heaven and hell

[AndyHB]

You say you don't believe a person who does bad stuff can ever change, that they should be punished endlessly and they can't learn to do otherwise?

That is strange given that each of us has done bad stuff and can often feel guilty about causing hurt to others, so much so that we mend our ways and try to be better people. The refinement can start right here on Earth. You hear of criminals who have turned their lives around completely.

And this is where the confusion comes in.  Comparing what a sentient human being can and can't do whilst still alive is totally different to your claim that someone can refine themselves once dead.  For one thing, where are they going to refine themselves (I don't believe in the idea of purgatory, either)?  As far as I am aware, any such refining has to be within the context of living amongst human beings: not amongst the 'half-dead', for want of a better phrase (I'm in a hurry as I have to exit ze house in 5 minutes' time).

[Jan]

[Jan]

And this is where the confusion comes in.  Comparing what a sentient human being can and can't do whilst still alive is totally different to your claim that someone can refine themselves once dead.

That is because it is only the physical body that  actually dies (physical elements returning to the earth) - so in effect it is a continuous existence Andy because the soul/spirit/that which is 'us' cannot die - we cannot die for the life of us! The refinement does continue.

For one thing, where are they going to refine themselves (I don't believe in the idea of purgatory, either)?

They/Us  (that includes all of us BTW) refine ourselves mainly in other spiritual realms (as I think has been mentioned before).

 

As far as I am aware, any such refining has to be within the context of living amongst human beings: not amongst the 'half-dead', for want of a better phrase (I'm in a hurry as I have to exit ze house in 5 minutes' time).

'half dead' ??? - lol - It has often been said that those who are on the other side feel more alive now than what they where when living on the Earth plane.

oooh I had to edit due to a typing error - bad bad Jan!    Gotta go too now for my tea - Steve cooking pizza n chips

[saundthorp]

Hello Saundthorpe - we already know don't we (from previous debates on the previous forum) what each of our views are regarding hell, so there is no real point in going over old ground there.

Just wanted to ask you though when you say 'actually, its worse than fire' - what exactly do you think it is - bearing in mind that the physical body is dead, the spiritual body is not a physical body so in theory would not feel physical pain of anything 'a kin' to fire.

Jan,
I think some intense emotional upsets can be like a fire. I have been through some terrible emotional anguish in my life and it was like fire.
It is only my opinion but I feel separation from God might be similar to the loss of a loved one, an intense burning anguish.

[Martin]

I think some intense emotional upsets can be like a fire. I have been through some terrible emotional anguish in my life and it was like fire.
It is only my opinion but I feel separation from God might be similar to the loss of a loved one, an intense burning anguish.

I think its helpful to talk about things that happen in this life. If separation from God is like a burning fire, then those who are separated from God in this life are experiencing it in this life.

I do agree that being separated from a loved one feels like hell. That's one of the reasons that heaven and hell cannot exist as a place where people who love one another are separated after death.

[Jan]

Jan,
I think some intense emotional upsets can be like a fire. I have been through some terrible emotional anguish in my life and it was like fire.
It is only my opinion but I feel separation from God might be similar to the loss of a loved one, an intense burning anguish.

Yeah - I tend to agree

[Jan]

I do agree that being separated from a loved one feels like hell. That's one of the reasons that heaven and hell cannot exist as a place where people who love one another are separated after death.

lf we understand that Love is the most powerful force in this universe (or any universe or realm) then we understand that any separation we endure from loved ones (or God) is not forever but we go through the temporary separation as part of our learning perhaps?

[Martin]

lf we understand that Love is the most powerful force in this universe (or any universe or realm) then we understand that any separation we endure from loved ones (or God) is not forever but we go through the temporary separation as part of our learning perhaps?

