Do different religions have a different idea of heaven/hell? How is this possible?

[April Fool]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city. Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven." I myself am a Christian for what it's worth, but if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place. If, on the other hand it is supposed to be an actual existing place, then everyone regardless of their religion would and should think of it as the same place in the same location and should all consider themselves to be going to that place when they say that they are going to heaven. Of course the same argument could be made about hell, but my point still stands.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

^ that makes zero sense

 

[sun rise]

First welcome to RF.

Yes, various religions have very different ideas about heaven and hell. One way of perhaps looking at it is your NYC example. There are many many different neighborhoods in the City with very different characteristics. Being in downtown Manhattan is very different from being in some neighborhoods in the Bronx and so forth.

 

[Skwim]

Different people developed different religions to suit different needs and goals, and to meet these needs they define various concepts in different ways. Early Jews had no need for hell, so for the most part they've never bothered to give it much of a formal shape. On the other hand, Christians, with their need to convince people to believe in Jesus, found hell a very convenient tool to scare people into accepting Christ as a savior from the place. It never made much difference how they presented hell as long as it served its purpose. So different denominations approached hell differently, Some found good success with an eternal fire and brimstone concept, whereas others found this far too over the top and were content with hell as a simple separation from god, sometimes making hell only a temporary stopover to heaven.

Personally, I'd say that if one is going to accept the Bible as the word of god, all the Bible, then one would be pretty much obligated to regard hell as a place of eternal suffering. Of course this doesn't speak very well of a loving god, but them's the consequences of Christianity. In for a dime, in for a dollar, no matter how illogical and cruel it may be.
.

 

[April Fool]

^ that makes zero sense

How does it not make sense? It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Grandliseur]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city. Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven." I myself am a Christian for what it's worth, but if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place. If, on the other hand it is supposed to be an actual existing place, then everyone regardless of their religion would and should think of it as the same place in the same location and should all consider themselves to be going to that place when they say that they are going to heaven. Of course the same argument could be made about hell, but my point still stands.

Since not all accept the same authority, the same map, there is a difference of opinion. To me death is destruction, the return to non existence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city. Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven." I myself am a Christian for what it's worth, but if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place. If, on the other hand it is supposed to be an actual existing place, then everyone regardless of their religion would and should think of it as the same place in the same location and should all consider themselves to be going to that place when they say that they are going to heaven. Of course the same argument could be made about hell, but my point still stands.

It's not like the New York City analogy. We can actually go to New York City.

In Buddhism, heavens and hells rather than heaven and hell are states of the mind not actual places. The concept of a place called heaven is not universal. That, and depending on the culture, not all christians would describe it as a place but just being in the presence of god where hell is eternal absence of god.

 

[blü 2]

assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is

Once it's asserted that hell is real, has objective existence, is not just a figment of the mind, then yes, it follows that all claims and descriptions of hell ought to be substantially similar.

Exactly the same is true of God, Satan, angels, devils, heaven, souls, ghosts &c. The complete disagreement between the accounts of these things is yet more strong evidence that they are all mental constructs, not the names of real things.

 

[David T]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city. Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven." I myself am a Christian for what it's worth, but if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place. If, on the other hand it is supposed to be an actual existing place, then everyone regardless of their religion would and should think of it as the same place in the same location and should all consider themselves to be going to that place when they say that they are going to heaven. Of course the same argument could be made about hell, but my point still stands.

Obviously. Here is one that I cannot imagine being sent to. Old people in speedos my god that's way worse than a lake of fire.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city. Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven." I myself am a Christian for what it's worth, but if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place. If, on the other hand it is supposed to be an actual existing place, then everyone regardless of their religion would and should think of it as the same place in the same location and should all consider themselves to be going to that place when they say that they are going to heaven. Of course the same argument could be made about hell, but my point still stands.

Different concepts of an afterlife depends on several factors. One of them is geography. Some religious historians concede that sometimes depending on the location of the "prophets," heaven and hell may have some semblance, of where they are in the world.

 

[whitemulberries]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city. Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven." I myself am a Christian for what it's worth, but if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place. If, on the other hand it is supposed to be an actual existing place, then everyone regardless of their religion would and should think of it as the same place in the same location and should all consider themselves to be going to that place when they say that they are going to heaven. Of course the same argument could be made about hell, but my point still stands.

Hi,

People have been to NYC and have told others how to get there, or have come from NYC, told others how to get there and/or accompanied them there, and have come back/verified these accounts of where NYC is in a way that other people have been able to replicate them, and this sort of thing has happened often enough for enough people for it to become an accepted truth. Moreover, in the case of NYC, we have a way of actually getting there and coming back to verify its existence for others to do the same, and plenty of us have made the trip and back (perhaps a few or even many times), or vice versa (because we live there). These same things cannot be said about Heavens and Hells.

Thanks,

wm

 

[Kenny]

\Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven."

I think it is the assumption that is wrong... It makes the assumption that we all have the same thoughts and/or use the same references as a foundation.

for and example:

Personally, I'd say that if one is going to accept the Bible as the word of god, all the Bible, then one would be pretty much obligated to regard hell as a place of eternal suffering. Of course this doesn't speak very well of a loving god, but them's the consequences of Christianity. In for a dime, in for a dollar, no matter how illogical and cruel it may be.

