Heaven and Hell - Products of the mind?

[Orion Balls]

They way I figure, I only get one life, and the way I impact those around me decides what lives on after I'm dead and under a tree. I don't think I will go to Heaven or Hell, but what I do with my life can render others' lives harder or easier in the future.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

It isn't until the latin translations of the Roman church which used the word aeternus that Hell began being preached as eternal damnation

The Eastern churches also believe in eternal damnation, and have been unambiguous about its eternality, even if some (i.e. a stark minority) of their venerated saints have been optimistic about who actually goes there.

Anyone who speaks exclusively about the RCC when discussing the history of doctrine (talking about things like the "influence of St. Augustine", who-- while recognized as a saint all the same-- hardly had any strong influence beyond the Roman church) invariably has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Duel 1

LET'S ROCK!

RJD has got ya covered.

 

[Ars Goetia]

The Eastern churches also believe in eternal damnation, and have been unambiguous about its eternality, even if some (i.e. a stark minority) of their venerated saints have been optimistic about who actually goes there.

Anyone who speaks exclusively about the RCC when discussing the history of doctrine (talking about things like the "influence of St. Augustine", who-- while recognized as a saint all the same-- hardly had any strong influence beyond the Roman church) invariably has no idea what they're talking about.

If you'll note, I mentioned the influence of Augustine in addendum of the general power that the principle of eternal damnation gave the western church. I am aware of the very strange position that Augustine has in the east as both being a Saint and author of multiple heretical texts. I will admit bias against Augustine and took the unneeded opportunity to trash talk him a little. On the other hand, he does offer good evidence that universal salvation was either the majority view of the Western Church in his time or at the very least had a large presence. Indeed, he states so himself in his Enchiridion at 112; "immo quam plurimi". Given the extent of Augustine's influence and the subsequent reduction in universalists, I would say there is some relation between the two.If you believe another factor is of more importance then fair enough. The Eastern Church is as you rightly point out its own matter. Its actually far more clean cut there in my opinion. Universal salvation wasn't not initially declared heretical by the eastern church but the Emperor Justinian. The church itself wouldn't make such a pronouncement until the trial of Origen and Clement at or before the second council of Constantinople. In that case, belief in universal salvation was damned by association with their other heretical teachings of spiritual resurrection and Platonism.

With those additions for historical accuracy out the way, I still stand by the general point I was making. I should note that none of what I said is exclusive to the RCC (they just offer a good example in Charlemagne) or even Christianity in general. The same pattern can be seen across almost all religions. Religious authorities will always leverage the threat of divine punishment to coerce secular authority.

I would however contend that you're simplifying the Orthodox Church's view of salvation. At the end of the day though, we could quibble over denominations until kingdom come. There's the old joke about two Northern Baptists on a bridge; every Church thinks it's right and all the others are heretics. As I said in my first post though, we know what the earliest Christian creed consisted of as preached by the disciples and then Paul after his conversion. What Paul preaches in 1 Corinthians 15 is what the first teachings of the church was based on:

1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive
1 Corinthians 15:28 - When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all​

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

I have no interest in addressing the religious posts; anything bar the Roman Catholic position has had little to no impact on the development on the modern perception of Hell in the dominant western cultural hegemony so there's no point talking about others in this venue likely populated by other Europeans, Americans (Both North and Southern continents) and Australia so I'll focus on Hell as a purely mythical concept.

I find some truth in Voltaire's statement that "I might not be religious, but I expect my servants to be" (An idea he followed as far as actually funding the construction of a church on his own land). Religious people won't like this but there is a reason Atheism tends to correspond with a higher level of education; Atheists may not be innately smarter or have higher IQ's but they do tend to be more rational and that is a skill that can be learned by most, but not all people.

There are some people for whom the threat of a father in the sky wielding the same carrot and stick that their own parents used to guide them through life, being drip-fed a very basic and absolute moral code is the best way to corral them so they don't become too much of a threat to the stable functioning of a society.

However, I would say that Hell is becoming obsolete, and to a lesser degree Heaven as well; with the level of CCTV and state surveillance now there is the very real potential for an all-seeing entity to see all you do and assign you immediate punishment. You don't need to wait for Satan to roast you, Tyrone will happily do it in a jail you will most certainly be going to as soon as someone watches the tape or reads the logs confirming you looked at something your government doesn't like. As bad as life may seem sometimes at the bottom of western societies, very few ever really experience the "Hell" that was life for a medieval peasant for whom the promise of an eternal life after a lifetime of unending toil and torment was their only hope. The welfare state where few starve and support is freely given to those who need has replaced the need to look to the next world; and that is something easily verified as it's the poorest nations that are the most religious. The lower the poverty, the lower the level of petty crime and religiosity. Both are ultimately escapes from reality or an attempt to rebel and improve ones lot in life illicitly.

There is no heaven, no kind smile on high neither nor malicious boogeyman down below. There is only one hell, and it's the one we live in now.

 

[Guts Gets Some]

Atheist time.
You rot in the ground.
There.

Or if you have any class, you don't rot and instead just sit back at home inside a stylish, compact vase.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I am aware of the very strange position that Augustine has in the east as both being a Saint and author of multiple heretical texts.

