So you're going to Heaven...

So you're going to Heaven...

by

Published on August 17th, 2006, 11:18 am
Rift: Religion

I was reading a short biography of Darwin today when I came across a statement that got to me:

But undoubtedly nothing hurt Darwin as much as a letter sent to him by his wife, Emma, a devout Christian who worried that the views he was espousing would keep them separated through eternity. On it, he wrote: "When I am dead, know that many times I have kissed & cryed over this."

I often wonder at this aspect of the Christian religion. It was a part that I had to deal with every day when I believed: what happens when you are "separated through eternity" from people you love? It isn't a trivial question, and rarely has it ever been so.

To be specific: the Christian religion states that every human soul exists forever. In most versions of Christianity that exist today, a soul can have only one of two possible destinations after the finite life of nature ends: infinite time in Heaven, or infinite time in Hell. Real problems come up when one considers the possibility that you may expect eternity in Heaven, but a loved one will spend it in Hell.

I wonder about the savage minds of the people who have written about Hell. The Jewish concept of Sheol, if you read the Old Testament, seems to be a dull, dry "land of the dead" sort of place, not unlike the afterlife described in Ursula LeGuinn's "Earthsea" books. But as we get closer to Christianity and the Gospels, it appears to quickly become a place of heavy-handed punishment and torture. Once you get to Revelation, it's a thoroughly nasty place.

Maybe this evolution of Hell took place in order to scare people into the early Church. Or perhaps it was a means of scaring people into staying in once they joined. Certainly, under most circumstances, this alternative destination of souls has been and continues to be somewhat effective in its apparent role. After all, every effort is made by Christian denominations to get whole families into the religion and keep them there. It is a common occurrence. And an awful lot of the time, Christian folks tend to care more and associate more with fellow Christians, which helps insulate them from this hellish problem.

In my own life, however, it has caused nothing but heartache. When I accepted this story about the Heaven/Hell dichotomy, I believed I was heading for Heaven. But it worried me that I thought my parents and sister (and several other non-immediate relatives) would be sent to Hell. At first, I tried to convert them. This was probably just what the guys who loved from the very first to preach about Hell would have liked to see.

When I "backslid" into atheism, and told my wife of my apostacy, she was immediately plunged into this same world of anguish. She didn't want to face the idea of her being in Heaven while I got an infinite punishment in Hell. Several friends I've made in my life have reacted the same way. Many have spent countless hours of their lives hearing of the horrible, frightening, painful fate that awaits the "unsaved." When they discover that they care about someone who is obviously in this camp, as I am, they come face to face with this ugliest of aspects of their religion.

Most Christians have no problem with picturing themselves in Heaven. While their mental picture of the place is always fuzzy (due to lack of imagination on the part of Biblical writers), they still like the idea of spending an infinite amount of time there. But what must go through the mind of a person when they discover something that will lead them to the conclusion that a person they love will spend eternity in Hell?

Well, Jesus is reported to have said that his followers should abandon their family and join with him. Sounds pretty damn cult-like to me. And I've known a few who would take that advice, and cut off contact from "evil" children, parents or spouses.

I lived for over twenty years with this problem. In my experience, I can report that the times when I was reminded of it, I preferred not to think about it. Honestly, I think that's the only way to deal with the idea. Assuming that you don't want to get rid of the idea of Hell and eternal damnation, that is.

For those who think it's necessary to keep Hell in your religion, I ask you to think on this subject. Oh, I know a few common dodges for it: God wouldn't send my mother to Hell. She was a saint! God wouldn't allow my toddler son to grow up outside the Church! He loves little children! Yeah, right. Look at what nature has done to the children of New Orleans, and what the God-fearing armies of America have done to the children of Iraq, and tell me that God loves children.

Now, focus, Okay? The first part is easy... you've been doing the first part a long time. Imagine yourself in Heaven. Everything is GOOD, everyone there is happy, doing whatever it is that they plan to do in Heaven. I don't know... singing bad Baptist hymnal songs. Whatever. The second part is hard. Imagine the person in your life who you love the most, and that God decided that she or he wasn't a "True Christian"® or that forgiveness wasn't asked for sincerely enough... whatever your beliefs about it would lead you to think would keep this person out of Heaven.