Here we have a person who took the same foundation as others (in his example) but comes to a completely different conclussion ( a different set of thoughts).

I would view it differently. If I would take his foundational belief system, I would say "Even though I killed the bank teller and it was my decision to do so, the judge is an unloving judge because he sent me to jail for 5 consequtive life terms and I am going to suffer. And the jailer is even more unloving because he put me in solitary confinement. Who cares if I hit him? He is DEFINITELY an unloving jailer".

Again, we used the same foundation but came to two different conclusions. Thus we have differing viewpoints of a Heaven.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place.

^ that makes zero sense

How does it not make sense?

Because

• the existence of n conflicting opinions of x does not, in and of itself invalidate all n; one could be accurate while n-1 are false, and
• even if all n are false, that would not in and of itself disprove x, it simply indicates that each n inadequately describes it.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Sorry about that.

 

[Sanzbir]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city.

Are you kidding?? No. An individual's perception of NYC is vastly different person to person. My friend's from the New York countryside. According to him there's a VASTLY different view of the city itself by New Yorkers from the city (who have a very positive, idealized view of it) and New Yorkers outside of it (who have a very negative view of the city).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

• the existence of n conflicting opinions of x does not, in and of itself invalidate all n; one could be accurate while n-1 are false, and

• even if all n are false, that would not in and of itself disprove x, it simply indicates that each n inadequately describes it.

I believe that you are saying that even if every description n of x is incorrect, it doesn't mean that x doesn't exist. Without a clear definition of what x is, what are we arguing might exist?

"Ignosticism, or igtheism ... can be summarized as We have no clear concept of anything labeled 'God' and/or how to test it, nor do we have any reason to suspect that anyone does either. Ignosticism is based on a broader ontological/epistemological view that expects all questions and theories to be of clear and sound arguments. The arguments ought to have well defined terms and the possibility of critical and rational analysis."

We can generalize this to any discussion about the existence of an incompletely defined term. Does hell exist? "What is hell?," one might ask. It's either a lake of fire into which conscious souls are cast to make them suffer, or its complete separation from God, or it's just a term for destruction and a return to nonexistence. Now I ask again if this exists.
.

 

[shunyadragon]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city. Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven." I myself am a Christian for what it's worth, but if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place. If, on the other hand it is supposed to be an actual existing place, then everyone regardless of their religion would and should think of it as the same place in the same location and should all consider themselves to be going to that place when they say that they are going to heaven. Of course the same argument could be made about hell, but my point still stands.

Acknowledging that the human belief and perception of abstract religious beliefs and concepts of heaven and hell. The concept of God and/or God(s) is too highly variable for any one human belief in God to be the reality of a 'Source' or 'Sources' we would give names to. The same is true of Heaven and Hell.

Religions and belief systems are to some degree or another are most definitely defined from the fallible human perspective.

 

[leibowde84]

For example, there is only ONE New York city, and everyone regardless of their religion knows this and they would probably know what you were talking about if you said you were going to New York city. Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven." I myself am a Christian for what it's worth, but if, for example, Christians have a different idea of what and where heaven is than do people of other faiths, then this basically says that heaven is a place that exists only as a matter of people's religious beliefs (since it can be different based on your beliefs), and not as an actual place. If, on the other hand it is supposed to be an actual existing place, then everyone regardless of their religion would and should think of it as the same place in the same location and should all consider themselves to be going to that place when they say that they are going to heaven. Of course the same argument could be made about hell, but my point still stands.

This is an unfair assumption. There are pictures of NYC, there are books about it, history, tangible monuments, buildings, etc. With heaven there are none of these things, and no one has ever been there and returned.

 

[Katzpur]

Therefore, assuming that heaven is supposed to be a place that actually exists, it stands to reason that everyone regardless of their religion should have the same idea of what and where heaven is, and they should also all be thinking of the same place when someone refers to "heaven."

And just why does it "stand to reason"? How much does the Bible actually tell us about Heaven anyway? Not much!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe that you are saying that even if every description n of x is incorrect, it doesn't mean that x doesn't exist. Without a clear definition of what x is, what are we arguing might exist?

"Ignosticism, or igtheism ... can be summarized as We have no clear concept of anything labeled 'God' and/or how to test it, nor do we have any reason to suspect that anyone does either.

FYI, ...

• the term was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, whom I met, dined with and talked with more than once before his untimely death, and
• there is a world of difference between a "clear definition" and a comprehensive one -- so, for example, I can define hell as a place of eternal punishment without knowing anything about the nature of that punishment or, for that matter, the nature of 'place.'

 

[shunyadragon]

And just why does it "stand to reason"? How much does the Bible actually tell us about Heaven anyway? Not much!

FYI, ...

• the term was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, whom I met, dined with and talked with more than once before his untimely death, and
• there is a world of difference between a "clear definition" and a comprehensive one -- so, for example, I can define hell as a place of eternal punishment without knowing anything about the nature of that punishment or, for that matter, the nature of 'place.'

Considering anecdotal, vague and conflicting concepts of ancient scripture based on mythology. It does not 'stand to reason' that any such place, nor nature of 'place' actually exists.