There are people who believe that a hell exists. They are afraid of hell because we understand it to be a place essentially of pain. Some will say that it’s a place of emotional pain because it is a permanent alienation from God. But, the mainstream religions will say that hell is a both a place of physical and emotional pain. Understanding what pain is, this would imply that you have a material body (again) after you die. You need a nervous system to feel pain. Otherwise, if you’re just a ghost-like figure (an immaterial soul), then how would you feel pain? I’m not trying to present an ad ignorantiam argument, but there’s no evidence that even if a hell existed that you would have another physical body (yet people are still afraid). If you’re body is material in hell, then hell is also material. Correct me if I’m wrong, but material can break down whether if it’s a body or environment. A material hell would be vulnerable to destruction by mortals. Even if people are never in a position to break it down, the environment is limited and subjected to change. Time exists in hell.
This universe is material. I cannot imagine a material hell lying outside a material universe. Even if a hell doesn’t exist in this universe, it must exist in some material universe. Transcendent might not be the appropriate word to use for such god-like places. Nevertheless, if you are material in any kind of material hell, then aren’t you subject to another death (no, not the religious “second death” as I mentioned earlier)?
An immaterial may be able to live in a material world, but I find it difficult to see how a material can live in an immaterial world. One cannot affect the other. Material only affects material due to motion and energy. These come from things.
Then there’s the question of a heaven… it’s holds the same reasoning. Even if there is a god (who is suppose to be immaterial), how would he live in a material heaven. You can’t be material living in an immaterial heaven. If you’re an immaterial being living in a material heaven, you wouldn’t feel anything (any pleasure or comfort or praise). You couldn’t even affect anything because you are immaterial. Whether you’re material or immaterial in any kind of heaven, you would never come in contact with a god (who is supposedly immaterial). If you say that Jesus is the material version of God, then how did an immaterial God conduct the material cause for the effect of a Jesus? If the immaterial God is immaterial, he still needs both energy and a purpose. You need a brain for purpose.
At this point I’m only speculating within a historical and epistemological context. I obviously cannot think outside it because I’m adhering to a particular kind of language that is historical. I probably could have substituted unicorn and fairy for the word God and would have probably made just as much sense in terms of knowledge (even if it wouldn’t have made sense historically). I could have said that you just need to have faith in the unicorn, and it would have made sense with those who say you just have to have faith in God. Without any evidence, my speculation is just as valid as the God speculation. ”What if I’m wrong… What if you’re wrong.” <—- an example of post modernism?
I’m rambling at this point, and I apologize. Just correct me if I’m wrong.
Turns out I cannot sleep in the same room with the girl I’ve been dating for some time. My parents obviously won’t let me sleep in my room, in my bed with a girl right next to me. So I figured that I would play it safe and sleep on the floor in the guest room, while she slept in the bed. It sounded like a good idea at the time. Wrong. The next day, my parents told me that they were still uncomfortable with that happening. If she spends the night, she has to sleep in the guest room, while I sleep in my own room. Using my age as an argument in favor of being allowed to sleep in the same room, in the same bed as her, does not work like some might think. The argument that only works (that they use) is that this is their house and I must abide by their rules (rules guided by their religious ethics)…
Now for the silly exposition… Isn’t one’s behavior and actions more threatening in a state of consciousness than unconsciousness? Her and I are allowed to watch a movie, in my room, on my bed, with the door closed, but we are not allowed to sleep in my room, on my bed, with the door closed. In other words, they are more uncomfortable by our act of being unconscious together than conscious together. They haven’t realized this rationale yet. I don’t know how they would respond if they realized their logic. All I see is another example of how two people have fallen victim to the dogma of culture, religion, signs and symbols. Because, I gave them the argument: What if I was sleeping in the living room on one couch, while she slept on another couch. My dad hesitated but said that that was ok. But as soon as I pointed out the flaw in their moral concept, my mother quickly was forced to answer with the logical conclusion that it still wouldn’t be ok. I can see right through their concepts: sleeping together is a more intimate act in our culture than watching a movie together. Writing this at this moment, I can see how that would be: Our focus prior to sleep is between two people (on occasions). But they both know I wouldn’t do anything too intimate in our house (make-out sessions or having sex). But this fact wouldn’t change their minds. They value the “no sex before marriage” ethic. Nevertheless, their unrealized conclusion is that my behavior while unconscious with a female is more threatening than being conscious together. My mother hates to think about me sleeping in her bed; she doesn’t agree with my lifestyle. It makes her feel uncomfortable. It would seem as if she is obsessed with my sexuality. Organized religious people are obsessed with the sexuality of others. They feel a need to regulate it. They feel a need to purify it. Dogma of any kind builds insecurities, exclusivity, and a lack of understanding in people.
I wish more people understood this. (via sunlaze)