Why are heaven or hell the only options

[Anonymous]

Reincarnation seems more suitable towards guidance of the soul but I wouldn't pretend to know more about it than random pop culture tropes. I'd say the same for heaven and hell in terms of what people believe about it, much of it comes from works of fiction. Its very odd to dismiss reincarnation but accept some miraculous return of full corporeal form in an after life locale as described in a lot of hell/heaven stories.

[Anonymous]

This whole convo sounds like everyone agrees God is outside us. I believe God is with me always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I was a medium person. I should get to spend eternity in a medium place. Like Cincinnati."

— Eleanor Shellstrop

Exactly! That was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read the thread title.
Honestly the Good Place is one of the most interesting and deep sitcoms ever made. And it makes a lot of sense!

Yes! It’s pretty remarkable what they pulled off. I mean, a sitcom about moral philosophy? Come on. But they did it sooo well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reincarnation seems more suitable towards guidance of the soul but I wouldn't pretend to know more about it than random pop culture tropes. I'd say the same for heaven and hell in terms of what people believe about it, much of it comes from works of fiction. Its very odd to dismiss reincarnation but accept some miraculous return of full corporeal form in an after life locale as described in a lot of hell/heaven stories.

OK, let’s think this through because saying that one believes in reincarnation is very fashionable these days.

In order to believe in this — you must also believe that there is a God; and that this God has setup the universe in such a way that there is a constant cycle of judgment based on your individual achievement and merit in this life; that if at some mystical point — that is never fully explained in any writing — you live a “good” enough life you will reach some nirvana state — but otherwise you are given karma — another life in another corpus body that is based largely in part on what you did in the previous life.

As a result, God is one purely of judgment and wrath and judges you solely on your own merit and achievement.

People think that reincarnation is new age and fun, but that sounds like an incredibly harsh way of organizing the universe. Does it really make you want to get up in the morning? Do you *really* think that this is true?

In contrast — Christianity believes that yes there is God but this God is loving and instead of just letting us play it all out in endless cycles of karma, this God came to earth, and got involved in the world through the human form of Jesus Christ; and that our salvation is not dependent on our individual achievement or merit or how hard we hustle, or our success, but based on what Jesus has already done for us. We get his perfect record simply through our faith in him.

Hands down, Christianity is a religion that is more loving and merciful and provides hope in a way that reincarnation does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, sitting on purgatory dreading hell must he hell itself.

According to Catholic doctrine (and they are the only major Christian sect that has a doctrine of purgatory), everyone in purgatory goes to heaven eventually. So end result is still either heaven or hell.

Purgatory is the place where Christians are "purged" of their remaining sins. You know, the ones they didn't take care of in this lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole convo sounds like everyone agrees God is outside us. I believe God is with me always.

Yup. God is a belief in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, sitting on purgatory dreading hell must he hell itself.

According to Catholic doctrine (and they are the only major Christian sect that has a doctrine of purgatory), everyone in purgatory goes to heaven eventually. So end result is still either heaven or hell.

Purgatory is the place where Christians are "purged" of their remaining sins. You know, the ones they didn't take care of in this lifetime.

DP: Also, it is incorrect to think of these as literal "places" when they are actually states of being, though it is often written with language of place. "He who does not love remains in death." Hell means remaining separated from God forever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." "the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny."

Quotes are from the Holy See Catechism.

[Anonymous]

As opposed to Dante's inferno?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

[Anonymous]

Well ...there is the physical world also. That also gets experienced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.