The East doesn't consider him the author of heretical texts, canonically.

On the other hand, he does offer good evidence that universal salvation was either the majority view of the Western Church in his time or at the very least had a large presence.

That's an equivocation. Either it was the majority position or it wasn't, and even if it had a "large presence"-- whatever that means-- that doesn't vindicate the position within the confines of Christian doctrine as informed by Scripture and the historical tradition in which it was formed and inhabits. I'd be inclined to say that "large presence" means "warranted being addressed by a council", but councils back then were convened conservatively to dogmatize on really controversial issues (e.g. Arianism). If it took the Fifth Ecumenical Council for it to be addressed, as an item within a collection of beliefs (Origenism), which was addressed beside another particular belief (Nestorianism), and you didn't see break aways after the dogmatizations like you saw from particularly the Fourth Ecumenical Council, that all strongly implies the condemnation of universalism by council wasn't controversial, and thus wasn't an important doctrine.

But it would be an important doctrine, because it describes a particular eschatology. That, by itself, suggests that there was no strong contingent within the presbytery that taught universal salvation.

Universal salvation wasn't not initially declared heretical by the eastern church but the Emperor Justinian.

You misunderstand the point of dogma if you're saying this. You likely mean to suggest that he strongarmed the Church into condemning the doctrine of universal salvation, except that you've repeatedly had clerics and the like go as far as resisting the empire (e.g. Athanasius, Maximus) for the sake of orthodox doctrine (or at least, what they consider such)-- if there was a strong contingent that believed in universal salvation, there would have been struggle about this specific matter.

Secondly, and most importantly, I reiterate what I said before: dogma, historically, and particularly in an ecumenical council, was only declared under what were recognized as extreme circumstances. The Trinity was declared dogma in the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, for example, because of the great disturbance that Arianism (and its lookalikes) had been causing within the Church (and as far as the emperor was concerned, the empire). If it wasn't a controversy that was seen as demanding a council (of any kind), they didn't convene a council.

That doesn't mean that something wasn't doctrine before its dogmatization, or that it wasn't understood as orthodox doctrine. Dogmatization is meant to enshrine orthodox doctrine when said doctrine is vigorously opposed, to the detriment to the unified pedagogical and liturgical capacities of the Church. If universal salvation wasn't addressed until the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while that could mean that it was accepted before it wasn't (such is a rather cynical viewpoint), it more than likely means that until then, the Church ecumenical didn't see it as an impediment to its functions because it wasn't actually popular enough to warrant more than stern warnings and excommunications.

If the doctrine of universal salvation was condemned as part of Origenism, that doesn't mean that it wasn't condemned particularly. They didn't say "we condemn Origenism", they said "we condemn such and such teachings of Origen". Origen was a Christian (however "mad scientist" he was with his doctrines), and some of his teachings were referred to in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

...but we're talking about the second Origenist crisis.

Religious authorities will always leverage the threat of divine punishment to coerce secular authority.

Weren't you suggesting that Justinian, somehow, declared the doctrines heretical?

I would however contend that you're simplifying the Orthodox Church's view of salvation.

I mentioned "the Eastern Churches", which would include the (Eastern) Orthodox Church, the (Oriental) Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. All of them believe in eternal damnation. Stating this isn't an oversimplification of doctrine-- that's a statement about a segment of a particular doctrine they all have. I could mention that the Eastern Orthodox largely believe that "heaven" and "hell" are particular experiences of God's presence by the soul (as all souls return to God), and that the soul opposed to God "experiences hell", but outside of that, souls ultimately tended towards God experience different levels of Purgatory-ish purification as part of their continued theosis, including maybe none at all.

But that's not relevant to this discussion. "Denominations" aren't relevant, because we weren't speaking of denominations.

Religious people won't like this but there is a reason Atheism tends to correspond with a higher level of education; Atheists may not be innately smarter or have higher IQ's but they do tend to be more rational and that is a skill that can be learned by most, but not all people.

You're asserting that higher levels of education is synonymous with greater rationality? Let's forget that institutions of learning were initially religious, and for the longest time, the only way you were going to be strongly literate (if at all) outside of being of higher class was to become a priest or monk-- have you been to universities?

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

You're asserting that higher levels of education is synonymous with greater rationality? Let's forget that institutions of learning were initially religious, and for the longest time, the only way you were going to be strongly literate (if at all) outside of being of higher class was to become a priest or monk-- have you been to universities?

I'm not suggesting all higher education leads to rational thinking; we have gender studies after all. It can depend on what you study; but there is a good reason why Liberty Univerisity and the Pontifical College of Rome haven't turned out a great mind of anything bar Theology for the past three hundered years that they haven't gone on to later proclaim a heretic at some point in their lives (See Mendel and all his ilk, though they do like to recant their condemnation and rehabilitate their image if it suits). They're now even behind modern scholarship of their own texts.

You're also forgetting that what a university was back several hundred years ago is not what a university is today. The depth of study was actually lower in the medieval period, they covered a much more wide curriculum and studied it for far longer than modern graduates do today with their more specialized and focused knowledge.

