God's righteous judgment of being perverse. Rather, His redemptive death in Christ for man's salvation is forever appreciated and the rejection and revolt against it will be seen as through the eyes of Savior God. The offense of turning His redeeming love away as a crime justly rewarded as God sees appropriate.The time to cry for men's salvation in prayer and pleading for them to accept the Savior is today.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Had you just said "his will and his morality is a straight forward LOGICAL proposition," then I would not have objected.But you didn't, you began with: And while I agree, if we already established he exists, there is no fallacy. But your statement included his existence being logical as well. And that's what I objected to, because it's not a logical position. It is a belief that assumes the premise. You'll have to explain how humans, who exist in reality, are having thoughts outside of existence. No offence, but that's just nonsense.Further, you would have to explain what "outside of existence" actually is. Is there a thought that takes place that lacks cause or effect?Wouldn't the "substance" of the thought be how one applies it to reality and likewise how reality affected the thought?By your definition, spoken words have no "substance" in reality. Explain. What freewill drives the thought?Aren't thoughts determined by outside stimuli? If someone points a gun to you, wouldn't you start thinking what to do because of that persons actions?What I think you mean is that we have freedom of choice. And while I agree that we do, many factors outside of your own personal convictions determines the choices we make. Sorry, but you have not established how the mind is independent of existence.If the mind exists in reality, and god is all of existence, then it follows that the mind and god are one and the same.Or, god could be outside of existence (not everything in existence) and the mind would then be independent of god.So which is it? It can't be both. I don't know what that means. No. First, I can evaluate and comprehend my own thoughts; a kind of self analysis. I'm a part of reality, my mind is a part of reality, therefore anything that derives from it that can be comprehended is also a part of reality.Furthermore, god can evaluate and comprehend my own thoughts too; which as I understand it, that's exactly what he does. If he is a part of reality and can comprehend my thoughts, then they are also a part of reality. Wait...can't you see the clear contradiction here?If he controls it, and he is a part of existence, then the thought exists in reality. They come from the mind of a being that exists in reality. Thoughts don't go into another dimension and then re-appear.You are making no sense. If god controls freewill, and can control your thoughts, then there is nothing free about any of this. It is all predetermined by him.You are trying to find a cop-out argument that exempts god from his responsiblity to mankind.He created, he gave the power to think, he gave the will to choose, so he is responsible for how such tools are used. And he should not punish for using them wrongly, he should correct the functions so that they are used properly.Unless, he had nothing to do with creating anything other than the universe, then sat back and let it all unfold. That I could exept, but that would mean that there is no punishment for mistakes, other than temporal punishment established by humans to police themselves.So which is it? Because it can't be both....- OniEdited by onifre, : misspelled exist(e)nce about 1000 times - thanks for catching that Straggler

I am not sure what this means. What is "God material"? Again I don't understand what this means. Existance and non-existance by the very definition of these terms are mutually exclusive and absolute. Either something exists or it does not. Something cannot partially exist or partially not exist. Free-will requires totally seperate and independent thought and a complete freedom to choose that outweighs any form of deterministic causation. That is, free will hinges on the individual being able to make decisions that are not unduly influenced by outside causes. For example, since a child and mentally disabled individual do not have the experience and the cognitive ability to rationally make decisions there is leeway given into judging their behavior i.e. you do not send a child to jail for what would be considered criminal behavior depending on the age of the child.The questions that need to be asked therefore are "do human's truly exhibit free will" and "does a person's unbelief in God deserve damnation to a permenant status in hell"? No, I am just trying to figure out your reasoning of God's attributes/character and his relation with human beings. You keep saying God is everything and I am stating that if that is so than logically this would mean that humans and their thoughts are God as well. And if this were so, then free-will would just be an illusion because we would merely be extentions of God's existence. However, if humans are imitations of God but not actually part of God's existence so to speak than I can see where you can argue that free-will would exist. Maybe I am wrong but I think most Christians would agree with the latter argument. Please clarify. Ok, does God have free-will? If so than by the above definition he is capable of doing evil as well. And for humans than, evil as well as free-will are dependent on whether humans exist independently of God or not. What do you consider as 'substance'? If you are going to throw ambiguous terms like 'substance', 'thoughts', 'real', 'not real', etc you really need to define what you are talking about. By substance do you mean 'matter' as in tangible components of matter/energy that occupy the dimensions of spacetime the answer i.e. atoms, molecules, etc. If so than no, thoughts are not matter or energy they are the product of matter/energy interacting just as other behaviors such as spoken words, etc are the physical acts/behaviors resulting from matter/energy interacting.Can you really observe and detect a thought? It depends on how you define a thought. You can detect the biochemical reactions in the brain while one is thinking but I am not sure if you can actually "observe" a thought. It really depends on how you are defining a "thought". Like the term 'beauty', the term 'thought' is an abstract product that results from biochemical processes aka "thinking" in the brain.I suspect we may be saying the same thing just using different wording but I am not sure. If that is the case than we have no method of judging good or bad apart from God and therefore have to rely 100% on faith that God is good with no way to back this up or question if what God. God could commit the worse attrocities and we would have no choice but to call it good.Furthermore, if one reads the Bible in its entirity you see a entity which has done exactly that (commiting, commanding and condoning attrocities such as slavery, ethnicide, torture, etc). Than this negates free-will. If we cannot make decisions without God than how can their be free-will. Free-will requires the ability to make independent choices by that individual. It matters not what I like or do not like. It matters what makes sense logically and scientifically and what doesn't. It probably is impossible to keep my personal opinions and preferences out of my ramblings but I try to stick to rational thinking and discussion as much as possible and as long as people point out my weaknesses and flaws politely I have no problem being polite back. This is contrived gibberish to me. What does "logical absoluteness" mean?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.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

It's actually spelt existence. Even in American I believe.I am prone to this sort of thing and would rather it was pointed out to me so I assumed the same from you. Feel free to ignore me either way.Good post by the way.

Thanks, Straggler. It's the spanish in me that hurts me when I spell. I'm horrible at spelling in english because I constantly fight the urge to spell the word as it sounds. One of the faults of being raised in a predominantly spanish speaking household.I should use Word to type these posts.I'll correct it in the post. Thanks, dude!- Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

double postEdited by onifre, : No reason given.