What would you do & what would you not do to avoid going to hell?

I'm not sure I follow. I never suggested that it did. The thread asked what one would or wouldn't do to avoid going to hell. I stated that I wouldn't abandon my children in order to go to heaven. You said I don't have a choice. If I don't have a choice, fine - but I wish it had have been added to the original post because then I would have realised that attempting to answer the question was pointless.

"What would you do or not do... btw, you don't have a choice so therefore can't do anything that you would do or not do anything that you wouldn't". Kind of makes the question worthless really. Oh well.

Sorry, I can't really decipher what you're trying to say here. Clarification please.

O...k, what's that got to do with anything?

Sorry, what's that got to do with anything?

I said: "if you go to heaven you'll have eternal mental suffering knowing that your loved ones have an eternity of physical suffering. I'd rather be with them".

I'd rather be with them wherever they're suffering be it here or there. Ok, I don't have to wait until I'm in my second life to have mental anguish over family members. And... what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Snakelord

You suggested that life in heaven would be composed on mental suffering for one's relatives.
I suggested that it is the common experience of everyone even in this life to navigate the shoreless ocean of mental suffering for their family members.

IOW if "not experiencing mental suffering for one's family" is what floats your boat, you are already sunk (hence the "no choice" thing)

The point is that you will be forced to abandon your children. Death visits everyone. That's why a good part of being a parent is about training one's children to be independent.

Since you don't have the choice to not abandon your children regardless, its not clear why you need to bring it to this discussion.

You didn't decide to be the particular parent of snakelord jnr, you decided to be a parent. If your child was switched in the maternity ward you would be none the wiser.

(IOW the whole issue of getting attached to one's child develops through the agency of being a parent ... if you take away the behavior patterns of being a parent - as is the case of death, which removes all bodily designations - you take away the attachment)

then you are talking about issues specific to separation and not mental suffering (since its plainly obvious that family life is synonymous with mental suffering)

Its interesting that you indicate a "sense of familial connection" as a suitable boat for carrying eternal values (since, as we all know, death curtails such a connection, and has been doing so since time immemorial)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've no problem with going to hell.

I'll just cut a nerve somewhere so I can't feel pain.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would follow the orders of god if he directly spoke to me and told me to do something. I wouldn't kill an innocent thoough but I would kill an evil person on order.


peace.

 

In short, we all act according to our nature/disposition.

Practically anyone can do anything for some period of time, but if we are expected to make a concerted effort for some standard of behavior, our needs, interests and concerns have to be attended to.

IOW drawing up the be all and end all of avoiding hell on some sort of caricature of human behavior is pointless. If we are going to do anything in life (including not going to hell) we have to have a positive taste for it (particularly if the stakes are for eternity).

 

I'd do anything I was told to so that I didn't go to hell. An eternity on fire??? Uh, nope. I'm fair skinned and burn easily.

 

WHY wish it had been added to the OP when it was said by someone other than the author of the OP???

 

It IS clear why he made that comment. It is not clear why you go on&on&on&on&on posting mindless muddy nonsense. Nothing you've said is at all related to the topic of this thread.

You don't know that, it's irrelevant & off topic.

 

You don't know what he decided.

Totally irrelevant.

 

You'd kill an evil person to avoid hell but not an innocent?
Who decides whether they're evil?

 

If anything is pointless, it's saying the thread is pointless as people attempt to have a discussion.

 

if its meant to be its meant to be.

 

Certainly, nobody contended otherwise.

In analogy form: My daughter is currently being tortured. There's also a super party happening down the road. In this instance I wouldn't go to the party, I'd opt to be with my daughter instead - regardless to me also being tortured.

In regards to the original question I am saying that I wouldn't so much try to avoid going to hell as I would rather go there if that's where my kids were.

Hopefully that's cleared that matter up.

Why will I be forced to abandon my children? Don't say "because you'll be dead" because, in the typical theist view of things, one is still very much alive even when they're dead.

Sorry, it's not clear why I don't have a choice to not abandon my children. Kindly provide details. When I die am I dead or am I alive? You can say that my physical body is done with, but I don't think you'd argue that I am actually any more dead than I was 5 seconds earlier.

Explanation please.

Sorry, still don't get the point.

So in death, (the end of physical existence), you completely cease to be you as well? What I mean by this is your feelings, personality etc etc?

Such a claim sounds mighty odd to me. You're alive and love god. You die and instantly lose those feelings?

It's interesting that you seemingly indicate that once you're in your second life, you wont even be you any more - a shell without the feelings, the personality etc. If you remain who you are, (minus a physical form), I don't see what argument you're making. If you don't retain any of that, you'll have to go through the entire process of coming to love anything all over again. All that time spent learning about and gaining a love for a god is a waste of time and effort because - according to you - it'll all vanish the moment you're dead.

 

Snakelord

If we replaced the words "hell" with "jail", would it change anything

Perhaps it might be better to think of it this way.

You weren't born with an (eternal) attachment to your children (or any of your other relatives for that matter).

Rather it developed (through being "allotted" by higher powers ... or chance ... as atheists tend to prefer)

If you die with an a large amount of unresolved attachment to your relatives (which is the common experience of 99.99% of the population) you meet all the necessary criteria to partake of another chapter of material life (with a few alterations according to how you acted in your previous life).

IOW its not so much that being attached to one's children grants one their audience in the next life.

Rather it is that being attached to one's children will grant one the opportunity (in principle) to have another set to rear in the next life.

