Nothing has changed.

Nothing has changed. — Agent Smith

If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change — The Leopard. Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

:lol:

:up:

Zeus/Indra = Electricity

:chin:

Could a belief in eternal hell lead to complacency against evil people in this life? For example if people believe that God will not only confine evil people but actually torture evil people then we might leave all of the justice in the world to the afterlife. Sometimes I get the impression that gun control in America is ignored because it's such a Christian country that they simply believe that mass shooters will pay the price in hell. It's an unfortunate aspect of our finite psychology that we simply can't fully empathise with collective evil. As a lone individual I can't truly recognise just how evil the Holocaust was because while I do feel lots of saddness I can't feel the unending saddness that such a tragedy deserves. Yet if we didn't view the Nazis as being tortured in hell then we'd be compelled to dedicate much more of our time grieving for the victims. Although this might still come at a high cost in that viewing life as unfair could backfire and lead to helplessness, indignation and apathy towards morality and victimhood. Sometimes there are no easy solutions to the logical difficulties inherent in the concept of hell. Moreover when we view the people that died fighting the Nazis as rising to eternal heaven does that also risk an element of ungratefulness towards their self-sacrifice here on Earth?

Is it ever possible that God could send well-intentioned people to hell much like our concept of natural evil? For instance evil is contradictory and so evil people can accidentally attack other evil people as we see in the history of ancient warfare. Is it logical that God could ever send people to hell in the form of a sacrifice in the afterlife similar to how good people are asked to make a sacrifice in Earthly life? Even when we look at prehistory it's clear that God must have tolerated rival stone age groups that committed evil towards each other. Yet there's still no way that such pre-humans could reach heaven given their crimes in spite of their lack of self-awareness. Were neanderthals living in a reality close to a "Call of Duty" free-for-all?!

"God never, never sends, never will send anyone to hell unjustly. No one will ever be in hell who does not deserve to be there. And this fact that they deserve to be there will be open and plain in all the universe in that day."
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/does-god-predestine-people-to-hell

"Around 6,200 years ago, a group of at least 41 men, women, and children were brutally murdered before being dumped in a mass grave in what is now eastern Croatia."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/dna-study-ancient-massacre-victims-raises-more-questions-answers

Perhaps God could never endorse a lesser evil in case God were to become biased and divide all of His other followers. So perhaps any lesser evil being pursued is done at their own risk of hell where hell could be truly self-sacrificing to deflect blame away from God:
300 Spartan Vs Immortals Scene

I often find myself bewildered by the clash of science and religion. To some extent I'd struggle to give up science even if I knew there was a God simply because science is guaranteed to be logical. Yet I can't give up my belief in God either because it's a concept that gives meaning to life and death. For example even if I knew Jesus wasn't the creator of the physical world I'd still pray to Him as God simply because I agreed with His message. Yet I can't help but notice certain contradictions about Jesus. If we took literally His claim that He was in contact with the creator of the physical world then we'd be forced to conclude that Jesus could hardly be said to be human at all. Sometimes people use phrases like the "universe" symbolically such that we don't fully see what's being implied. For example we could say infinite without really being able to visualise it in any way. Let's imagine instead of universe we said planet which is a subsystem of the universe. So if we said Jesus was in contact with the "presence" of Jupiter or the Sun and believed Him we'd be forced to conclude by their sheer size that He wasn't human and rather a ghostly spirit. Perhaps one way to resolve the dilemma is that there are layers to God and the world. Perhaps God has different orders of magnitude when it comes to comprehension. So we could say that an infinitesimal amount of the creator of the physical world endorsed Jesus in His human form. For example ancient Rome was as strong as America or Russia in relative historical terms. So Jesus managed to convert an empire of that scale without ever requiring a Cold War and the threat of nuclear mutually assured destruction!!!

I can't give up my belief in God either because it's a concept that gives meaning to life and death. — Michael McMahon

Well, since "God" is infinite, the meaning of "life and death" must be infinitesmal, or zero, by comparison. It stands to reason that whether or not one "believes" amounts to the same objective "meaninglessness".