How would you feel? Honestly, if you were in Heaven, among a throng of happy, loved and loving people, and all of you were anticipating infinite time in that state... would YOU feel happy? Would you devote any part of your time in Heaven to thinking about that lake of fire and column of everlasting smoke of torment mentioned in the Book of Revelation? Could you really express unalloyed love for Jesus, knowing that he was personally supervising the eternal torments of Hell... and your loved one?

I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear from someone, saying that they'd be just cool with their Mom (assuming she was the one loved the most) being eternally burned in Hell. Honestly, anyone who thinks like that is one I would consider both inhuman and frightening.

Well supposedly from my understanding of it, we won't care, since marriage is a mortal hangup.

Secondly some religious sects believe hell has a time-limit of only 2 lifetimes. So that would mean in 200 years they'd be out of there. 200 Years seems like a long time, but if your in for eternity, it's not so bad.

Personally rather then diminish the hopes of heaven, I'd like to believe there is some sort of ascension following this life. Not necessarly clouds, and angels... but an evolution of the person into something for greater then our comprehention. That sits well with my agnostic/atheist viewpoint, and does not require a hell, nor a deity. And yes I know... I watch to much damn Stargate...

Liv wrote:Personally rather then diminish the hopes of heaven, I'd like to believe there is some sort of ascension following this life. Not necessarly clouds, and angels... but an evolution of the person into something for greater then our comprehention. That sits well with my agnostic/atheist viewpoint, and does not require a hell, nor a deity. And yes I know... I watch to much damn Stargate...

Sounds more Buddhist than anything else. Being an atheist, and not at all concerned about such philosophical absurdities as "afterlife" or "supernatural," I prefer to concern myself about doing what I can to make this life that we DO know about a little better.

When I "backslid" into atheism,

I was wondering, What made you think you were were saved enough to backslide? It sounds to me after reading your post that you are expressing your own feelings, but have no adequate evidence for your stance. Could you help me understand your position on this?

MooseontheLoose wrote:I was wondering, What made you think you were were saved enough to backslide?

Well, I believed in Jesus, asked Jesus to save my soul, publicly announced this and was baptized. Those were my first clues, at least. Why?

Also, could you point out where I have stated something that isn't supportable in my essay? Danke!

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Well, I believed in Jesus, asked Jesus to save my soul, publicly announced this and was baptized.

I went through all that myself when I was much younger and much more impressionable. But to paraphrase the bible: When I grew to be a man, I gave up childish things.

Well, I believed in Jesus, asked Jesus to save my soul, publicly announced this and was baptized. Those were my first clues, at least.

Well I guess that I have a hard time understanding how you say you believed in Jesus and then stopped. this to me dosent make since, If you believe in a family member and then decide to stop believeing they are real does that make them go away?

Also, could you point out where I have stated something that isn't supportable in my essay? Danke!

How do you see hell as being different from old to new testament? The bases of hell remains the same through out the bible, it is eternal seperation from God.

Hell should scare people.

If you were truly saved then how do explain John 10:28?

I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear from someone, saying that they'd be just cool with their Mom (assuming she was the one loved the most) being eternally burned in Hell. Honestly, anyone who thinks like that is one I would consider both inhuman and frightening.

So Christianity can't be true because you personally dislike the doctrine of Hell? If you're going to argue in such a manner, then I can too by saying that atheists can't exist because I personally dislike the concept of atheism.

Dusman

MooseontheLoose wrote:Well I guess that I have a hard time understanding how you say you believed in Jesus and then stopped. this to me dosent make since, If you believe in a family member and then decide to stop believeing they are real does that make them go away?

Hardly a good comparison. I acknowledge the existence of my family members based on my ability to see them and talk with them. Jesus never made an impact on any of my senses. So it was pretty easy to stop believing once I paid attention to the logic of the situation.

How do you see hell as being different from old to new testament? The bases of hell remains the same through out the bible, it is eternal seperation from God.

Exactly how much of the bible have you read? You might be interested to know that it isn't mentioned at all in the Torah. "Sheol" makes its first appearance in the Psalms and the later writings, like Job or the prophets.