Your attachment was cultivated through a relationship.
Its not like there is some sort of innate biological connection that enables you to instinctually waltz into the maternity ward to pick up the "right" one.

Its more the case that there is an essence to the self which adopts material layers of contamination. IOW you may be a parent of a particular child but you are not an eternal parent of a particular child (yet its the nature of material life to kind of shadow spiritual life, so you feel quite at home housing the material relationship in eternal values)

Unlike your experience with your child, one has an eternal relationship with god.

IOW its not the vehicle of love that causes the problems. Rather its the object of love.
(yes one can love one's children, but the moment you dress it up in eternal values is the moment you line yourself for all sorts of problems)

The problems with material life is that the shell is accepted as the all in all.

For a materialist, perhaps the highest duty is their familial obligation (namely the obligation of the shell).

That's why, as a theist, one finds a break down of two types of dharmas

1. Sva dharma - dharma that pertains to the body (or shell)
   
2. Sanatana dharma - dharma that pertains to the soul

Material life is sometimes described as a dream, in the sense that we accept many different types of role, in which we fully invest our sense of "I".

When we wake up however, its not like we are overburdened with issues of separation for the children in our dream ... mainly because we realize that we operating out of a dream like sense of parenthood to begin with.

Anyway, I realize this is quite a lofty subject given where we are at the moment. But it comes to bear if you want to start discussing issues of familial obligation after the point of death.

 

A god that has difficulty understanding the truth of the situation?

Quite a novel idea .....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My view on this subject is simple. I don't believe in a universal morality, all morals are relative. Thus, if some almighty god is proven to exist and it is proven that you will go hell to be tortured for eternity if you don't worship him, his morals would become my morals. Keep in mind, I do not believe in god in any way.

 

Light:

I mean no disrespect whatsoever to you or your personal beliefs but I must submit that they are somewhat beyond the scope of the question and my given response.

The question as it stood had a particular version of hell and heaven in mind and my response worked on the back of that. What has, perhaps unfortunately, happend here is that you've now completely changed the question. It's no longer a matter of what I wouldn't do to avoid going to hell but what I would do if I was reincarnated as a frog and couldn't remember my children from my past life. As a consequence of that, the response must also change.

If I reincarnate as a frog and don't remember my children then there's not a lot I'd do to avoid or not avoid going to hell, I'd just say "ribbit" and get on with it.

While again let me state that I mean no disrespect whatsoever, it's perhaps pertinent to state I really have no interest in Hindu words or beliefs. You can state them as matter-of-factly as you like, it doesn't change anything. Of course if you'd like to ask a question from the basis of your beliefs, (what would you do if you reincarnated as a mushroom), then I will certainly try and answer it to the best of my ability, but I don't think it has any value given the question in this thread.

What I can say is that, bar being a frog or strawberry muffin, I would put my children first and foremost above any personal eternal bliss. If I can't, I can't. If I turn into a banana, I turn into a banana. My response worked on the basis that I retain that which one would refer to as "I".

I hope you haven't taken offense, (none was intended), but do understand what I'm getting at. Oh, to answer your question:

"If we replaced the words "hell" with "jail", would it change anything"

No, it wouldn't.

 

I indicated at the end of the previous post that if you want to start discussing familial obligations after the point of death, its not really sufficient to use the yard stick of one's own conditioned life to measure the results ...

err ... there were no specifics on retaining a familial sense of obligation after the point of death either .... (and on a side point, I'm sure you would make a wonderful frog parent)

hehe
hence the human form of life is celebrated as having the widest aperture for spiritual action as opposed to issues of mere familial duty (since even a frog has a mum and dad).

Its apparent that you have tailored your atheism to co-exist quite nicely in a (contemporary) christian paradigm.

I'm just pointing out that atheism covers a broader spectrum in its proper application.

Actually there is no need to discuss moving into a different genus.

Even the cultural movement of time is sufficient to make a constant aspect of (conditioned) human culture in heaven absurd.

(Golly, if we arrive in heaven with all our warts and all, the linguistic issues of all the english christians over the past 1500 years in heaven must be enough to make it hell with out bringing into issues of one's children being dragged over the coals next door)

which translates as putting eternal values in temporary objects ... which has a predictable conclusion.

And your "I" is what exactly?
Something constant since day one?

I'm certain that your references to frogs, mushrooms, bananas and strawberry muffins were made with the highest benevolent intentions.

If you don't even have a sense of "I" which is even (theoretically) constant, you might as well be discussing water-colour paintings on ice cubes.

Adding an underline doesn't cut the mustard.

:shrug:

So if you had the choice between leading a civil life (aka - the party of heaven) what other option would you vouch for if your child was in jail?

 

Apologies but again I can't see anything in your response that has any relevance to the original question and answer. If I die and that's the end of my memory as far as my kids are concerned then ok, that's the end of that.

Oh, just one more thing,

My atheism is equal with all and any gods including yours. My discussions concerning gods typically revolve around the christian ideas because.. there's more christians discussing their god than there are hindus, (as far as this forum and this country are concerned). If I was an atheist in India I might very well be discussing hindu gods and religious beliefs. I'm not in India, I apologise for that.

In it's "proper application" :bugeye: atheism covers not believing in gods. I don't believe in any gods - it doesn't get any broader than that.

 

long live the reductionist paradigm of consciousness, eh/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just as god is a universably tenable object, atheism should be too.

Its unfortunate that you cannot come to the table in this regard

all the best