The separation of powers is vital when we think of how America tolerated poverty while utopic versions of communism became hellish. Although religious people don't seem to apply the same standard to their beliefs in an afterlife. To believe that God tortures bad people in hell is to risk imbueing Him with dangerously temperamental qualities. It's of course possible that torturing evil people in hell for short periods could be justified but we must consider the metaphysical practicalities of such a belief system. Another problem is that bad people can become evil from a very young age such that they're not fully capable of changing their ways. While I don't accept this as a reason for a full exoneration in a human court system due to the immediate problem of reoffending there are nonetheless unexpected consequences when we apply such justice in an afterlife. God to some extent created a limited world with tonnes of poverty and hardship such that rigid systems of divine judgement could exaggerate aspects of personal responsibility. Perhaps punishing evil people with absurdist afterlifes would be more ethical and prove to be an indirect version of punishment.

If we were to take a militant approach to pantheism that you were God you'd be forced to conclude that other people must also be a God of themselves in an almost polytheistic way. So if you were to meet Christians in the afterlife you could just as easily say that they were Jesus in a symbolic way. I'm not trying to sound treacherous but we must be helpful towards the elderly. As such we don't want to ask too much of Jesus if He were in a frail condition after 1000s of years in heaven! Christianity exists not only now but also for 1000s of years well into the future. Thus we need to try our best to visualise heaven in order to make it a reality in the afterlife.

Michael Collins Speech

Perhaps there are certain metaphysical paradoxes that might contribute to why God doesn't stop evil directly. For example those in harsh circumstances might feel that God forced them into a life of misery such that God can superficially appear unable to redeem Himself relative to our finite mindset. Then there are historical crimes where it would seem very difficult that a God could fully resolve them. Morally we can never blame modern generations for atrocities carried out by long-dead generations. Even when a few elderly people in a country that committed war crimes are still alive, we must nonetheless remember that the overwhelming majority of the country can be good people. For example there are so many brave and self-sacrificing Ukrainians defending against Russia that it'd be very disproprotionate to blame them for allowing tiny fascist militias or tolerating corrupt individuals. That is to say in spite of Russia's cynical allegations against Ukraine we can easily see that Ukraine has far more good people than bad or evil people. There are endless examples of countries that committed evil in ancient times and so I won't give specific examples in the following assessment. The way certain countries have a chequered history can present challenges for theism. It seems hard to understand how God could send entire populations to hell because they participated in collective evil towards other countries. That is to say many countries might stop believing in God if He were to punish people as a collective unit including their citizenry. Then they'd probably commit even more evil if they rejected God. The challenge is that innocent as many of them may be their passiveness may have contributed to crimes against innocent citizens in foreign countries. So collectivism could prove very tricky when it comes to divine judgement. While we don't blame present-day people we still expect God to somehow punish ancient generations. So the whole concept of historical guilt is slightly contradictory when it comes to Earthly culpability versus afterlife culpability. Needless to say the only time ancient war crimes might make modern people guilty is if they somehow express pride at whatever crimes were committed. Here the culpability isn't too high and very indirect simply because it's wrong more in the sense of insulting or threatening behaviour. So it's not like a neo-Nazi should be blamed in the same way as an actual WW2 Nazi. Perhaps one way to solve the problem is to view God as an extremely benevolent being rather than an infinitely omnibenevolent. God Himself sometimes seemed to use religions in ancient times to coerce people to believe in Him. Obviously we can all agree with secular notions today. Although we can still understand that sometimes there were very rough edges in how religions used to demand far more of people without free speech and in how colonised people were forced into making religious conversions. Anyway my point is that evil can appear self-consistent in a really dishonest way. For instance it'd be pointless and futile if I committed evil simply to avenge the Aztecs who were horrendously mistreated by those who believed in monotheism. Yet from a coldly logical point of view it can appear absurd in how our modern societies arose. This is why you might need to pressure yourself into faith even though I wholeheartedly agree that others can't pressure you into faith or remove your free speech. In today's society we're confronted not only by tense historical clashes but also by economic limitations. To some extent God gets away with sending plagues simply because He's deemed infinite. Yet society is kind of playing God by allowing a small bit of evil through millionaire capitalism in order to prevent even worse economic mismanagement. Anyway one important lesson is that good people cannot be naive when it comes to the level of evil in the world. Sometimes it's tempting to think that evil people must be victims because if we use our empathy we would find their worldview very depressing. This means we are sometimes tempted to underestimate evil like how many victims of genocide could never anticipate the horror of what would unfold. A problem is that our theory of mind is limited in understanding the motivations and well-being of evil individuals. People who subscribe to evil can simply appear incomprehensible to good people which limits our ability to pre-empt them. To support evil people is to some extent to support natural evil which only emphasises how absurdly megalomanical such a position is. After all why enjoy watching violence when you can just look at a tsunami!

