1. Joined
    11 Jul '06
    Moves
    2753
    27 Feb '07 13:52
    I wonder why are humans cursed with the need to recognize and worship god. If they refuse somehow, they will end up in hell. Was it ever mention in the bible what happens to the animals when they die. Where do they end up in -- heaven or hell? Do animals have souls? What about human cannibals, what happens to them when they die? What about civilised humans, but born a retard and can't understand anything about god at all? Do they end up in hell, or are they excused from punishment on accounts of their condition?
  2. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36066
    27 Feb '07 13:58
    Originally posted by ckoh1965
    I wonder why are humans cursed with the need to recognize and worship god. If they refuse somehow, they will end up in hell. Was it ever mention in the bible what happens to the animals when they die. Where do they end up in -- heaven or hell? Do animals have souls? What about human cannibals, what happens to them when they die? What about civilised humans, ...[text shortened]... they end up in hell, or are they excused from punishment on accounts of their condition?
    1. I wouldn't call the need to recognise and worship God any more a curse than the human need to recognise and love one's parents.

    2. If a person culpably refuses to recognise and worship God, then he/she finds that he/she gets her wish of not having to endure God's company for all eternity. That's just what 'hell' is.

    3. I don't know of any verse in the Bible that speaks of the eternal fates of animals.

    4. The traditional Christian belief is that animals do not have eternal souls and "end up" neither in heaven nor hell. It is also perfectly acceptable to believe that they find their way to heaven.

    5. Human cannibals whose moral judgment was not critically impaired by other factors would find themselves in hell.

    6. Human beings with critically impaired moral faculties are not morally culpable for their actions; so they can be saved.
  3. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    27 Feb '07 17:162 edits
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    1. I wouldn't call the need to recognise and worship God any more a curse than the human need to recognise and love one's parents.

    2. If a person culpably refuses to recognise and worship God, then he/she finds that he/she gets her wish of not having to endure God's company for all eternity. That's just what 'hell' is.

    3. I don't know of any ve aired moral faculties are not morally culpable for their actions; so they can be saved.
    1. Indeed, many find it enjoyable and aesthetically enriching, e.g. Ramakrishna, a thoroughgoing Advaitist who nevertheless did bhakti—and myself, for that matter, even though I am no more a theist than he was (though I do not reject the “G-word,” I just use it in the same sense as Brahman).

    2. (a) For you then hell is a consequence and not a punishment—and perhaps does not entail torment? (b) As a monist, I have to ask: “Where could there be that is absent God?” (Consider that a rhetorical question, since I know that you reject the premise....)

    3 & 4. I would take the view that “all sentient beings have Buddha-nature.” If I can call something like that “soul,” then I see it as being as transient anything else—except in the sense that ayam atma brahma, this very self is Brahman (or, perhaps more correctly, of Brahman).

    5 & 6. Imagine the totality as an ocean (recognizing that the totality, as such, has no proper analogy). My existence is like a stream in the ocean: real, but not separate, transient. One day, that stream will disappear. But (to quote Ramakrishna): “Where could I possibly go?”

    Since I am not too keen on reincarnation, or transmigration of souls, or an individual “after-life,” I guess that means I do not see a divine “jurisprudence” extending beyond this existence, either heavenly or hellish. Whether or not I think there ought to be is quite beside the point.
  4. Joined
    11 Jul '06
    Moves
    2753
    28 Feb '07 00:22
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    1. I wouldn't call the need to recognise and worship God any more a curse than the human need to recognise and love one's parents.

    2. If a person culpably refuses to recognise and worship God, then he/she finds that he/she gets her wish of not having to endure God's company for all eternity. That's just what 'hell' is.

    3. I don't know of any ve ...[text shortened]... aired moral faculties are not morally culpable for their actions; so they can be saved.
    4. The traditional Christian belief is that animals do not have eternal souls and "end up" neither in heaven nor hell. It is also perfectly acceptable to believe that they find their way to heaven.

    The way I see it, we are also animals except that in terms of intellegence, we are much higher above other animals? You said it's "traditional Christian belief that animals do not have etenal souls." But this was not specifically mentioned in the bible. What then led to such an interpretation-- that animals have no eternal souls?

    5. Human cannibals whose moral judgment was not critically impaired by other factors would find themselves in hell.

    Why? What wrong have they done? They're born into the clans, which they can do nothing about. It is not their choice. They're just unfortunate enough to have been born in the jungles, away from civilisation and still worship fire as their god? They never have the opportunity to learn how to write and read, let alone interpret the bible! They are cannibals because they're obeying the survival instinct, just like the other animals around them in the jungles.

    6. Human beings with critically impaired moral faculties are not morally culpable for their actions; so they can be saved.

    And so what happens then? Am I going to continue 'living' as a retard forever in heaven, after spending 70 years in this cruel world being teased and bullied throughout my life? At least, if I am a retard, that's how I would feel.
  5. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    28 Feb '07 00:52
    Originally posted by vistesd
    1. Indeed, many find it enjoyable and aesthetically enriching, e.g. Ramakrishna, a thoroughgoing Advaitist who nevertheless did bhakti—and myself, for that matter, even though I am no more a theist than he was (though I do not reject the “G-word,” I just use it in the same sense as Brahman).

    2. (a) For you then hell is a consequence and not a punishmen ...[text shortened]... either heavenly or hellish. Whether or not I think there ought to be is quite beside the point.
    I meant to ask you about this some time ago whe you said that you ultimately felt "this was all there was" and that when we die that is it. What do you make of people who have out of body experiences and are brought back after they die? There seems to be some similar themes to their stories, but not all people who die and are brought back have this kind of experience.
  6. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    28 Feb '07 01:31
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    I meant to ask you about this some time ago whe you said that you ultimately felt "this was all there was" and that when we die that is it. What do you make of people who have out of body experiences and are brought back after they die? There seems to be some similar themes to their stories, but not all people who die and are brought back have this kind of experience.
    Sometimes, hallucinations can seem very real.
Back to Top