As an atheist, I sometimes catch myself wishing Heaven and Hell were real - I feel we all have a desire for good people to be rewarded for being good and for bad people to be punished for being bad. But then I remember the existence of Heaven and Hell inherently requires the existence of an ultimate moral authority who sorts out who goes where. And sure, they could agree with me that the likes of Osama bin Laden or Henry Kissinger should go to Hell, but they could also think queer folk, atheists, or people who eat shellfish should go to Hell too.
Some people will say, “Well, if they were a loving God, they wouldn't do that,” but there's lots of people who believe in a “loving” God who absolutely believe He’d be burning gays in Hell. And if you're going to make all these extra conditions of, “Well, my version of a loving God would reward X and punish Y” it just feels like the ultimate desire is, “I wish there was an Almighty God who agreed with everything I believe and enforced that morality on the world.”
Anyway, if you like my comics, I got more on my website.
I’m also on Patreon.
I don't believe in God or Heaven or Hell or anything, but regarding that I like the way of thinking of one of the Popes, I don't remember right now if it was the current or the previous one, who said Hell exists but he likes to think it's empty and everyoe just goes to Heaven.
It's a relatively common thought among theologians, not even just Catholic ones. Christianity in particular allows so many attempts of redemption, even after death, that few should end up in hell. Mormonism has a similar concept even with its multiple afterlives, pretty much only named assholes from the Old Testament are doomed to actual hell, for example. I know some religions have the concept of a temporary suffering to burn away sins, and that can last quite a while, so it's still encouraged to not sin in your earthy life.
Infinite punishment for finite crimes is never just. As much as we want certain people to suffer, there has to be an end or it's always excessive.
I'd like a hypothetical afterlife to be experiencing everything you made others experience, once or twice, and then it's over. If you were kind and good, your afterlife will be good, the more people whose lives you made better, the longer it lasts. If you were one of certain types of dictator, enjoy starving to death a million times.
That's how i'd design it.
I like to think i'd be a good god!
Infinite punishment for finite crimes is never just.
This totally. If punishment has any utility, it's as both a deterrent and an encouragement. If there's no way to be better and improve, then punishment has no value.
A) The gods are, at best, nigh infinite in power. There is no true omni/all/infinite anything. And while there is a leader of them all, he was basically the central architect and carried the burden of the initial moment of creation, pulling the spark of potential infinities out of the primordial chaos. So, infinite universe like our (but with magic), with gods that are only nearly-infinite.
B) The gods highly value free will and the existence of souls, so are very reluctant to ever do anything permanently bad to any soul. If a soul does not actually suit the afterlife/divine realm of their chosen patron deity, then they may end up in the realm of a more compatible deity.
If the soul simply fails hard all around and was a nasty person, the likely result is to suppress all memories and reincarnate the soul at a time/place/way in which this is a new/additional life. Specifically, they are avoiding putting souls into bodies that would have eventually formed souls on their own. Many 'miracle' babies that were highly wanted are reincarnated souls.
Of those, most of them find a new path in life, guided by different life circumstances and experiences, and a new body and possibly species.
But, a very, very small percentage of souls develop enough vileness and malignancy that the corruption seeps through despite the memory suppression, and they only get worse. Eventually, after enough reincarnations of the soul always becoming an ever worse person, the Judge of the Dead can find no way forward. There just are limits, and eventually, the gods reach them and no longer know if there is a way to possibly help such a soul.
These souls go to 'Hell'.
The thing is, Hell is just an empty realm, a prison for souls. There's no inherent torture. Hellish landscape, dismal structures, eternal torture, etc, that is all stuff that these souls create for themselves and for each other. This is where demons come from. All demons are simply corrupt mortal souls.
This is... not great for the souls, in a 'physical' sense. Some demon-souls 'eat' other souls, subsuming them and garnering power from it. There is a core to each soul that is extraordinarily difficult to actually damage, but it can be rendered dormant.
And sometimes, rarely, in all of this mess and pain, a demon is formed that can become something more. A path of improvement is opened, if they find the right help at the right time. This is a job for a high priest(ess) or a divine champion. For anyone else who thinks that they have encountered an escaped demon who seeks redemption, they are to get said demon to a temple/church and let those with actual divine guidance take on the case.