I'm saying that someone who has studied a STEM subject, the traditional humanities etc is more likely to have developed critical thinking skills. This is not something taught to Theologians by and large let alone high school/home school grad religious individuals and why even upper-tier Theologians tend to really fall flat on their faces when confronted by modern focused philosophers; they've rarely got the thinking tools developed to trade blows with these people.

They can come up with a splendid piece of historical parroting, but never really go beyond there and think much for themselves. It's not their fault, ecclesiastical endorsed theology departments (and not all are) today and for some time actively discourages openly doing it.

Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent

Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent Satoshi Kanazawa London School of Economics and Political Science University College London Birkbeck College University of London Where do individual values and preferences come from? Why do people want what they want? And why do different...

www.asanet.org

Or a more condensed version

Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study

Religious people are, on average, less intelligent than atheists, researchers claim. With the number of people with a religious belief on the rise – it’s predicted that people with no faith will make up only 13 per cent of the global population by 2050 – numerous studies have explored the...

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Ilikeoreos]

Thanks OP. That particular story you mentioned ranks very high on my list of "things I wish I never read about and don't like to be reminded of"

I REALLY REALLY wish someone would start some kind of movement demanding that the Tokyo police apologize to the entire world for not hanging those guys and pay that girls family. This story is one of the few things that makes my shoulder devil legitimately want to react like a muslim who just saw a drawing of Mohammed

 

[knobslobbin]

If there are infinite realities then some of them are sure to meet our definition of heaven or hell. But why restrict our speculation to two out of all of the possibilities? I'm more interested in what it's like where time is multi dimensional, like when spacetime flows down the throat of a blackhole, or realities where causality is completely different. Clearly you need more drugs in your life

 

[Zarael]

If you'll note, I mentioned the influence of Augustine in addendum of the general power that the principle of eternal damnation gave the western church. I am aware of the very strange position that Augustine has in the east as both being a Saint and author of multiple heretical texts. I will admit bias against Augustine and took the unneeded opportunity to trash talk him a little.

Are you a Dyerite? Augustine is not the author of "multiple heretical texts", no Church says that. A very few Orthodox polemicists have an axe to grind against Augustine and his theology but they're the Eastern Orthodox equivalent of the SSPX, hardly worth considering when we're discussing Orthodox theology. They are not representative of Orthodox views and their bias against Augustines theology stems from being anti-Catholic more than an adherence to genuine Orthodox theology.

every Church thinks it's right and all the others are heretics.

Universalism isn't even within the ballpark of orthodox Christian theology though. It's not a view held by any Church until around the 1960s with Unitarian Universalism which can hardly be called "Christian" religion in any real sense, rather a hodge podge of new age ideas with Christian trappings. This isn't about denominations. This is about the fact that if you're a universalist then you might as well be a Mormon because they're both about as far from orthodox Christian teaching as each other.

why even upper-tier Theologians tend to really fall flat on their faces when confronted by modern focused philosophers; they've rarely got the thinking tools developed to trade blows with these people.

Atheist philosophers can rarely trade blows with William Lane Craig let alone someone like David Bentley Hart, Alvin Plantinga or John Milbank.

 

[Ars Goetia]

On the Eastern Churches

My knowledge of the Eastern Churches is fairly limited and see now is in many ways it may be incorrect. This is one of the reasons I focused on the RCC and by extension St. Augustine. I appreciate you taking the time to correct me on thos points. I could be so kind, could you recommend some sources

That's an equivocation. Either it was the majority position or it wasn't
[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the confusion, I should have made clear what I meant when I said that. "Immo quam plurimi" can be translated either to mean "a great many" or simply as "a majority." Rather than simply saying that it was a majority I wanted to acknowledge that it could be interpreted either way without additional supporting evidence to determine which is more accurate a translation.

Either it was the majority position or it wasn't, and even if it had a "large presence"-- whatever that means-- that doesn't vindicate the position within the confines of Christian doctrine as informed by Scripture and the historical tradition in which it was formed and inhabits. I'd be inclined to say that "large presence" means "warranted being addressed by a council", but councils back then were convened conservatively to dogmatize on really controversial issues (e.g. Arianism).

You contract this when you say:

the Church ecumenical didn't see it as an impediment to its functions because it wasn't actually popular enough to warrant more than stern warnings and excommunications.

AND

if there was a strong contingent that believed in universal salvation, there would have been struggle about this specific matter.

Your argument is that universalism wasn't important or popular enough to be addressed but, also, when it was addressed it was neither important nor popular. In fact, St. Augustine claims that it was popular. In addition, he wrote many works which included arguments against both universaism and other alternative views of salvation. This further suggests that they were popular enough to be worth allocating a considerable amount of time to argue against. Why is that it was only two centuries later that universalism was worthy of a council when there is no evidence that it remained popular and some of its main proponents were tried posthumously?

Let put that aside though. Let us assume that universalism was an extreme minority view and did not have the presence that St. Augustine claimed it had. I'll argue that if it were heretical before the teachings of Augustine in the west or the in the east before the 5th Ecumenical Council that it would have required addressing far earlier.