God never revealed himself to ancient people in a traditional, prophetic way. The irony of Russel Crowe's character that sadly got enslaved is that he himself initially fought for an army which brutally conquered people:
Gladiator - Initial Battle Scene

A haunting problem is that God created a vast universe and yet appears unable to stop evil. Is the necessity of human free will really enough for such an oversight? Perhaps I could make a very tentative analogy that God might try to stop evil by learning from evil. However I mean this in a totally non-human way that is beyond our child-like comprehension. For all we know God could be trillions of years old. From a theoretical physics standpoint there must be a purely physical side of God where He created mountains and so forth if we were to believe in God. So it's possible from a galactically abstract point of view that God very rarely tolerates human evil similar to His toleration of natural evil like earthquakes. So if God is infinite then it would seem like God could eavesdrop on evil souls in the afterlife in order to warn others. That is to say evil people can sometimes appear strong but in an extremely deceptive and cowardly way by cheating. There might an element of a society being metaphysically nice that we're a tiny bit limited in certain cognitive features. Evil worldviews might make evil individuals slightly more focused for partial aspects of their mental awareness simply because evil is referenced in psychopathic megalomania. For example certain evil individuals might be able to easily sacrifice their life for a cause simply because they're metaphorically intoxicated. Sacrificing your life for a good cause requires absolute trust in your mission. Unfortunately evil people can also trust themselves because they've been deluded by the hedonism of their evil. So we might have to present an infinite God in a humble though very powerful way.

WW1 Battle in the Mud - Passchendaele

Many religious people believe that heaven is blissful beyond all comprehension. This is certainly a reassuring belief. Yet some agnostics might fear that an afterlife would contain fear if we become disoriented. Perhaps one way to think of it is that an afterlife isn't painful because our human pain sensors will be gone. So people who died with exhaustion might be content just not to be in pain!

How do we know if souls in the afterlife were to meet a thoroughly deterministic prophet given the age of such a being? Or what if some of the messages of historical prophets were like working-backward mechanisms? For example the message of Jesus might have been so powerful that souls might be forced over a long period of time to thoroughly commit to their belief in virtues like humility and charity?

One caveat with Hell is that if it is eternal than the souls sent there simply wouldn't last as no one is as resilient as that. Only a God could be described as resilient to an infinite extent when it comes to withstanding an eternity in Hell. So from a logical point of view anyone sent to Hell must have an option to re-incarnate. After all they physical world is amoral rather than immoral when it comes to punishment. Although a bad person could likely be forgiven if they chose to withstand some of Hell.

One problem that might be encountered by agnostic-style theists is that they might expect to hear a theory-of-everything so-to-speak when we die. We define God as infinite but even an infinite entity might not be able to resolve issues of absurdity. For example many unresolved maths problems can appear paradoxical. The problem is that science exists within the apparent universe of God such that we expect God to know everything about science. However our expectation of God is as a spiritual being. This means that not all of our questions might be resolved if we were to reach the afterlife. One more problem is that atheistic people might bank on seeing God simply because a large section of society believes in God. Perhaps a dilemma here is that people have different coping mechanisms for death. In other words your beliefs are your own but perhaps there's a slippery slope if we compensate on the religion of others without believing in religion. I'm not sure if potentially different afterlifes comply with democratic principles!