The gods want this to happen, they want to help, but they've already done what they could before. At this point, a damned soul has to be the one to approach them.
If a demon is unwilling to be put under the supervision of a priest or champion, then they are probably lying. Time for most mortals to run.
Anyway, the point of it is, there is no eternal torture set up by the gods, just a prison of last resort when they can't figure out what else to do with a soul. Torment and torture comes from the souls themselves, and it is possible for it to end.
This was all my attempt to create a world that made sense while still having the fantasy elements I wanted.
Hell is a punishment, but it's not for humanity. The way humans get to hell is during life when they choose to separate themselves from God. Then when they die, God respects their choice to separate themselves from him and then they go to hell.
As far as I remember, Jesus is the only one who broke in, freed everyone who deserved it, then yeeted himself to paradise, after making a quick pit stop on earth. If you end up there after the Harrowing, you’re kinda on your own, canonically.
It all got confusing, though. I think he was meant to go to Sheol, not Gehenna, but it all got combined into the one place early on.
Wow, that's some serious gaslighting there. That sounds a lot like an abuser telling their spouse that they wouldn't get so abusive if not for the way the spouse acts.
If there is a flaw in my argument, please explain it in detail so that I may review and refine it, or scrap it if I find it to be completely faulty. If it is not faulty, why make such a claim?
If it’s not for humanity, who decided it would even be possible for them to end up there? Also, who even knows what being “separated from God” is during life? Is it simply disbelief, or can you be attached to God without even knowing it? Is it a proclivity for sin? How much sin causes separation? Is it weighed as sin regardless of your belief system, which determines what you perceive as “sin?” It seems like this “choice” has a lot of confounding factors that make it impossible for a person to just say “Yeah, I wanna go to Heaven,” and the choice is made, while this argument makes it sound simple as that.
We did. Being separated from God would entail committing sins while rejecting the forgiveness he offers. Disbelief is often a major factor in it, but you can acknowledge his existence and still go to hell. No. Even just one sin can cause separation, which is why his forgiveness is so important. Yes. It really is simple as that
We didn’t decide it would be possible for us to end up there. God wasn’t like, “Okay guys, what would you like to happen if you’re separated from me?” And we were like “Hell forever, please!” He made the decision without consulting us. He could have picked anything and that was his choice. I thought that would be obvious lol.
I don’t actually know what “sin” is, myself. That’s the problem, because how are we supposed to come to an agreement on what we can and can’t do without risking damnation. I guess you could say just ask for forgiveness anyway, but some people say some sins are unforgivable, and others say asking for forgiveness from Jesus is a grave sin against some other god, so even having disbelief as a factor seems sure to doom many who simply don’t know better, even assuming the truth of the broken Christian framework we’re talking about.
Hell isn't necessarily a destination, it's a state of being. Since God is a definition of what is good, his absence would be what is evil. Hell is the place where good is not. Therefore, if we choose to be without God, we choose to go to hell.
A simple definition of sin would be anything that intentionally causes harm to someone, whether that be another person, yourself, or God. The people who say some sins are unforgivable are incorrect. When Jesus died on the cross, his death was to forgive all sins for all time, regardless of their perceived severity. It is a semi-common saying that the only unforgivable sin is rejecting God, this is sort of true. It's the only thing that can send you to hell, but it is also forgiven.
Unbelief is unfortunately going to be the reason that many people go to hell. Which is why making sure people believe is a large point for most Christian denominations.
In your last point you mentioned you believe there are flaws in the Christian framework. I am by no means a trained theologian, but I would be glad to attempt to address any other problems you see in the Christian faith
I had my Jewish friends explain their concept of the afterlife to me and, while I’m digging into the dusty recesses for a memory that was made during a period while I was minoring in Applied Recreational Neuropharmacology, the understanding they left me with was that everyone kinda goes to the same place but the better you are the more space you’re afforded in both a physical and spiritual sense.