I can't see the point in God separating humans who love one another.  I don't see this life, or the next, as some sort of testing or preparation ground for another existence in the future.  Sure we can learn, in this life, to make a better job of loving one another in this life.  But why would there need to be further places after death?  Having tiers of life followed by death and further life with all the grief and pain that death causes in between, seems like the design of a torturer rather than a God of Love.

[Jan]

I can't see the point in God separating humans who love one another.  I don't see this life, or the next, as some sort of testing or preparation ground for another existence in the future. 

Perhaps we are understanding this in a different way for example - physical death is a kind of separation Martin - granted only a temporary one (IMO) but still a separation of sorts. Only a small number of us can still 'see' those who have crossed over, standing before them as if they were 'alive' (as in their physical body). Spirit people can usually still see their loved ones regardless.


"Everybody in your world has to die. It is part of the law that you cannot live on earth for ever. So it is inevitable that the physical body, when it has fulfilled its function, should be severed from the spiritual body and the soul which endowed it with animation. It is thus that the transitional period can be accomplished and the soul go marching on as part of its eternal pilgramage.

It is of course sad that this happens because many of you, alas, have your spiritual vision restricted so that you see only the material, the shell, the husk, and not the underlying, sublime reality. The eyes of the spirit are open, and knows that the one you love and who loves you has left you physically but not spiritually.

Death has no power to separate those whom love has joined together and made them one in spirit". (quote from here

But why would there need to be further places after death?

Where would beings of light/spirit/souls/ that which is really 'us' go to after physical death if there weren't any further places? If you want the sciencey bit - think on the lines of energy can neither be created or destroyed.

 

Having tiers of life followed by death and further life with all the grief and pain that death causes in between, seems like the design of a torturer rather than a God of Love.

Not so much if we are aware that life carries on after physical death whilst we are here on Earth - and we are aware that our loved ones are still there.  Also memories of any other lifetimes we have had might be temporarily blocked to help spare us from pain.
 

[Martin]

Perhaps we are understanding this in a different way for example - physical death is a kind of separation Martin - granted only a temporary one (IMO) but still a separation of sorts. Only a small number of us can still 'see' those who have crossed over, standing before them as if they were 'alive' (as in their physical body). Spirit people can usually still see their loved ones regardless.

You're entitled to your opinion Jan.  Personally I don't believe that anyone can see 'those who have crossed over', I know you believe this, and that's fine - I doubt that many people are harmed by such a belief.

Where would beings of light/spirit/souls/ that which is really 'us' go to after physical death if there weren't any further places? If you want the sciencey bit - think on the lines of energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Well there was a time when both you and I didn't exist - before we were born.  Why should it not be just like that after we die?  If you want the real sciency bit, then there doesn't seem to be any good reason to propose that we should carry on after the energy that caused our brains to operate has dispersed. 

Not so much if we are aware that life carries on after physical death whilst we are here on Earth - and we are aware that our loved ones are still there.  Also memories of any other lifetimes we have had might be temporarily blocked to help spare us from pain.
 

How do you remember things when the structures that held those memories have been destroyed?  Think about alzheimers, or dementure, it is the brain that holds memories, tells us who we are and who we know.  Destroy that part of the brain that holds the memory of someone and the memory is gone.

[Jan]

You're entitled to your opinion Jan.  Personally I don't believe that anyone can see 'those who have crossed over', I know you believe this, and that's fine - I doubt that many people are harmed by such a belief.

I 'believe' it for a number of reasons Martin (one reason being that I have 'seen' along with hubby 'seeing' at the same time) - its not just 'blind faith' - not when a person has had personal proof. Also with regard to anyone who hasn't seen - well just because you can't see something, it doesn't mean that it isn't there or it doesn't exist.  If you want to learn more about what I have been going on about - then do some research and visit a Spiritualist Church (if you look on the internet you will probably find one near to where you live). That is how I learn't about it - and I am still learning

Well there was a time when both you and I didn't exist - before we were born.  Why should it not be just like that after we die? 