I had moments of existential angst this morning. Something deep down in my psyche started to fear about my faith beliefs. To some extent I endorsed both pantheism and Christianity without ever fully reconciling them. I was often alright with the ambiguity but somehow this contradiction had been simmering in me for many years. Christianity has beliefs that can be deeply antithetical to pantheism or materialism. Yet I could never really abandon pantheism simply because I was so attracted to my own system of logic. Pantheism is wonderful in that it allows you to feel fully in tune with spiritual life except that a flaw is that it also allows evil people to feel connected to God. There were certain metaphysical propositions about God that bothered me. Sometimes I'd be bothered that God created me and yet I didn't always like the world. Whatever happened I always dreaded the afterlife simply because I couldn't envision any possible logical system that attracted me. I couldn't abandon certain principles of materialism out of fear of being lost that meant I was never able to visualise heaven. So when I went into a state of panic I made my own solution to my self-made crisis that I'd really just enjoy praying to Jesus in the afterlife without really wanting a long stay in heaven. When I reached this conclusion I felt euphoria and cried momentarily. Somehow I always envisioned myself being reincarnated but needing time to myself in-between. My thoughts started mixing and my breathing became extremely relaxed. Thoughts started popping in to my mind as if they were elaborations on earlier complex combinations. It was like I focused on the basic syntax first and then decrypted my prior statements into a more coherent form. So it kind of felt like I was arguing with an extreme emotion that was beyond my former comprehension and I was forced to unravel the resulting thoughts for myself. There was a risk of dissociation when I tried to interpret the emotion as being almost external to my usual self. Then I rhymed my thoughts with an altered breathing pattern in order to flow with the emotion. It was like a working backwards mechanism that automated some of my thoughts temporarily. I concocted a plot that I was speaking to an anonymous gatekeeper in the afterlife. I interpreted him as saying my wish would be granted. He said that I'd be allowed to pray but that a lot of people in the afterlife didn't like me. It wasn't that they knew me but they knew my antagonistic personality. I inferred that my personal wish of being with women would be granted because it was my last journey. My chaotic thoughts lead me to conclude that I would get one beatiful women to love but that I could not envision myself as being in any way herself. So I had to say that I'd be stripping not for just for me but also for her. It'd have to be in a loving way to help her. If any other women would arrive I could see them nude but that I could only ever stay with the first woman. Afterwards I was to say that I lived as a slightly lonely person and wished to repent for my sins. I wasn't to interpret such women as coming from God but simply as a gift. Afterwards I was to pray in a deferential way. That sounded like a good bargain except that afterwards I'd be forced to forgive people. I was told that when I feel disliked I feel unappreciated and respond with hate. Then because I view myself as them I feel I must be hating myself. Thus I feel doubly hated. Then I must compromise on my principles and never see those that I forgive as being me. I cannot blame God because they are free. I responded negatively and said that I was deceived by the initial offer only be told that I'd to forgive people who offended me. I angrily said why was it not presented the other way round where I would be told the harsher part to forgive first and then to recieve the women. I felt enticed only to feel rejected by the offer. I said that if this afterlife is not for me I'd convert to a different religion or even form a religion of myself just for me. I was totally independent so to speak. The gatekeeper responded that he'd show me a different realm where I'd be with many women. I'd be able to like them but they'd be just like me and so they wouldn't love me. I didn't like this compromise because I'd be gone afterwards. I was also informed that I'd have to briefly stay in hell. It wasn't that they hated me but that they thought I was obsessed about fantasy. I responded that I wouldn't comply and was told that I wouldn't be in big pain but that people wanted to insult me. I needed to be made pure of my sins before being reincarnated. Otherwise some of my problems could carry on to my next life in a small way. I conceded that I felt lost and that the other traditional religions weren't for me. I engaged with a thoughtline in which the blame I placed on my creator is not proportionate. People create people and that God was a system. As such people come to God and His complicity was indirect in my creation. Too many people act surprised when they're told that God doesn't like them. I was told my idea that I'd die in prayer with Jesus wasn't because I really loved Jesus but that I almost envisioned myself as being Jesus. This really wasn't my viewpoint but they don't accept any ambiguity from me. I had to view everyone as being separate from me. People are offended when I appear to take credit for the pain they endured as if I were them. They don't think I'm very mean but that neither was I very nice. If certain people didn't recognise me in the afterlife it wasn't because they hated me but that they didn't remember me. In a later sequence I was told that I took too much enjoyment from highly unusual facial expressions from women. I rested for a long time afterwards for my thoughts and breathing to return to normal. I view it as being a very subjective sequence of events but that when we die we are disconnected from our brain. As such even a psychotic thoughtline could get personified and reified after death. I was really just speaking to myself in an intense state of dissociation. I never immediately committed myself to any of my fantasised options. To some extent if you'd to be both pantheistic and Christian you'd have to take both very seriously. Perhaps if aspects of Christianity disagree with pantheism you'd really have to be thorough in the immanence of your pantheistic spirit to cope with a lack of appreciation from certain Christians! Maybe my own emotions were simulating what would happen if I didn't display enough self-sacrifice. Christianity isn't really a pure form of pantheism but might be seen as the lesser evil in humorous way. For all I know I've tried to reconcile one of the most extreme forms of anti-Christianity with Christianity! Creating hybrid religious beliefs can be tricky but perhaps the burden is on you to come up with your own suggestions for an afterlife in a way that will be tolerated if such afterlifes were said to exist! Pantheism will not be for everyone but I'd always endorse it for those who can manage it. We often forget that two sinners were also crucified with Jesus. Maybe the thoughtline was pre-emptive in nature knowing my tendency to be temperamental. If a similar thoughtline occured after my death then I'd probably pick the first option but who knows! Perhaps I'd give general apologies to those I may have offended even if I wasn't always capable of giving a full apology. I'm not technically owed an afterlife anyway since I'd already be dead. So I'll have to be grateful for any offer at all! I simply don't have time to form my own little religious group in a garden shed!