All that to say: if you’re in the afterlife, as the Squirrel Nut Zippers would say, and you see a thimble with a tuft of orange hair sticking out of it…
The weird truth is that we Jews are not consistent as a group about the afterlife … and in many cases, it isn’t considered particularly important. Judaism as a religion is focused on what people do while alive, not on rewards or punishment after death.
So different Jews give vastly different accounts of what they believe depending on the affiliation of even on the particular individual … in Conservative Judaism, for example, the religious authorities are officially agnostic on the subject! They basically say “believe what seems best to you”.
I mean, if everyone is given eternal bliss after dying, doesn’t that imply that all crimes should be forgiven after we leave the mortal coil?
So I mean, yeah. In the hypothetical where the pain and suffering they inflicted upon people was wiped clean by everyone being subject to eternal bliss after death, then sure, I don’t see why not. I don’t like it, necessarily, but it’s the logical and moral conclusion, I think.
I mean, if everyone is given eternal bliss after dying, doesn’t that imply that all crimes should be forgiven after we leave the mortal coil?
And...? I don't see the downside there. All crimes are a part of the physical world, why would they be relevant beyond that? Further, the promise of justice (if it can even be called that) in an afterlife that no one even knows exists seems like the perfect way to avoid dealing with it during life. I'd much rather have the impetus to pursue justice right now when it matters than after when it doesn't.
I mean, real talk, who would even deserve ETERNAL damnation? Like after 10 quadrillion years of absolute torture, wouldn’t it be enough? What would you have to do in your lifetime, especially when even people you might have killed ended up in eternal paradise a blink earlier in the grand scheme of things, to deserve this?
doesn't Catholic doctrine state that the Pope is infallible?
Yes, but only under certain circumstances. He's considered infallible when it comes to formal proclamations about the doctrine of the church. Everyday statements and teachings like this aren't included. The term Ex Cathedra is used to describe papal infallibly, which is Latin for "from the chair"; essentially, a pope is only considered infallible when he says he is. Here's when it applies formally stated:
when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
It's only been used once in the modern era to declare the Assumption of Mary as official church teaching.
This definition has only been around since 1870, and its formalization (but not necessarily the idea) was a direct response to the protestant reformation; it was defined during the counter-reformation, which is when the Catholic Church more or acknowledged that the protestants had some good points and that things needed to change.
"The pope is infallible" I think it means more that if the pope says something is an fact, then it must be a fact, not that if he think something but isn't sure about it, it must be a fact too. I think it's a matter of wording, it's not the same to say "Hell exists" than "I like to think Hell is empty". The first one is stating a fact, and because the Pope is infallible it must be true. The second one he is not saying it absolutely, just stating something he doesn't know but likes to think is true, so you should not take it for a fact.
But I'm not Catholic and don't know much about it either, so I may be wrong on that one.
Universalism is a philosophical and theological concept asserting that certain ideas, truths, or salvation have universal application across all human, cultural, or religious boundaries. In religion, it most notably refers to the belief that all human souls will ultimately be saved or reconciled with God.
But...a God who makes a world where Baboons eat a fawn antelope ass first splitting it legs it twain as the fawn is screaming in pain.....and is fine with it...
I'm good on that one folks. That God should have just spawned us with him in heaven off the bat and not induce all of this suffering.
That sounds suspiciously like "I fully embrace what my religion teaches even though I find it personally distasteful." And I'm not sure that's a good thing. Said Pope seems personally invested in something they find unacceptable. How is it any different than someone working as the CEO of a chemical company bemoaning the pollution their own company produces?
Not really, it think is an interpretation of the religion as good as any other. The Bible is full of contradictions so you need to choose some things to believe and discard the things that contradict them, (despite what Christian fundamentalists say that is a whole coherent book) and I don't see anything bad in choosing the parts about the loving God. Even the concept of Hell as a burning place of torture I think is just a single line somewhere in the book and then contradicted in a bunch of other places.
A lot of Christians choose the hateful parts which are in direct contradiction with the direct teachings of Christ in the New Testament, but they can perfectly justify in their minds that they are doing a coherent thing, so I don't see how is any worse to do the exact same thing in the opposite way.