Aside from how many preached it, who preached is an equally important question. I won't rhyme off a list of early Christians who were universalists but rather will focus on 2 powerful examples. Firstly, there is Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory was a staunch universalist. If universalism was unofficially considered heretical and was only tolerated since it was it was not popular or controversial enough to be decided at a council then why was he allowed such a prominent role in the second ecumenical council? Did the Churches simply allow a heretic to have authority over deciding the core teachings of Christianity only because his particular brand of heresy was just not popular enough to dispute? The likely response to this is to suggest that as with Origen that the Church still accepted many of his views just not those of universalism. However, at the 5th Ecumenical despite condemning Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and his preaching in general were praised. This is despite him still being known as a prominent universalist as shown by Barsanuphius of Palestine's writings.

Secondly, there is St. Paul. Throughout his epistles he preached universal salvation. I have quoted 1 Corinthians 15 elsewhere in the thread and many Pauline verse are among those quoted under a spoiler in another post on this thread. The question is then, was St. Paul departing from what other early Christians believed? However, Paul relates that Peter, John, and James affirmed his preaching in Galatians 2:6. He goes even further to say that the others pillars preached the exact same message in 1 Corinthians 15. If you believe that John the evangelist was the one who wrote the Gospel of John and/or revelations then that would be a strong indication for early universalism as those works too appear to strongly support it. Paul thus relates that Peter, James and John also taught universalism.

What if Paul is lying though and they didn't approve his teachings? Well, we know that both James and Peter addressed early heresies yet they did not appear to have sanctioned. Neither did any other prominent Christian who we know despite many being acquainted with Paul. Despite the amount of writing we have from this period, no Christian writer attempts to challenge Paul on his belief that all will be saved.

We also know from the Muratorian Fragment that Paul's Epistles were considered New Testament canon by the mid 2nd century. This implies that Paul's teachings were accepted widely in the early church. Why then were Paul's heretical teachings not seen as an obstacle for his inclusion into the Bible itself? These 2 examples indicate that not only did early Christianity accept universalism but from the beginning that the pillars of the church taught it.

I'm saying that someone who has studied a STEM subject, the traditional humanities etc is more likely to have developed critical thinking skills. This is not something taught to Theologians by and large let alone high school/home school grad religious individuals and why even upper-tier Theologians tend to really fall flat on their faces when confronted by modern focused philosophers; they've rarely got the thinking tools developed to trade blows with these people.

They can come up with a splendid piece of historical parroting, but never really go beyond there and think much for themselves. It's not their fault, ecclesiastical endorsed theology departments (and not all are) today and for some time actively discourages openly doing it.

Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent

Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent Satoshi Kanazawa London School of Economics and Political Science University College London Birkbeck College University of London Where do individual values and preferences come from? Why do people want what they want? And why do different...

www.asanet.org

Or a more condensed version

Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study

Religious people are, on average, less intelligent than atheists, researchers claim. With the number of people with a religious belief on the rise – it’s predicted that people with no faith will make up only 13 per cent of the global population by 2050 – numerous studies have explored the...

www.independent.co.uk

The empirical evidence offered in your first source and the source cited in your second article are both taken from American samples. A multi country meta analysis of studies on the relationship between religion and intelligence (http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18228/jdm18228.html) demonstrate that that is a significant problem. This meta analysis found that the lower a countries average religious belief, the higher that religion actually corresponded with greater analytical skill. The most striking is the UK.

The analysis demonstrates that it seems more logical to conclude that people with low analytical skills will cohere to the majority view of their culture without considering it critically. Therefore, it isn't that people are religious or are atheists because they are more or less intelligent. Rather, many people are atheists or theists (depending on their culture) because they are already less intelligent.

Augustine is not the author of "multiple heretical texts", no Church says that

Sorry, that's me being dumb. I misremembered the Orthodox view on his teachings of Filioque. Thank you for correcting me. I think I need to do more reading on the Eastern churches in general.

Universalism isn't even within the ballpark of orthodox Christian theology though

I strongly disagree. 1 Corinthians 15 is derived from the earliest Christian preaching and thus universalism is the most orthodox view of Christianity. Paul makes clear that all are to be saved: 1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. A common response to this is to translate this as those "who belong to Christ" and imply that that does not include every one. I would then cite 1 Corinthians 15:28 which says regardless that all indeed do belong to Christ.

You are right to say that universalism backed by new age beliefs are really stupid. I don't base my view on any such new age view. I ground that belief in the scriptures.

 

[FunPosting101]

Heaven and Hell are most likely fictional places made up by human beings a long-ass time ago. So yeah, they kinda are mental constructs of a sort.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

I believe in an afterlife as an "externalized inner reality" (as David Staume put it). So, heaven/hell "reflect" one's state of mind, and the afterlife is "based on mind" -- and feels "more real" than physical reality. Also I hope hell is not permanent.

To put it another way, the afterlife may be like the "Nexus" in Star Trek. I think Swedenborg (1688-1772) was more or less right.

God in this belief is the very essence of Love and Truth.