Ask a rabbi what the OT says about hell if you don't believe me. I would hope you would accept the knowledge of someone that intimately familiar with the oldest sector of "monotheism."

Dusman wrote:So Christianity can't be true because you personally dislike the doctrine of Hell?

I neither said that, nor did I try to imply that. I'm saying that the doctrine of Hell, viewed logically, leads to unspeakably cruel conclusions if it is true. Discussing the actual truth of the whole religion is beside the point of this thread, IMO.

If you're going to argue in such a manner, then I can too by saying that atheists can't exist because I personally dislike the concept of atheism.

Dusman

There's no real need to get bent out of shape by this, is there? Did I really say something that offensive to you personally?

Anybody know the dating of the book of Job? Or is this not the point of this thread?

Liv wrote:Secondly some religious sects believe hell has a time-limit of only 2 lifetimes.

I"ve not heard of this. Where did you encounter it, Liv?

royaldiadem wrote:Anybody know the dating of the book of Job?

From the Wikipedia article

In contrast, secular examinations of the text more generally conclude that, though archaic features such as the "council in heaven" survive, and though the story of Job was familiar to Ezekiel (Chapter 20 verse 14), the present form of Job was fixed in the 4th century BC.

I also have read that there are several mythical stories of the same strcture and theme as Job in many other cultures in the Middle East. Very likely, it was a story used for the same purpose (discussing the paradox of the existence of evil in the presence of a supposedly all-loving god) for a very long time. Almost certainly, it was picked up and incorporated into the Jewish scriptures for that reason -- it was a classic before it ever got into the "Bible."