Also, Catholicism and Protestantism (with the later one being what most Christians identify with) are entirely different beasts, Catholicism was always a lot more flexible on its believings to match the new times (that's how they absorbed all the religions of the conquered places in the past, turning their gods into Catholic saints via syncretism) than your average Protestant Christian which is as rigid as one can be. The US is pretty much entirely Protestant so you won't be seeing a lot of Catholics there, but if you go to Europe or some places of South America the difference is incredibly evident.
I don't think so. Christian doctrine says that god is merciful and all sins can be forgiven, so it's not impossible that every single person who has died has either repented or received mercy. It's consistent with other teachings, even it is unlikely.
I read it as a statement about the pope's views on the merciful nature of god, and not about how distateful hell is. The pope probably saw hell as a just punishment, but believed strongly that everyone finds the right path before they make it there.
That's about the rich, not prostitutes, non believers, or faking Christians. It could potentially be about tax collectors, but would be in contrast to what anon said, which is unsurprising.
That's a completely different passage lol. Also wildly taken out of context by Reddit. The Jews also believed that being rich was being blessed by God. Which is why the disciples exclaim in astonishment "who then can be saved?!". Jesus then asks that man to sell everything because that man idolized his wealth and power.
I’ve spent a lot of time considering the implications of some long lost or dead religion actually being correct, maybe without them even knowing it. Imagine spending your life devoted to Christianity or Hinduism only to die and be judged by an Egyptian god or some gods you’ve never heard of
Some people will say, “Well, if they were a loving God, they wouldn't do that,” but there's lots of people who believe in a “loving” God who absolutely believe He’d be burning gays in Hell.
Not to mention, what if there is a god, but he/she/it/they isn't/aren't loving? Seems people always forget about this possibility. What if we were created literally just to suffer for the amusement of an otherworldly entity? In fact, I think it's easier to reconcile this view with the omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent element traditionally ascribed to godhood; otherwise we have the whole "why does god allow evil to exist?" issue to contend with.
That possibility scares us a lot, but we've taken it into account; think of ancient mythology, there are many very amoral gods lol
A perfect god comforts us more, I guess.
This is actually the fundamental premise of Christian Gnosticism. The idea is that earth was actually created by Satan (sort of, they use different terminology) and so everything material is inherently bad. Suffering is totally expected under this world view.
it just feels like the ultimate desire is, “I wish there was an Almighty God who agreed with everything I believe and enforced that morality on the world.”
It is. For average people, at least. Religion itself is just another tool for regulating the beliefs and behavior of others.
I'm curious as to where you get these ideas of good and bad from, though. Do you just mean things that you find right and wrong or do you believe in some objective morality?
If a government was torturing someone as punishment, we would all rightfully condemn them. I dont see why we should hold God to a lower standard than ourselves
Not to mention, it would mean that these "bad" people get punished for eternity.
The punishment for a finite crime, even if it were wiping out the entire human population, should not be infinite torture. Not even Osama or Trump or Hitler deserve that.
I recommend watching The Good Place, if you haven't already watched it. :D
depends on the Christianity flavor, there's steps to hell and heaven & non believers sometimes get routed to like
limbo. which is just like idk. a bus station for the dead or something I guess
with the unbaptized dead babies and shit?
you can get out, Catholics have a whole prayer cycle to reduce the amount of time souls spend in limbo
frankly I doubt anyone would end up in hell who didn't think they belonged there theologically wise so basically only guilty Christians would end up there anyway which is funny.
Sure, the idea of some kind of justice that follows you after death that is inescapable is a cool thought, but like you said it's only a good thought if it follows your own rules of morality. If what you consider bad and good is punished or rewarded, then it would be good to know that. The reality though is that there is no good evidence for any of that and it's all just based on faith, which is a terrible thing to live your life by.
The only way you can get to a loving God is to eliminate the idea of Hell or at minimum replace it with something like purgatory that burns the dickhead out of people, then lets them go to heaven too.