 

[comrade666]

Heaven and Hell as concepts described by man are entirely fictitious. I wouldn't put any stock into texts written at most a few thousand years ago by those seeking power through control. More optimistically, you're looking at texts written by the mentally ill who sincerely believed they had been visited by a deity. If you base your moral code and life path on those texts, then best of luck.

 

[SregginKcuf]

Hell is on earth, thanks to the COVID 19 crap which was predicted by two George's - Orwell and Carlin

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Hell wants you to think that Heaven is boring, Heaven wants you to think Hell is Hell. I think the latter underestimated people's self-destructiveness.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'm saying that someone who has studied a STEM subject, the traditional humanities etc is more likely to have developed critical thinking skills.

Can you explain what you consider to be the difference between critical thinking skills and thinking skills?

Why do you say that atheists don't have higher IQ, but do have more rationality and then cite two articles that say they're smarter? Wouldn't it be irrational to both trust a source and then take a different conclusion?

 

[Ars Goetia]

@comrade666 , I though I would respond to some of your points since they're fairly common objections to Christianity. I'll also give you a few points you might find useful if you want to make similar arguments in the future.

I'm going to spoiler my responses as they are not necessarily related to Heaven and Hell themselves but the source of their teachings. Also, I don't want to shit up the thread anymore than I have already. Corona has given me far too much free time to kill and I'll understand if you don't read everything. всего хорошего Comrade.

I wouldn't put any stock into texts written at most a few thousand years ago by those seeking power through control.

Spoiler: Response 1

It's important to remember the historic context of when Jesus lived and later when the Gospels where written. If you're goal is power and control then Christianity is a really bad religion to make up. The Jewish idea of the Messiah was a great warrior that would conquer the Roman Empire. They also had a very different concept of God and the afterlife compared to Jesus' teaching of the trinity of ressurection. Similarly, the Romans and Greeks mainly believed in a spiritual afterlife. In fact, most pagan beliefs at the time actively detested the idea of a physical Resurrection as they hoped for escape from the weakness of flesh. In both cases the first witnesses mentioned for the central revelation of Christianity were women who testimony neither society considered as worth anything. In fact, it was almost worthless in court. This was actually a point the early critics of Christianity, particularly Celsus, hammered them for.

There are other things if you were making up a religion that you wouldn't include. There's the fact that the Christians chose a Messiah who was an impoverished Rabbi that was crushed like a cockroach by his opponents. He wasn't exactly Zeus, let's put it that way. Aside from that, the Bible claims that James the first bishop of the Church during Jesus' life though that he was a madman, an embarrassment, and even mocked him to his face. His favored disciple? He denied him 3 times and ran away. Paul, the most influential preacher? He was a murderous persecutor and who participated in the execution of the first Christian martyr. If you want to make your religious leaders seem credible then you probably wouldn't mention those things.

There's also the issue of Paul who already had power and control. He was a Roman citizen whose writings indicate that he was well educated. He held a position of authority as a high ranking Pharisee. He was also given the task of rooting out the most extensive heresy in Jewish history something that would have stood him in good stead for future advances. Despite that, he chose to become a travelling peasant who received beatings, was stoned, put on trial, imprisoned for long periods of time, and eventually executed. If Paul preached Christianity for power through control then he was the biggest idiot in the world. As were the disciples. We have a 1st century source for the martyrdom of most of the disciples and a 2nd century source for John's death. They only thing they gained for themselves in their lifetime was ridicule and pain.

It was later that the Church became a tool of power and authority. If you want to see the point where that becomes undeniable then I would suggest researching the persecution of the Donatists or later on the Albigensian Crusade. If you want to make the argument that the later church was or is trying to achieve "power through control" then by all means make that argument. I certainly do.

More optimistically, you're looking at texts written by the mentally ill who sincerely believed they had been visited by a deity.

Spoiler: Response 2

Before getting on to my argument I would first recommend "The New Testament : A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" by Bart Ehrman is a good introduction for anyone wanting to look at the Bible as a historical document and especially if you are interested in the skeptical viewpoint. I say that so that you have a basis with which to check the truth of my next sentence. The historical facts I am going to state and any references to the Bible are ones that the vast majority of skeptical Historians agree are reliable. In accordance, the agreed upon list of supposed witnesses to the Resurrection is found in 1 Corinthians 15. This is generally accepted as, aside from Paul's name, the list can be traced back to shortly after these It includes 3 individual appearances to Peter, Paul and, James. This is in addition to appearance(s) to 3 groups: all of the 12 disciples, to all the apostles, and to a group of 500 at once.

I would caution against using the mental illness argument, skeptic historians used to favor the hallucination theory for a reason. You need to posit some sort of mental illness which inflicted several hundred people, which resulted in almost identical experience, and for some of them involved only a single mental episode in their entire life such as Paul and James. Furthermore, outside of a specific period of Paul's conversion, the appearances all occurred over a limited period of time. We know that the disciples taught in different areas from each other yet there is no indication that any of them received any further "revelations" as the result of a mental illness. There were certainly minor regional differences in teaching in regards to principles such as Jewish law and Christian liberty but no one claims to have received new teachings from Jesus. Paul claims that he was the last one to see him and historians agree that Paul was converted 2 years after the cross. Any posited illness therefore must last at maximum 2 years but also end after only one incident as well as appearing to have never been recorded again in history.