With all due respect, this is a much better rationale for the VERY EARLY DATE OF JOB:
"III. DATE:
A. Date of the Events: Probably pre-Mosaic, even
patriarchal from the second Millennium B.C.
1. Job is lacking references to historical events and
reflects a non-Hebraic cultural background which
little is known about
2. Location:
a. Uz was located in northern Arabia3
b. Job's friend, Eliphaz, came from Teman, a
city in Edom
c. Elihu came from the Buzites who lived next to
the Chaldeans in northeast Arabia4
3. Support for a pre-Mosaic date:
a. The patriarchal family-clan organization
reflects the time of Abraham rather than
after the Exodus
b. The offering of sacrifice by the head of the
family rather than a priest reflects a time
before the Exodus
c. The mention of a qesitah as a type of money
(Job 42:11) suggests a date which is at least
during the time of Joshua (cf. Jos. 24:32),
if not during the patriarchal period (cf. Gen
33:19)5
4. Support for an early second millennium date of Job
as a contemporary with the patriarchs:
a. The reference in Ezekiel 14:14 to Job and
Daniel may be a reference to the ancient
Canaanite hero Dan'el who was a prominent
figure in the Ugaritic epics rather than to
the contemporary prophet, Daniel6
b. Other names in Job are authentic for the
second millennium B.C.:
1) Bildad was short for Yabil Dadum, a name
found in cuneiform sources of the second
millennium B.C.
2) Job is found in the "Babylonian Job", a
cuneiform composition7
B. Date of Composition: Possibly during the time of the
Patriarchs (Second Millennium B.C.)
1. The Patriarchal Age:
a. This was the view of the Talmud
b. This helps support the accuracy of the
conversations between Job and his friends;
but this is not necessary since portions of
Genesis were accurately transmitted by mouth
until Moses wrote them down
c. The addition of 42:16-17 could have been
added shortly after Job's death
d. The lifestyle and longevity of Job are
similar to that of the patriarchs found in
Genesis
e. The moving bands of Sabaeans and Chaldeans
(Job 1:15, 17) matches the early second
millennium B.C.
f. The literary genre of Job (below) matches
that of the patriarchal era
g. The name of Job is found in the Amarna
letters (c. 1350 B.C.) and the Egyptian
Execration texts (c. 2000 B.C.)8
h. Although the evidence does not demand a
second millennium B.C. date, it certainly
allows for it. "9
2. The Reign of Solomon:
a. This was the view of Gregory Nazianzen
(fourth century A.D.), Martin Luther,
Haevernick, Keil and Delitzsch, Raven, Young,
and Unger10
b. Solomon's age was a peaceful one and thus
particularly interested in wisdom's approach
to the deepest, practical problems of life
(e.g., Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,
Proverbs)
c. The wisdom of Proverbs 8 and Job 28 is
similar
d. While the above arguments are plausible, they
are not determinative; as Archer writes,
"most of the ... features above mentioned are
reconcilable with an earlier date as well,
particularly if the account was composed by a
non-Israelite author on non-Israelite soil"11
e. In addition a delay of four centuries from
the actual experience to the writing down of
the experience raises the question of
accuracy12
3. The Reign of Manasseh:
a. This was the view of Ewald and Hitzig.
b. Since this was a time of injustice, the
thought is that Job fits the social setting
well (cf. Job 9:24)
c. But Job does not present trouble that is any
greater than could be found at any time in
human history, and here the hardship is
individual and private rather than national
4. The Reign of Jeremiah:
a. This was the view of J. E. Steinmueller
b. Similarity in language with Job and the
writings of Jeremiah are cited as the basis
for this time of composition (cf. Jer. 12:1-3
& Job 21:7; Jer. 20:14-18 & Job 3:3; the land
of Uz is only mentioned outside of Job in
Jeremiah 25:20 and Lamentations 4:21)
c. But the comparisons and language are not
determinative since they can be found in
other writings (cf. Ps 37), and it is also
possible that Jeremiah borrowed from Job to
express his themes of suffering and, "the
fact that Uz is mentioned in Jeremiah 25:20
is hardly of pivotal significance unless it
can be proved by other evidence that the name
had not arisen until the age of Jeremiah or
else was unknown to the Hebrews before his
time"13
5. During or after the Exile (sixth century B.C.):
a. This was the view of Genung in ISBE, Driver,
Budde, Cheyne
b. Arguments and Solutions are as follows:14
1) The book is understood to be legend and
a depiction of the imprisonment and
eventual release of king JehoiachinBut
Jehoiachin was not a righteous men and
was not ever restored to his kingdom
prior to his death
2) Although the problems of suffering was
severe for the nation at the time of the
exile, the exile was not the only time
the nation suffered, and again the
suffering in the book is personal rather
than national15
3) The identification of the tempter as
"Satan" was Persian, but it was also an
identification under David (1 Chron
21:1; Ps 109:6)
4) The Aramaisms in the book suggest a late
date, but Aramaic was used for hundreds
of years before the Exile
5) Although several passages seems to refer
to a national tragedy (9:24; 12:6, 13-
25; 24:12) they are not clear enough,
nor particular enough to demand an
exilic interpretation
6. Conclusion: Although it is not possible to be
certain, a patriarchal date is reasonable and
perhaps best explains the material as we have it"

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=903

Exactly how much of the bible have you read?

Well I am no bible scholar, but I have read alot of the bible.

How do you see hell as being different from old to new testament? The bases of hell remains the same through out the bible, it is eternal seperation from God.

You have not answerd the previous question. Is hell eternl seperation from God?

Hardly a good comparison. I acknowledge the existence of my family members based on my ability to see them and talk with them. Jesus never made an impact on any of my senses. So it was pretty easy to stop believing once I paid attention to the logic of the situation.

Did you ever see your great great great grandmother or grand father, I dare say you did not, you rely on evidence that they were real, in the same way christians rely on the same evidence that Jesus is real. Read Genesis it give a great geneology of how we and all our relatives got here.

I do not know any rabbis, I thought we were discussing the christian belief???

MooseontheLoose wrote:You have not answerd the previous question. Is hell eternl seperation from God?

OK. Let's look at a few Old Testament references to death and what might happen after:

Job 7:20,21 - If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of humanity? Why have you made me your target? Why have I become a burden to you? Why do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity? For now I shall lie in the earth; you will seek me, but I shall not be.

Job 14:10-12 - But mortals die, and are laid low; humans expire, and where are they? As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, so mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the heavens are no more, they will not awake or be roused out of their sleep.

Ps 139:7,8 - Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.

Ecc 3:18-20 - I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from dust, and all turn to dust again.

Ecc 9:5,6 - The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.

Now -- does that give you some clues about the evolution of the docrtine of Hell?