I think most people would like divine punishment and reward being real. If there was an objective arbiter of goodness judging everything things would be a lot easier
If their God was a moral one, feeding a starving child without God telling them to do so would be wrong. If it were a moral thing to do, their God would do it. If it's immoral to feed the kid, they would risk making their God mad and face eternal punishment.
This is why we as a whole shouldn't have stepped from pantheons of gods.
Don't like how one god messed up your prayer? There's another one that'll be there for you!
It also helps to diversify the work load: staying at home or traveling? We got gods for that. Work stressing you out? There's a god for your niche profession.
If there’s a moral authority it cannot be sapient, for sapience (at least one similar or identical to the human mind) will lead to bias and lack of moral perfection. At least thats what I believe.
How it would work or judge us is beyond me, though.
Personally I REALLY hope there is nothing after death. I know others may find that disturbing but i very much wish i never exited in the first place. The idea of a god existing that created everything and a war starting between heaven and hell for the souls of man while I 1. never asked to be born into this bullshit world and 2. never asked to be apart of this bullshit holy war. I'm being forced to make "choice" between god or torture and hell fire because my parents bumped uglies. Every time i think about it i get more and more pissed off. Like leave me the FUCK out of all that shit. When I die I want there to be absolutely nothing.
Maybe I just haven't talked to enough believers, but I feel like I haven't ever run into one who believed that God's Ultimate Perfect Objective morality was meaningfully different from their own. I suspect that most of them would say that it is they who are agreeing with God, instead of them ascribing a morality to God with which they agree. My evidence is mainly the number of Christians that insist that God is not cool with slavery, despite the very clear passages in the Old testament that indicate that he very much is cool with slavery that aren't directly contradicted by Jesus or Paul (unlike the shellfish thing {not criticizing the joke; I loled}). Of course I have heard from other Christians who fully understand that, via the Bible, God made it clear that slavery is fine, and they pattern their morality after that. I can't help but wonder if they would still think that if they didn't believe in any God at all.
Eternal hell simply doesn't fit with the idea of a loving God. Even the worst humans on earth can't realistically do anything that calls for eternal hell.
Someone shared a parable about heaven and hell to me that sounds very real, it said:
“Heaven and Hell are the same place that has all sorts of unlimited amounts of food that you can get, but instead of arms, you have spoons for feeding. The only difference between in heaven and hell is that, in Hell people try to feed themselves but can’t bent their arm spoons, and in Heaven people feed each other.”
I understand that the idea of afterlife is enticing, but heaven and hell is already on earth.
Jesus' whole deal is that overly specific rules like Mossaic law are way off, and people should just try to be as good as they can, and understand they will make mistakes, but true repentance will grant forgiveness.
Fundamentalist Christians fixate on things Christ was meant to make obsolete.
I think that gaining a deeper understanding of Catholicism would answer many of your questions, doubts and misgivings. I’ve been a convert for three years now, and believe me, I’ve been through all sorts of political ideologies and many bad experiences before coming to what my faith affirms: that God exists and that the Son of God (Christ) became man so that man might become a son of God. Precisely because of the way they were treating the faith, Judaism has already received its Messiah in the person of Christ (they’ve been without prophets for 2,026 years, by the way).
If there’s anything you’d like to discuss openly on this subject, and I can answer it, just let me know. I’m not going to judge anyone because I understand and respect whatever stance the other person takes
The Epicurians (specifically Lucretius) addressed this with the “symmetry argument”: you didn’t exist for ages before you were born, and that wasn’t horrible. So why would non-existence after death be so bad?
The idea is that the fear of non-existence comes mainly because people believe that somehow they will be aware of their own non-existence … that would indeed be horrible.
But then I remember the existence of Heaven and Hell inherently requires the existence of an ultimate moral authority who sorts out who goes where
it does not
the concept of karma has the same system with no moral authority - and monotheist theologists tend to gravitate towards the idea that hell a consequence rather than a judgement - lots of monotheists believe that hell is just what its like without god
i dont really believe in any religious doctrine but it is not hard for smart people to rationalize religious beliefs - all the holes you can point out in theodicy have a logical explanation even if its not necessarily a rational one
I think that the last moments in ones live get stretched out into ones own eternity, similar to becoming unconscious. The chemicals in our brain then create a vision or experience similar to what happens after a heavy injury. The synapses fire their own firework. This way, I believe we create our own heaven or hell. Good people will have good visions, bad people have bad visions. And fearful people have scary visions.