In addition, there is no disease which explains the symptoms which would be associated with the experience especially without modern medicine. Diseases such as schizophrenia result in extremely disordered thoughts which greatly worsen over time without treatment. Nonetheless, Paul was able to write coherent arguments and used complex rhetorical devices in the original Greek writings. There have been arguments made for conversion disorder to explain the physical effects of Paul's experience but that doesn't produce hallucinations. Some of the disciples also preached for decades yet seemingly did not apparently degenerate into raving lunatics. Peter for instance continued preaching for nearly 40 years based on our sources for his martyrdom. In all, you need to argue for some sort of mental illness that lasts for a short but varying time, was suffered from by hundreds of people in one small area of Judea, that has never occurred again and is currently unknown to modern psychiatry. These are a few reasons why 100 hundred years ago when the hallucination theory was still used extensively that it was favored; you need to prove far less in order to make the same point.

Concerning the hallucination theory, while its stronger than the mental illness argument there are also reasons why it has declined in use. I'll give you a few quick refutations for this theory as well. These also apply for the most part to the mental illness theory.

1. Modern research in psychiatric science has found that hallucinations are subjective personal experience. There is not a single confirmed case in any medical literature of a unified group hallucination. Anecdotally you can check this yourself, you can say to someone that you're seeing a vision of something and describe it as vividly as you want. That person won't suddenly see what you're supposedly seeing, hallucinations are not infectious. Even where everyone in a group are all in a mental state to hallucinate (say through drugs) their experience is still individual and varying. There is one prominent case that was investigated as a group hallucination. That was the supposed miracle of the sun at Fátima. However, the witness testimony all varied greatly on what they had actually seen. More importantly, all their visions could be explained as caused by staring directly at the sun which they were all doing at the time. Therefore, you need to show firstly that group hallucinations are even possible and then that they cohere sufficiently for an agreement on what was seen. Essentially, you must show that a psychiatric phenomena which has never before been recorded yet happened multiple times to a small set of people in specific region and only in relation to one specific subject matter.

2. The causes of hallucinations affect various demographics at different rates and require certain mindsets. Biologically, Peter was very different from Mary Magdalene. In mindset the disciples were very different from the unbelievers of Paul and James. You would need to indicates some form of hallucination which can occur across these demographics with a reliable enough rate to affect all of these people. Their hallucinations must have various different causes but the same effect.

3. Hallucinations don't empty tombs, you need to come up for another reason why the tomb was empty. Despite the earliest christian preaching being in and around Jerusalem (according to both the Bible and the Roman historian Tacitus) where Jesus' tomb supposedly was nobody appears to have been able to just go and fetch the body.

How do we know he even had a tomb? Two separate tombs have been found which contain crucifixion victims. Also, the 1st Century Jewish historian, Josephus, recorded that despite the Romans crucifying so many Jews after the Jewish war that they literally ran out of wood that families were still allowed to collect the bodies for burial.

How do we know it was empty? Every critical early Jewish source which mentions the burial of Jesus claims that the disciples stole the body. This essentially admits an empty tomb. While the Roman critics also took this line, archaeologists have also discovered that the Romans passed a law specifically applying to Israel, the Nazareth decree, at around 40 AD. The law indicates that the rolling of stones from tombs and the stealing of bodies will thereafter incur the death penalty. Nowhere else in the Roman Empire was so severe a punishment made for these actions. In fact, they were considered minor crimes. Circumstantial I know but in light of the cross cultural enemy attestation it is difficult to refute a connection.

Of course you could say the disciples did steel the body. In which case they wouldn't believe their hallucinations while Christ's body is sitting on their sofa. If they were making up an empty tomb they also wouldn't have the main witnesses in their story be women whose testimony was worthless in that era. Nor would they thereafter live a life of hardship and poverty not willingly preach despite the threat of execution for beliefs that they absolutely knew to be false.

If you base your moral code and life path on those texts, then best of luck.

Spoiler: Response 3 (This one's short, I promise)

The central Christian moral teaching is to love thy neighbor as they self. In the study of ethics this is known as the golden rule and is found in virtually every ethical system both religious and secular. The chances are that you follow the same moral code.

As for them being thousands of years old, I'm aware of many people who still follow the philosophy of Aristotle or Plato despite their age. Furthermore, even if you think Jesus was nothing more than a normal Jewish Rabbi then I still would argue that his ethical teachings hold up.

 

[comrade666]

@comrade666 , I though I would respond to some of your points since they're fairly common objections to Christianity. I'll also give you a few points you might find useful if you want to make similar arguments in the future.

I'm going to spoiler my responses as they are not necessarily related to Heaven and Hell themselves but the source of their teachings. Also, I don't want to shit up the thread anymore than I have already. Corona has given me far too much free time to kill and I'll understand if you don't read everything. всего хорошего Comrade.