One way to think of God is through anti-realism. So God would be a subjective impression that relates to associations in your pre-existing consciousness. This would mean that anyone who believed in God could technically say that each of their images of God might exist as symbols reflected through culture. For example an image of Jesus might be non-material but the message so powerful that it overrides the rest of our cognition.

https://depositphotos.com/12114574/stock-photo-brussels-june-22-crucifixion-on.html

If we were to believe in an afterlife then perhaps we might be wrong to expect divine judgement to be like a court system. Who knows what to expect! Or is forgiveness in the afterlife much like a suspended sentence? Perhaps if we have challenges in our life then it might be best to sort it out with our own court system and political system! Perhaps we ourselves might have to forgive people in an afterlife even if we didn't or only partially forgave them in our earthly life. Otherwise you might have to ignore certain people!

What are you on about mon ami? Pantheism is simply a ... a ... I mean an ... empty sack!

Even if religious people were to believe in hell then there'd really have to be safeguards against an abuse of power. For example if an evil soul were confined to a jail cell in hell then they'd probably need a back-up option of "quantum suicide". This would prevent an overthrow of personal freedom if the evil soul were subject to endless persecution.

A different kinda argument - an old trick in the book, but still quite effective.

Whatever about original sin, there might still be an argument that people are born atheists. Death often seems a million miles away for young children. Then the churches would have to go out of their way to appeal to young people. Each religion doesn't have a separate set of genes to identify their children! Relying on agnostic or lapsed youths to convert during midlife is a high-risk strategy. Firstly if there's an accident or grief of some kind then they'd be left wholly unprepared. Secondly the Catholic Church is spared a lot of competition. Hinduism and Buddhism aren't overly concerned about western conversions given the sheer size of their own populations. Nonetheless a complacent attitude might lead to a permanent decline in mass attendence.

"Hozier criticises the Christian idea that babies are born with original sin and must be cleansed of this through a baptism ritual to which they haven't consented."
https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/watch-hozier-criticises-baptism-and-the-catholic-church-in-meaning-of-life-with-gay-byrne-trailer-512833

For example if there's such commotion about the inability of women to become priests then why not make mass from nuns in a convent just as ritualistic for the laity as a mass at a priestly church?

"Deacons may proclaim and preach the word of God and distribute Holy Communion that was consecrated at a Mass previously. A religious sister, brother, or nun may also lead a celebration outside of Mass and also distribute Holy Communion consecrated at another Mass."
https://zippyfacts.com/can-deacons-or-nuns-say-mass-when-there-is-no-priest/

Ironically it might be acceptable from a religious point of view for an atheistic convert to view God as an imaginary friend. A collective imaginary friend is forced to comply with certain limitations in behaviour. Religions don't really present God as always being in the material world where a prophet like Jesus is said to be in the afterlife. So it's still consistent to view God as an imaginary friend in this life and as a real entity if you reach your afterlife!