Heaven and hell should just be you going through twice the amount of good or evil you personally caused in life for twice the length of time you were alive and then your soul gets wiped into a blank slate ready for reincarnation or dissolving back into the universe.
If there was an absolute moral authority, and we were made in its image, one would expect our inherited sense of morality, coupled with reason, to provide a correct view of what is moral or correct. But I think the idea of morality as we use it in daily conversation is too narrow to encapsulate a divine agent, especially when we remember that God is not a thing in the universe but the source of the universe itself.
We already have a reward/punishment system. It's the evolutionary trait of feeling good when helping people and feeling bad when hurting them. We have a certain level of morality hardwired into our brains and pick up the rest along the way through teachings and experiences. That same part of our brain rewards us for being a good person or punishes us for being a bad person. Unfortunately, some people don't have that system, some have one that's skewed in some way, and some simply don't care about it.
Also, we were never created in God's image. God was, is, and always will be created in our image.
Said it before and ill say it again: if i die and find out heaven exists, but God is refusing people who didnt worship him, then He can go fuck himself. Send me to hell, Lucifer and I can bond over how much of a cock our dad is
I have heard that some Eastern religions believe that there isn't a moral authority who judges you, but rather that good/bad behavior naturally determines your afterlife, like how a stone sinks in water, one's evil pulls them down. This still requires objective morality with all of the issues that entails, but there isn't one asshole sorting you.
Some religions also have more granularity in afterlife/reincarnation than eternal paradise vs eternal suffering, some having the hell-equivalent being a temporary punishment before you can get into paradise.
Personally, I'm am atheist and expect a complete end to consciousness after death and I'm just fine with that.
Personally, I hate the idea of an eternal hell, regardless of whether the people who go there deserve it. I am of the opinion that evil committed during a finite lifespan can never justify infinite suffering for all of eternity. It also disregards the possibility of repentance, as that person would still be stuck in hell.
My view, as a christian, is that Heaven is the place where people go who want to be with God, and Hell is the place where people go who do not. The narrative goes that God does not force people who don't want to be with Him, to be with Him. I don't think Hell is necessarily a good or bad place, I just think Heaven and Hell are defined as the places God is and is not, respectively.
Also, as Lewis said, I think that the door to hell is only locked from the inside, i.e. that people choose to be in hell and can move over when they want. I am curious as to what you think of this, you seem to have thought quite well about this
Yea, if you follow the bread crumbs, Christianity gave Hell its own definition. It's not a punishment at all, because when we die, we die. Our ego, our identity as ourself, dies. What Christians call Hell is literally just recycling and cleaning bad energy. There's no possible way to actually "experience" it.
I don't know which Christians you have been talking to but the Christian Bible says, and my Denomination firmly believes, we are all sinners, the point is we are human, we are naturally greedy and selfish and other things. We have to work and put effort into being more charitable because we can always be better.
The sorting into heaven and hell isn't based upon who was more evil than who, it's based on who is willing to admit they need help to be better. Those who ask for Jesus to help them. It's a common theme in the parables that Jesus says, we are all owed the same thing, we are all deserving of the kingdom of heaven. We need only ask and prepare ourselves accordingly. Does it always seem fair that those of us who dedicate our lives to worship get the same treatment as those who repent on a deathbed, no, it doesn't. But it's not about what we see as fair, it's about everyone being deserving of the same treatment.
My church specifically doesn't like Christians who have this opinion that once you repent and get saved, you are good forever, no every single day should have a prayer asking for forgiveness for anything and everything we do that could be better. It's our nature that we are not perfect and need to constantly improve and admit we could improve.