Just because we weren't living on Earth for a time before our birth, does not mean that we did not exist Martin.

If you want the real sciency bit, then there doesn't seem to be any good reason to propose that we should carry on after the energy that caused our brains to operate has dispersed. 

Well the real sciencey bit is that energy cannot be created or destroyed Martin - it is the first law of thermodynamics. Look it up if you don't believe me. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another

There are different types of energy Martin. The physical electro chemical energy in human brains is just one type of energy.

How do you remember things when the structures that held those memories have been destroyed?
Think about alzheimers, or dementure, it is the brain that holds memories, tells us who we are and who we know.  Destroy that part of the brain that holds the memory of someone and the memory is gone.

Remember before (in previous discussions on this subject) I mentioned about the brain being a type of 'interface' for the mind & soul/spirit? The  physical interface part can be destroyed or damaged, but that does not mean that memory cannot be held elsewhere 

lets do a bit of time traveling back to Faithspace  December 2009 - before this version of Faithspace was created - but we all still existed (lol) and our thoughts still recorded - in another place.

My view on this is that the brain is an 'interface computer' for this world and its experiences - but the brain isn't 'us'.

Quotes from The Silver Birch Book of Questions and Answers

Q - What is spirit?

A - SPIRIT is perfect in its origin, spirit possess intrinsically the creative forces of all life. Spirit is not subject to age, infirmity,wastage or to any of the defects that affect the physical body. The line of spirit evolution is from immaturity to maturity. Part of its evolution is accomplished through a physical body, which it has created for that purpose. Spirit is dominant, spirit is the king, spirit is the ruler. But here comes the paradox. There is an interaction between spirit, mind and body, and the body restricts the activity of the spirit on earth because the spirit can express itself on earth only through the body at its disposal.

[Martin]

I 'believe' it for a number of reasons Martin (one reason being that I have 'seen' along with hubby 'seeing' at the same time) - its not just 'blind faith' - not when a person has had personal proof. Also with regard to anyone who hasn't seen - well just because you can't see something, it doesn't mean that it isn't there or it doesn't exist.  If you want to learn more about what I have been going on about - then do some research and visit a Spiritualist Church (if you look on the internet you will probably find one near to where you live). That is how I learn't about it - and I am still learning

I agree with you Jan that just because I can't see something doesn't mean it's not there.  But if one person can see something, then, scientifically speaking, you'd expect others to be able to see it too. On the other hand, the power of one's mind to convince oneself is quite astounding. 

Nothing can be proved either way, but I tender the fact that my view is simpler than yours - that something seen by one where others look and can see nothing, is more simply explained by a mistake, a deception or an illusion than it is by postulating existence after one's brain has been destroyed.

Just because we weren't living on Earth for a time before our birth, does not mean that we did not exist Martin.

Indeed there are other possibilities, but again, the postulation that our 'souls' have been contained in other bodies prior to our birth seems unnecessarily overcomplicated when compared to the observation that, as our brains form and develop so does our intellect and our personality.  I see no necessity to propose the existence of a soul as something separate from that. To me it seems like saying that, when I fry an egg and the white goes white, this is not down to the proteins denaturing because of the heat, but down to an unseen and unmeasurable cosmic force instigated by the action of frying, that just happens to coincide with the application of heat.  The second explanation is possible, it fits all the facts, but it is preposterous because there is a perfectly good and reasonable much simpler explanation to hand.

Well the real sciencey bit is that energy cannot be created or destroyed Martin - it is the first law of thermodynamics. Look it up if you don't believe me. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another

Why should I not believe you Jan?  I was a research scientist for a number of years after all!  The energy that makes me me and you you is easily identifiable. It's held in chemicals and heat in my brain and yours. Talk of 'beings of light/spirit/souls/, that which is really 'us', going somehwere after physical death' is nothing to do with energy not being created or destroyed - the energy which makes me and you only does so while it is in the circuitry of our brains, after that is dissipates because of the second law of thermodynamics.  If you want an analogy, we are like a computer program running in a computer with no permanent storage (only battery backed).  When the power is switched off and the battery runs down to nothing, the program ceases to exist.