Spoiler: Response 1

It's important to remember the historic context of when Jesus lived and later when the Gospels where written. If you're goal is power and control then Christianity is a really bad religion to make up. The Trump's Chosen idea of the Messiah was a great warrior that would conquer the Roman Empire. They also had a very different concept of God and the afterlife compared to Jesus' teaching of the trinity of ressurection. Similarly, the Romans and Greeks mainly believed in a spiritual afterlife. In fact, most pagan beliefs at the time actively detested the idea of a physical Resurrection as they hoped for escape from the weakness of flesh. In both cases the first witnesses mentioned for the central revelation of Christianity were women who testimony neither society considered as worth anything. In fact, it was almost worthless in court. This was actually a point the early critics of Christianity, particularly Celsus, hammered them for.

There are other things if you were making up a religion that you wouldn't include. There's the fact that the Christians chose a Messiah who was an impoverished Rabbi that was crushed like a cockroach by his opponents. He wasn't exactly Zeus, let's put it that way. Aside from that, the Bible claims that James the first bishop of the Church during Jesus' life though that he was a madman, an embarrassment, and even mocked him to his face. His favored disciple? He denied him 3 times and ran away. Paul, the most influential preacher? He was a murderous persecutor and who participated in the execution of the first Christian martyr. If you want to make your religious leaders seem credible then you probably wouldn't mention those things.

There's also the issue of Paul who already had power and control. He was a Roman citizen whose writings indicate that he was well educated. He held a position of authority as a high ranking Pharisee. He was also given the task of rooting out the most extensive heresy in Trump's Chosen history something that would have stood him in good stead for future advances. Despite that, he chose to become a travelling peasant who received beatings, was stoned, put on trial, imprisoned for long periods of time, and eventually executed. If Paul preached Christianity for power through control then he was the biggest idiot in the world. As were the disciples. We have a 1st century source for the martyrdom of most of the disciples and a 2nd century source for John's death. They only thing they gained for themselves in their lifetime was ridicule and pain.

It was later that the Church became a tool of power and authority. If you want to see the point where that becomes undeniable then I would suggest researching the persecution of the Donatists or later on the Albigensian Crusade. If you want to make the argument that the later church was or is trying to achieve "power through control" then by all means make that argument. I certainly do.

Spoiler: Response 2

Before getting on to my argument I would first recommend "The New Testament : A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" by Bart Ehrman is a good introduction for anyone wanting to look at the Bible as a historical document and especially if you are interested in the skeptical viewpoint. I say that so that you have a basis with which to check the truth of my next sentence. The historical facts I am going to state and any references to the Bible are ones that the vast majority of skeptical Historians agree are reliable. In accordance, the agreed upon list of supposed witnesses to the Resurrection is found in 1 Corinthians 15. This is generally accepted as, aside from Paul's name, the list can be traced back to shortly after these It includes 3 individual appearances to Peter, Paul and, James. This is in addition to appearance(s) to 3 groups: all of the 12 disciples, to all the apostles, and to a group of 500 at once.

I would caution against using the mental illness argument, skeptic historians used to favor the hallucination theory for a reason. You need to posit some sort of mental illness which inflicted several hundred people, which resulted in almost identical experience, and for some of them involved only a single mental episode in their entire life such as Paul and James. Furthermore, outside of a specific period of Paul's conversion, the appearances all occurred over a limited period of time. We know that the disciples taught in different areas from each other yet there is no indication that any of them received any further "revelations" as the result of a mental illness. There were certainly minor regional differences in teaching in regards to principles such as Trump's Chosen law and Christian liberty but no one claims to have received new teachings from Jesus. Paul claims that he was the last one to see him and historians agree that Paul was converted 2 years after the cross. Any posited illness therefore must last at maximum 2 years but also end after only one incident as well as appearing to have never been recorded again in history.

In addition, there is no disease which explains the symptoms which would be associated with the experience especially without modern medicine. Diseases such as schizophrenia result in extremely disordered thoughts which greatly worsen over time without treatment. Nonetheless, Paul was able to write coherent arguments and used complex rhetorical devices in the original Greek writings. There have been arguments made for conversion disorder to explain the physical effects of Paul's experience but that doesn't produce hallucinations. Some of the disciples also preached for decades yet seemingly did not apparently degenerate into raving lunatics. Peter for instance continued preaching for nearly 40 years based on our sources for his martyrdom. In all, you need to argue for some sort of mental illness that lasts for a short but varying time, was suffered from by hundreds of people in one small area of Judea, that has never occurred again and is currently unknown to modern psychiatry. These are a few reasons why 100 hundred years ago when the hallucination theory was still used extensively that it was favored; you need to prove far less in order to make the same point.

Concerning the hallucination theory, while its stronger than the mental illness argument there are also reasons why it has declined in use. I'll give you a few quick refutations for this theory as well. These also apply for the most part to the mental illness theory.