I do not know any rabbis, I thought we were discussing the christian belief???

Maybe if you got to know one, you'd learn some worthwhile things about your own religion. That's the point, sir.

Maybe if you got to know one, you'd learn some worthwhile things about your own religion. That's the point, sir.

I am sorry if this has offended you, that is not my intention, if I met a rabbi I would diffenitly talk with him, but I have not, so there is not much I can do abot that.

I was under the impression that we were dealing with christian world views? If I was wrong Please correct me so I can further discuss this with you.

I guess I could dealwith the foundational assertion of *evolution* expressed in bIBLE tHEOLOGY, but remember, in the Bible, the End is covered very early (Gen 3:15b). Here's a little blurb that people may want to pay a little more attention to:

Deuteronomy 32:32-36 (New American Standard Bible)

32"For their vine is from the vine of Sodom,
And from the fields of Gomorrah;
Their grapes are grapes of poison,
Their clusters, bitter.
33"Their wine is the venom of serpents,
And the deadly poison of cobras.
34'Is it not laid up in store with Me,
Sealed up in My treasuries?
35'Vengeance is Mine, and retribution,
In due time their foot will slip;
For the day of their calamity is near,
And the impending things are hastening upon them.'
36"For the LORD will vindicate His people,
(G)And will have compassion on His servants,
When He sees that their strength is gone,
And there is none remaining, bond or free.

Copyright © 1960, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

For more follow this link (It's Great Reading!):
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sinners.html

The GOOD NEWS: Romans 3:21-26
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Repent and by Faith receive the Good News of redemption in Jesus Christ!

925

through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe;

I don't want to beLIEve. I want to know. I have no use for religious faith. I want knowledge, not myths.

royaldiadem wrote:Anybody know the dating of the book of Job? Or is this not the point of this thread?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html

Tradition says that Job was written by Moses. Scholarly opinion holds that the book of Job was probably written by at least two authors, one who wrote a prose prologue and epilogue that are likely quite old (say from 1000 BC or so), and one who wrote a poetic middle section, perhaps before 600 BC. There were later additions and revision of the poetry, perhaps as late as the 4th century BC. Ezekiel (prophesizing around 580 BC) mentions Job, but we do not know whether Ezekiel meant the folk-story or the scroll that we have today, or some other Job.

I hope this helps.

MooseontheLoose wrote:I am sorry if this has offended you

Perish the thought! I'm not offended. But you know how people sometimes get when discussing religion... only it gets quite sticky when discussing it with an atheist.

that is not my intention, if I met a rabbi I would diffenitly talk with him, but I have not, so there is not much I can do abot that.

Understood. I merely mention it for future reference then. All the rabbis I've talked with have been really interesting, particularly this one mystic I met for pizza up in New York.

I was under the impression that we were dealing with christian world views? If I was wrong Please correct me so I can further discuss this with you.

Sure... back to Christianity then. There are bits that are good, I freely admit. But I really can't see anything good that could possibly come from this belief in Hell. Just my observation, as an outsider, looking back and looking in. Cheers! :wink:

royaldiadem wrote:With all due respect, this is a much better rationale for the VERY EARLY DATE OF JOB:

First, I can't imagine why it should matter.
Second, the very fact that the name Satan appears in it argues for a 4th century or later writing. Being familiar with the Bible, I'm sure you can list the times that name appears elsewhere in the Old Testament.

I'm saying that the doctrine of Hell, viewed logically, leads to unspeakably cruel conclusions if it is true.

Cruel based upon who's standard of cruelty?

Discussing the actual truth of the whole religion is beside the point of this thread, IMO.

Then why argue against one of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian worldview if the truthfulness of any belief system is beside the point?

There's no real need to get bent out of shape by this, is there? Did I really say something that offensive to you personally?

How do you infer that I was "personally offended" when I merely set up a counter argument to the tune of your own to demonstrate the logically fallacy you were committing?

Dusman

I don't want to beLIEve. I want to know. I have no use for religious faith. I want knowledge, not myths.

Thanks for sharing your BELIEFS!

Dusman

Dusman wrote:
Thanks for sharing your BELIEFS!

Dusman

I didn't state any beLIEfs.