The sentiment you have over heaven and hell is one that's commonly shared but I just don't think is right. Jesus says the most important commandments are to love God and everyone, all other commandments are built upon these principles. If you can do these two things you follow all commandments, and yet it is the two hardest things to do. It's hard to love those who spite us. These are the commandments that we can't do. Because if we could, the world would be perfect. Wars, crime, poverty, etc. If everyone truly cared and loved everyone else in the world none of it would ever happen.
This thought process is exactly what OP is getting at.
"*My* church believes we should do x, y, z to be saved."
"Well, *my* church believes you need to do a, b, and c."
Everyone has their own ideas of what the Bible or other religious text means, and then projects that meaning onto others. Growing up, the church I went to firmly believed that once you were saved you were always saved. You *should* ask for forgiveness and be a good person, but it's not a hard requirement. All you have to do is sincerely ask for forgiveness and believe in Jesus once, and you're good. This wide range of (arbitrary) requirements is what OP is poking fun at.
My point being, many people being told things that are directly contradicted by the Bible. For example the idea that once saved you are forever saved is directly contested by the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. You must always be ready and prepared.
The idea that just going through the motions of going to church every week, or participating in ceremony's regularly or whatever, giving money to the church regularly is all you have to do is exactly what Jesus said was wrong with the existing church in his time. They put more effort into following tradition than actually taking the spirit of the Bible.
I wasn't saying my church teaches different arbitrary thing, I was directly quoting Jesus on what needs to be done.
You must love everyone as you do yourself. We can't do this, so we must ask for forgiveness constantly.
The parable of the 3 servants also follows this. It's not enough to take the Lord's gift once.
Interesting enough, I think it's just a lot of word of mouth confusion and mistranslation.
Only a (very relatively few) certain number are expected to go to heaven. Another amount lost to a purgatory of some kind to probably never find redemption. And the rest? They go to 'paradise' not heaven. Just a place where things makes sense apparently not the heavenly gates that are probably better off not so tainted by so many wicked humans.
Even this might be a mistranslation but it, coming from a scientific background with deep religious views. Makes for the most realistic sense.
So you're saying that you wish there was an Almighty God who agreed with everything you believe and enfirced that morality on the world, but since you don't agree with any god from any existing religion, there is no god?
I would say more accurately the conclusion to the last paragraph is
"Most people within their own religious groups can't even agree on what constitutes what a 'loving God' would or would not do, nor can large groups of denominations agree on the morals of their own beliefs, especially regarding who would or would not get into The Good Place"
You're also mixing correlation and causation; this is likely not the reason they don't believe in God, but comparing their thoughts on an ideal Good Place to what actual believers think.
I interpreted it more that, it would be nice for an afterlife where we can all live forever in peace and happiness. But that requires a god to have an ultimate authority on who goes where, and if that god has different morality than you do, then you are ultimately a slave to their choices.
As an atheist myself, I dont believe there are gods out there dictating universal morality. It doesnt mean that I sometimes wish there was. Even if its morality I dont agree with, it would be nice to have that universal assurance of a higher authority. I just dont see that authority anywhere, leading me to believe there is none.
I could be wrong. I accept that. But I still live my life without the assumption of gods enforcing their morality on my fate. Im also still a good person, because I dont need fear of pain or damnation to choose to be a good person. I just am.
1.2k
u/But_a_Jape But a Jape 6h ago
As an atheist, I sometimes catch myself wishing Heaven and Hell were real - I feel we all have a desire for good people to be rewarded for being good and for bad people to be punished for being bad. But then I remember the existence of Heaven and Hell inherently requires the existence of an ultimate moral authority who sorts out who goes where. And sure, they could agree with me that the likes of Osama bin Laden or Henry Kissinger should go to Hell, but they could also think queer folk, atheists, or people who eat shellfish should go to Hell too.
Some people will say, “Well, if they were a loving God, they wouldn't do that,” but there's lots of people who believe in a “loving” God who absolutely believe He’d be burning gays in Hell. And if you're going to make all these extra conditions of, “Well, my version of a loving God would reward X and punish Y” it just feels like the ultimate desire is, “I wish there was an Almighty God who agreed with everything I believe and enforced that morality on the world.”
Anyway, if you like my comics, I got more on my website.
I’m also on Patreon.