There are different types of energy Martin. The physical electro chemical energy in human brains is just one type of energy.

True - all of them are measurable and detectable by anybody, not visible to some and not to others.

Remember before (in previous discussions on this subject) I mentioned about the brain being a type of 'interface' for the mind & soul/spirit?

No, the brain is an interface into the bloob, the bloob holds only memories of ice cream and peanut and discards all others.  - I've just invented the bloob btw, but there is as much proof and reason behind its existence as your postulation, the 'soul'.  Yes BOTH the soul and the bloob are possibilities but there is no need to postulate either. There is a much simpler, much more obvious explanation.

[AndyHB]

I do agree that being separated from a loved one feels like hell. That's one of the reasons that heaven and hell cannot exist as a place where people who love one another are separated after death.

Why, Martin?  Are you suggesting that the only important element in our eternal destiny is our love for one or more other humans?  Isn't our love for the creator of more importance?  OK, if one is of the belief that there is no creator, then this doesn't apply - but does the concept of heaven/hell exist for such a person?

Send him an email and let him know why you think he is wrong if it bothers you that much. It doesn't affect the info he has added in my view

Did the even better thing, and made a comment on the webpage.  Mind you, haven't had a chance to go back and see if its been accepted by the moderator.

By the way, my comments about the spelling, etc., refer to boxes on the main home page.  These will have been created especially for this homepage, rather like an abstract for a journal article.  One, the 'Articles on ...' box, list a number of articles, but there is absolutely no indication that 1) they are the titles of articles or 2) where the titles change in this initial box.  Instead, the text in the box is simply a jumble of words.  A good quality website would make it clear that they are different titles by having each on a separate line, or at least by putting a punctuation separator in - such as a semi-colon.

As for the box that refers to a site entitled 'The truth about Hell' by Terry Watkins, I'd debate WTHIH's suggestion that Watkins is a Christian fundamentalist - from reading his site a bit more he's even further out than that.

[AndyHB]

Nothing can be proved either way, but I tender the fact that my view is simpler than yours ...

Unfortunately, as I am sure you will confirm from your own professional background, Martin, 'simpler' doesn't necessarily equate to 'truer'.

[Martin]

Unfortunately, as I am sure you will confirm from your own professional background, Martin, 'simpler' doesn't necessarily equate to 'truer'.

No of course it doesn't, but which overcomplications do you pick?  For example, you might ask yourself the question, 'Why do we have tides?',  the simple, boring explanation is that it's down, mainly, to the gravitational pull of the Moon on the Earth.   There are any number of complicated ones which fit the facts, but for which there is no reproducible evidence.  I'll give you three.

1. Tides are down to gnomes who live, secretively on the other side of the moon who use a gadget called a turkulator to attract the water in the oceans causing it to swell slightly.

2. The tides and the moon are forming a complicated dance because both really are sentient beings  with whom certain privileged people can hold a conversation.

3. Tides are completely ficticious, they are actually a mass hallucination caused by the proximity of green Martian snowstorms, which fall occasionally on Mars but are undetectable by humans.

My point is that the sheer number of other complicated explanations, which are completely unsupported by anything other than hearsay, are utterly limitless.  One holds no more weight than another because none derive from any factual evidence.  If more people believe number 1 than believe number 3 it's, pretty much, immaterial since, when the proposals are analysed, there are no facts whatsoever to support any of them.

We do have the reproducible fact of gravitational pull which would fully explain the tides showing that tides are exactly what you'd expect to happen when a moon the size. mass and distance of ours orbits a planet like ours. We can't prove that tides are down to gravity, but it's not like gravity ranks alongside lunar gnomes in likelihood as an explanation.