Why do people want to go to Heaven?

[Topaz27]

I don't want to go to heaven. As far as I can tell one of these situations must be true.

1) I go to heaven, and I am fully aware that people are burning in hell forever. If I knew that was true I would feel bad. Therefore I feel bad in heaven. Heaven can contain suffering. But according to Rev 21:4 There is no suffering in heaven. So this idea doesn't make any sense according to the Bible.

2) I go to heaven, and I am fully aware that people are burning in hell forever. But this time I'm ok/happy about it. In that senario there would be some kind of change in my emotion, which I'm not ok with. I'm not ok with the idea that "I know that people are burning in hell, and that's ok with me." That idea disgusts me. So I wouldn't want to go to that kind of heaven.

3) I go to heaven, and I'm not aware that people are burning in hell forever. That's not okay with me either. First off if I end up in heaven, and some of my dead loved ones aren't there, it's pretty obvious where they would be. So this idea doesn't really make sense. But let's say that God erases my memories about my loved ones. I would hate that. I don't want to go to that heaven.

4) I go to heaven I don't know about people burning in hell, but I still feel terrible. This obviously makes no sense with the premises of heaven, but it is technically a possibility.

Heaven is always described as this amazing place where God fixes everthing. But it just doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

So I was wondering why/if people wanted to go to heaven. Both thiests and athiests.

If there are other options that exist please tell me.

[Checkpoint]

But if one is insane and incapable of conceiving they have committed a crime but the other not and in a calculated premeditated way committed an evil act, while society may need for practical purposes need to be equally protected from both only the latter is morally reprehensible... do you see what I mean.

It's difficult for me to fully grasp this, probably because I don't grasp morality to begin with.

The way I see it, I am fully responsible for everything I do, just as a blind man would be for stabbing wantonly if he finally hit someone.

If I can't see which things are immoral then I must simply restrict myself more, to make absolutely sure about not doing anything immoral.

Why is it, do you think, that you can't see which things are immoral and which things are moral?

How would/do you decide which things to restrict yourself on?

[Purple Knight]

Why is it, do you think, that you can't see which things are immoral and which things are moral?

Poor function in a certain part of my brain is my guess.

How would/do you decide which things to restrict yourself on?

I must listen to others.

If it might be immoral, I must restrict. It's a miserable existence.

If morality enters into the equation at all, and I cannot refute a moral argument by reduction ad absurdum, I must simply accept that their assertions of morality are true.

I'm thankful that no one really gets off that much on asserting positives, though there are some, like help the poor. Mostly they assert negatives. Don't kill, don't steal, and so forth.

I favour the moral construct known as Libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principle because in it, no one has positive rights. No one can tell another man what he must do; only what he cannot do. Libertarians have, however, said I that I have no rights, and ruled out most actions I might take as aggression. What they cannot do, by their own philosophy, is fore me into a situation where logic dictates I must aggress. They can give out any number of don'ts, but they can't ever force a do.

And I still follow every noncontradictory moral construct as much as I am able.

[Checkpoint]

Why is it, do you think, that you can't see which things are immoral and which things are moral?

Poor function in a certain part of my brain is my guess.

How would/do you decide which things to restrict yourself on?

I must listen to others.

If it might be immoral, I must restrict. It's a miserable existence.

If morality enters into the equation at all, and I cannot refute a moral argument by reduction ad absurdum, I must simply accept that their assertions of morality are true.

I'm thankful that no one really gets off that much on asserting positives, though there are some, like help the poor. Mostly they assert negatives. Don't kill, don't steal, and so forth.

I favour the moral construct known as Libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principle because in it, no one has positive rights. No one can tell another man what he must do; only what he cannot do. Libertarians have, however, said I that I have no rights, and ruled out most actions I might take as aggression. What they cannot do, by their own philosophy, is fore me into a situation where logic dictates I must aggress. They can give out any number of don'ts, but they can't ever force a do.

And I still follow every noncontradictory moral construct as much as I am able.

Thanks for that.

With respect, it seems to me your life has become heavily weighed down. You are carrying such a heavy burden, so that at one point you describe it as "a miserable existence".

My heart goes out to you, Purple Knight.

There just has to be a better way to live than this, surely!

[Purple Knight]

There just has to be a better way to live than this, surely!

I could live like every other sociopath and put all my energy into seeming moral (which is easy) instead of trying to be moral, which in my case probably isn't possible.

I'm only trying because I'm curious. Is it possible? All evidence so far points to no.

And I do give myself a pass if I can conjure up a knockdown reductio ad absurdum. Here's one I consider to be a knockdown of veganism:

viewtopic.php?t=35914

...But the more people give it a once-over, the better. If I'm not right I would like to know about it.

[onewithhim]

The idea that ordinary people are sent to hell is wrong...they are not ordinary even in a worldly situation. The one's damned are irretrievably dedicated to evil by their own free will and by their own free will they chose the consequences of their choice over heaven and cannot be dissuaded. Iow, only demons are banished to hell. Will you really miss them so much?

I will, because I have walked with demons and I have known them as people. We have laughed together, explored philosophy together, and cried together.

Perhaps I am one of them simply because I have known them as friends.

When I was in middle school, the only peer who was even the least bit nice to me was a neo-Nazi.

I wouldn't wish for even demons to suffer.

If there are other options that exist please tell me.

You have in fact missed at least two that I can think of.

5) Your understanding and perspective changes such that you're comfortable with the punishment, but it is a natural transition that results purely from the expansion of your knowledge.