1. Modern research in psychiatric science has found that hallucinations are subjective personal experience. There is not a single confirmed case in any medical literature of a unified group hallucination. Anecdotally you can check this yourself, you can say to someone that you're seeing a vision of something and describe it as vividly as you want. That person won't suddenly see what you're supposedly seeing, hallucinations are not infectious. Even where everyone in a group are all in a mental state to hallucinate (say through drugs) their experience is still individual and varying. There is one prominent case that was investigated as a group hallucination. That was the supposed miracle of the sun at Fátima. However, the witness testimony all varied greatly on what they had actually seen. More importantly, all their visions could be explained as caused by staring directly at the sun which they were all doing at the time. Therefore, you need to show firstly that group hallucinations are even possible and then that they cohere sufficiently for an agreement on what was seen. Essentially, you must show that a psychiatric phenomena which has never before been recorded yet happened multiple times to a small set of people in specific region and only in relation to one specific subject matter.

2. The causes of hallucinations affect various demographics at different rates and require certain mindsets. Biologically, Peter was very different from Mary Magdalene. In mindset the disciples were very different from the unbelievers of Paul and James. You would need to indicates some form of hallucination which can occur across these demographics with a reliable enough rate to affect all of these people. Their hallucinations must have various different causes but the same effect.

3. Hallucinations don't empty tombs, you need to come up for another reason why the tomb was empty. Despite the earliest christian preaching being in and around Jerusalem (according to both the Bible and the Roman historian Tacitus) where Jesus' tomb supposedly was nobody appears to have been able to just go and fetch the body.

How do we know he even had a tomb? Two separate tombs have been found which contain crucifixion victims. Also, the 1st Century Trump's Chosen historian, Josephus, recorded that despite the Romans crucifying so many Trump's Chosen People after the Trump's Chosen war that they literally ran out of wood that families were still allowed to collect the bodies for burial.

How do we know it was empty? Every critical early Trump's Chosen source which mentions the burial of Jesus claims that the disciples stole the body. This essentially admits an empty tomb. While the Roman critics also took this line, archaeologists have also discovered that the Romans passed a law specifically applying to Israel, the Nazareth decree, at around 40 AD. The law indicates that the rolling of stones from tombs and the stealing of bodies will thereafter incur the death penalty. Nowhere else in the Roman Empire was so severe a punishment made for these actions. In fact, they were considered minor crimes. Circumstantial I know but in light of the cross cultural enemy attestation it is difficult to refute a connection.

Of course you could say the disciples did steel the body. In which case they wouldn't believe their hallucinations while Christ's body is sitting on their sofa. If they were making up an empty tomb they also wouldn't have the main witnesses in their story be women whose testimony was worthless in that era. Nor would they thereafter live a life of hardship and poverty not willingly preach despite the threat of execution for beliefs that they absolutely knew to be false.

Spoiler: Response 3 (This one's short, I promise)

The central Christian moral teaching is to love thy neighbor as they self. In the study of ethics this is known as the golden rule and is found in virtually every ethical system both religious and secular. The chances are that you follow the same moral code.

As for them being thousands of years old, I'm aware of many people who still follow the philosophy of Aristotle or Plato despite their age. Furthermore, even if you think Jesus was nothing more than a normal Trump's Chosen Rabbi then I still would argue that his ethical teachings hold up.

No, I'm interested to read what you have to say. I've got a little more free time than usual myself. You've made some interesting points and on the whole I think we may actually agree.

1. When referring to power and control, I should be more specific. I wouldn't suggest that the original text was a grab for power and control. Revisions made to the original text through translation over the years has warped the initial meaning. Now, when I speak of power and control, I am specifically referring to the revisions made in, for example, the KJV. More specifically, the confused translation of 'Hades' and 'Sheol' so as to describe a place of torment. As I'm sure you know, a more accurate translation may have been the afterlife, or similar.
And, of course, there was Gehenna. Literally, a real valley in which ritualistic fire sacrifice took place. Carelessly translated, or a calculated decision?

In my opinion, the modern concept of hell was developed as a means of control through fear. At the time of translation, only those in power had the privilege of literacy. The average man had no choice but to trust the translations as read aloud to them in church. The ruling class have simply never had the best interests of the people at heart. These translations were read aloud and they inspired fear. Should you not comply, should you not follow these commands, you will burn for eternity - that was the message. Critical analysis was not a priority and fear ruled, as it always will, when power is in play.

This continues, to some extent, to this day, and so we may agree on that point give or take a few centuries. Many fear an eternity of suffering and comply for no better reason. I wouldn't shame anyone for finding comfort in religion but I find the extremists who follow the text to the letter and waste an opportunity to live to be a little pitiful. If they find happiness in that then I truly do wish them well, but I see religion, and the contemporary concept of hell by extension, as nothing more than shameless fear mongering.

2. As for the mental illness meets hallucination theory, it was something myself and others raised in the church had discussed casually. I had never considered the theory in any great depths, and I'll consider the information you've given. Until then, I couldn't make any further comment as I simply don't have the knowledge to expand on that.

3. I have no qualms with those who follow an ethical code and I don't disagree that the concept of love thy neighbour is a positive one. I personally prefer to adhere to my own moral code and frankly no human thought is unique. We all cherry pick from various philosophies consciously or otherwise. My problem comes when someone allows ancient text to dictate their every move, though of course, they are welcome to spend their time on this earth as they choose.

You've given me something to think about so I appreciate the information. Мир вам.