"Leave Jesus alone? Don't cry! We've all got imaginary friends; I've just grown out of mine."
Jimmy Carr - Funny religious clip on the late late show

If we view prehistoric people as being less self-aware then it might be possible to say that God "found" the universe rather than created it. In other words our high level of comprehension about the world around us might be because ancient people discovered different versions of God. Perhaps God would be the creator of our shared conscious realm instead of being a creator the physical world.

Criminals can sometimes try to manipulate technicalities in the court system. However what if they tried the same with divine judgement? For example what if they made a pact to be remorseful when they retired even if they still planned to commit crimes beforehand. Perhaps we could say that evil is so intoxicating that if they tried to deceive themselves through "postdated" apologies then they simply wouldn't psychologically be able to apologise to God sincerely.

I think religious scholars are correct in using scientific and cultural analogies for religious terms. The only downside of using metaphors is that they could be misunderstood if they're not thoroughly explained. For example the concept of an unending entity might always have been known when the holy texts were written. However the mathematical concept of infinity is more recent. So when we say God is omni-virtuous we risk mistaking a technical infinity with an incomprehensibly high level of magnanimity. Some agnostics might be more comfortable briefly praying to God in private rather than worshipping God. God if He exists might have perfect excuses for the problem of evil. Although this logical possibility doesn't mean that everyone is capable of endless trust or gratitude for such a God. I differ from Bob Geldof in that Lord seems like a reassuring and polite title for a being who is allegedly going to save your soul during the vulnerability of death. I wouldn't be as comfortable saying it to an aristocrat given our egalitarian culture of democracy. Nonetheless the "Divine Right of Kings" might be tolerable for a truly benevolent monarch if it applied to the afterlife rather than to a materialistic being!

(2:20) " The Supreme Being? What? Are we living in Star Wars?... Lord? Is it Lord of the Rings? The language is so weird."
Bob Geldoff on his Atheism - The Meaning of Life with Gay Byrne

What if we viewed the temptation of the devil when Jesus wandered the desert for over a month as arising from within Jesus? Then we'd interpret this tale in a far more mystical and dissociated way. Whether or not the devil had an extenal mind he was at least inside the perception of Jesus in a way that wasn't so for others. After all if God is the giver of life then He could probably create beings just in His own perception and outside of His own cognition! I'm not sure what the devil would mean back in that era unless it was a secret plan to overthrow the Roman rule of Israel! Despite atheistic arguments of Jesus being schizophrenic it might still be worthwhile from a religious standpoint to play devil's advocate. One core difference between Jesus and a deluded patient is that Jesus had lots of people praying to Him. This does sound a bit arbitrary from a scientific perspective but let's make an economic analogy. An entrepreneur might take risks out of a delusion of grandeur. Yet if bankers trust him or her with loans then this person really could become a millionaire. Likewise the mere fact that a prophet like Jesus had so many worshippers may have "materialised" the vision of that individual. Jesus was a poor person yet He turned out a billionaire in terms of the future adherents of the faith. A difference between science and religion is that scientists tend not to be militantly opposed to rival scientists as was the case in ancient religious wars! Quantum physicists versus general relativists will be in the boxing ring at 2pm!

I respect your soliloquy, but this stunned me:

One core difference between Jesus and a deluded patient is that Jesus had lots of people praying to Him. — Michael McMahon

Explain.

What if I do not pray to Jesus? Am I a deluded patient too?

What if I do not pray to Jesus? Am I a deluded patient too? — javi2541997

Well let's imagine that Jesus somehow hallucinated both speaking to "God the Father" and resisting the devil. The mere fact that other people wholeheartedly endorsed Him meant that He must have been more confident in identifying such "hallucinations". This meant that He may have literally created an entire world of His own by cementing His "dreams". For example we can see how complex Middle Earth is from JRR Tolkien and the author didn't even have anyone praying to him!