For example, if you see someone kill a man, you may believe the man killed was not deserving of that... until you find out that the killer only killed in self-defence. A punishment may go from undeserved to deserved in most peoples' eyes simply because of added information.

Admittedly, however, I cannot believe I would change my opinion and consider Hell to ever be deserved.

6) There is no Hell. Either everyone goes to Heaven or those who simply cannot exist there merely dissipate.

Why do you say that either people cease to exist (which is true of the incorrigibly evil) or they go to heaven? Haven't you read any of the posts in this thread or in the thread "Paradise on Earth?"

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 84 by JehovahsWitness]

I like the rendering of our 1961 Bible better: "Ought I not to feel sorry for Nineveh the great city, in which there exist more than one hundred and twenty thousand men who do not at all know the difference between their right hand and their left, besides many domestic animals?"

It presents more nuance to the subject at hand. The men of Nineveh just might have known right from wrong, but they didn't have enough common sense to act in a consistent, righteous-leaning manner.

Doesn't the Bible say that men are given a conscience? One reference volume says:

"Conscience is inherent in man, having been made part of him by God. It is an inward realization or sense of right and wrong that excuses or accuses one."





(Insight on the Scriptures, Volume I, pg.500)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 8 by Topaz27]

I just found an interesting Bible verse. If you have a red letter Bible, the text is in red. Anyways the verse is Mark 16:16. It basically states that those who don't believe, will be damned. To me, that sounds like everyone that doesn't believe in God will be damned and sent to hell.

There is something else that's interesting: Why, do some, who quote the bible need to add or subtract from a certain verse to try and make a point? This is all too common. The bible verse you used doesn't include the term hell or imply it…Where, the Greek word "katakrino" (G2632) is defined as: to give judgment against or to judge worthy of punishment. Which, has been translated into the English words: condemn (17 times) and damn (2 times). Yet, the English definition for "damned" can be: condemned or doomed, especially to eternal punishment. However, Revelation 21:8 gives the best explanation for what eternal punishment really means: But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

So, it is clear that there is no such concept (in the bible) that states that certain humans will suffer for eternity, when they are thrown into the lake of fire. They will just experience a second death and cease to exist, for not believing or not accepting God's ways.

As far as, heaven is concerned, the abode for most of the changed humans (from physical to spiritual) will not be in heaven, but on this earth! This is where, God and His Son will be (Rev. 21:1-7)…

So, why would people want to go to heaven?

Because, they want to experience the awe inspiring beauty and magnificence of God's vast creation and be a part of the process, which will occur for other celestial planets. So, why wouldn't you want to be part of this, as well?

You are right about the fate of the evil people---nonexistence. But I don't agree that Jesus and his Father will be here on the physical planet, ever. When the Scripture says that "the tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them...and God himself will be with them," this need not be understood literally....just as most of the book of Revelation is not to be understood literally.

Could there be another understanding of that verse? Have there been other Scriptural accounts that showed God or Jesus being "with" people on Earth, or "residing" with them and yet God and/or Jesus remained in heaven?

EXODUS 29:45,46: "I will reside among the people of Israel, and I will be their God. And they will certainly know that I am Jehovah their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt so that I may reside among them."

Did God literally come down and reside among them? I'm pretty sure He remained in heaven. His attention was keenly on the people of Israel, so that He could say He was "with" them.

NUMBERS 35:34: "You must not defile the land in which you dwell, in which I am residing: for I, Jehovah, am residing in the midst of the people of Israel."

Was He literally there among the people? Later King Solomon repeatedly stated that Jehovah was in heaven, even though He said that He was living with the people. Solomon's wise words:

"Will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens cannot contain you!! How much less, then, this house that I have built!" (I KINGS 8:27)

He then went on to refer to God's dwelling place in heaven eight times in chapter 8: verses 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45 and 49. Yet God said that He would be residing with them, after they had left Egypt. He carried it out, though He was in heaven, as Solomon so eloquently pointed out.

Then, also, Jesus told his disciples that he would be "with" them to the end of the world, though he ascended to heaven. (Matthew 28:20) How could he be "with" them? The same way that God will be "with" mankind and "reside" with them, as said at Revelation 21:3. They are and always will be acutely attentive to mankind who is on the earth, and guide them as God and Jesus have done for centuries. They don't need to be physically on the planet to have a relationship with people.




.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 88 by Purple Knight]

But if one is insane and incapable of conceiving they have committed a crime but the other not and in a calculated premeditated way committed an evil act, while society may need for practical purposes need to be equally protected from both only the latter is morally reprehensible... do you see what I mean.

If a person has no notion of the difference between good and bad, I believe they either lack education or suffer from some kind of psychological malfunction. God is imo merciful and will judged accordingly, that's all I'm saying.

JW

Yes, I agree with that. If a person is mentally challenged and cannot think normally, he would not be judged as if he deliberately committed wicked acts.



.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 97 by onewithhim]

There is something else that's interesting: Why, do some, who quote the bible need to add or subtract from a certain verse to try and make a point? This is all too common. The bible verse you used doesn't include the term hell or imply it…Where, the Greek word "katakrino" (G2632) is defined as: to give judgment against or to judge worthy of punishment. Which, has been translated into the English words: condemn (17 times) and damn (2 times). Yet, the English definition for "damned" can be: condemned or doomed, especially to eternal punishment. However, Revelation 21:8 gives the best explanation for what eternal punishment really means: But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Nicely done, onewithhim.

We seem to have lost touch the last two weeks, and I want to continue our exchange on the Miracles thread.

Please answer two of my posts there to you, #164 and #165 Thanks.

Are things ok with you this month?