Must Heaven Be Larger Than A Narrow Box?

Why are views regarding who will go to heaven and who will not seem to be getting less restrictive? Because as different cultures with different religious views come together as a result of globalization, it becomes more and more apparent that exclusive views are no longer tenable.

In the USA, for example, the European settlers (invaders might better describe it for the realist) came over here and decimated the native people and subsequently adopted a predominantly Christian landscape. Up until the USA started seeing substantial numbers of non-Christian peoples, there were largely Christians and atheists. Even now, though probably not as much, atheists are thought of as largely expendable and as such it is easy to believe they will not get into heaven and worse yet will suffer eternity in hell.

But what about a wonderful neighbor who happens to be a Muslim, Buddhist or member of some other belief system? Is one prepared to believe these people will not adopt a place in heaven solely because they did not adhere to or believe in the “right” system? Increasingly less so I would say.

So what is a believer in "some will go to heaven and some will go to hell" to do with this new reality? Most will simply conjure up their own arbitrary belief to circumvent this dilemma. “God will ultimately evaluate us based on intentions,” something or other. (see How Will We Be Judged? for further consideration)

But then how does belief have anything to do with this? If we are evaluated on the basis of belief, then one must believe. On the other hand, if it is based on the purity and intention of a person's heart, why does belief matter in the least?

Paradise Questioned?

The idea that man fell while in God's created Paradise seems asinine to me. As if one whispered to another, “you know, we could become Gods ourselves if we broke out of this shit hole!”

But if God's created Paradise was in fact “paradise”, why would anybody have wanted to leave? A seemingly more powerful argument is how in bloody hell could anybody have known or even conceived of anything better (like being his own God*) if everything was already perfectly paradisal?

How then are we to be assured that heaven in the afterlife will not simply revert back to the same supposed “hell” we find ourselves in now? 



*Though after watching the movie Bruce Almighty, why in God's name (pun intended) would ANYBODY want to be HIM?

Fairness Or Simplicity?

An unavoidable and unfortunate side-effect of drawing lines is that fairness and simplicity seem to be inversely proportional. As such, they work against each other. “But I want all of both,” it will be exclaimed like an obnoxious, spoiled child. But seldom if ever can something be simple without it being unfair. Conversely, seldom if ever can something be fair without it being complicated.

Of course many unfair issues in life are easily overlooked because they are relatively superficial not worth obsessing over. To digress slightly, it is important to note that what is superficial or not is ultimately opinion anyway. But bear with my terms for the sake of the argument. For instance, getting stuck in a “slow” line at the supermarket. It is unfair but simple: you just wait longer than somebody else should. Supermarkets could implement what would be relatively complicated protocols for fairness' sake, though who really cares about such trivial issues? But what about other issues which are not so superficial? Take the inherent problem with our tax code, most notably its complexity. It is overly complicated because, it is thought, its progressive nature makes it more fair (assume once again this is true for the symmetry of this argument, for I know many will disagree with this because of valid disagreements as to what fairness can entail).

Let's introduce the idea of the Fair-Tax. For it to work in its purportedly simple manner, it must brook few if any exceptions, otherwise it will swell into another bloated gazillion page encyclopedia of exceptions rather than a few simple rules. But without myriad exceptions, people will instinctively bitch and complain that they should not be subject to the same tax or burden as somebody else.

For instance, if the tax is fixed, whether I buy a bag of raw broccoli or somebody else buys a pack of cigarettes, this does not seem fair to me (and perhaps even the smoker) as it is likely he will pose a far greater burden on society than I myself will eating broccoli. Of course most will justifiably claim that we must implement exceptions that are “obviously” reasonable. But which exceptions are “obviously” reasonable?

If you have a difficult time responding to this with anything but a smug, know-it-all grim, does it occur to you that there exist so many special interest groups only because each believes wholeheartedly that its cause is sacred and hence “obviously” reasonable? Where must we draw the line on what is to be considered a "reasonable" exception?

For the fair-tax to truly be what is claimed of it, it must be both fair and simple. But this seems problematic because of the inverse proportionality of these two variables. Must not fairness yield to simplicity or simplicity to fairness? Resolving society's most pressing issues with both fairness and simplicity is wishful thinking!

Alas, we as a society are faced with the confounding issue of whether to aim for more fairness or more simplicity in our affairs. The consequences of disagreement over this manifest themselves in ugly ways. Of course this very dilemma crops up with reckless abandon on many other issues.

For instance, if many believe God will eventually send each of us to either heaven or hell, will He handle this task with simplicity or fairness? Simplicity would dictate He draw 1 simple line. If one is lucky, he will make it. If not, he will inherit hell as his eternal rest stop. What if you or somebody you really cared about just missed this cutoff into paradise? How might you feel? “Don't have a COW God, I mean none of us is perfect!”

Conversely, what if somebody you really did not care for just made this cutoff into paradise? Certainly neither of these scenarios would seem fair, to you at least. Of course presumably it will seem fair to others, especially those which just made this cutoff into paradise but whose purported “enemies” did not!

Now on the other hand, we might suggest God will lean more towards fairness, in which case He can grade each of us on a “continuous” spectrum or what many might relate to far better, a “curve”. But this would be beyond complicated so much so that it would make any conclusion as to how He would do so pure speculation. And it is all but certain ego would corrupt the “worthiness” of any conclusion anyway, for the express intent of “covering its ass” so to speak. By this, I mean individuals "reasoning" how they and their “select” loved ones will inherit paradise whereas others seen as enemies or wretches will not.

Another valid consideration, what is fairness? Many believe fairness should be predicated on judging wrongs. This would then necessitate we all be judged. But this once again would be incredibly complicated. How might God do this? Any answer to this just begs another question. How could anybody possibly know? Presumably believers of “perfect judgment” see themselves worthy of being overlooked, but how do they discern this? Is this necessarily right or fair? To them it is.

On the other hand, what if God judged nobody? What if His love and grace and mercy were infinitely sufficient such that He had neither the desire nor obligation to judge anybody? Believing an all powerful God will step in as a proxy for all the wrongs done against us and our select loved ones seems to be our way of assuaging the anger and despair which naturally arises from being wronged.

What if those who believe God will settle wrongs done against them and their select loved ones reconsidered? Would they feel compelled or even obligated to personally avenge these wrongs if they ceased to believe God would?

But getting back to the idea that God might judge nobody, this seems fair to me and perhaps others but I know it will not seem so to many others. Once again, herein lies the most fundamental problem we face in existence: the most difficult issues in life are trade-offs! There is no absolutely perfect answer as to how we should balance fairness and simplicity!

The End Of The Road

What is it about death that frightens people? Is it death or is it the dying? Might our fear simply be grounded in the possibility that we will not experience a quick transition to what I believe will be the only place of celestial peace? This seems rational. In this case, it is the road we fear, not the destination.

But who should actually be afraid of death itself? Religious people, especially the self-righteous type, typically believe in an afterlife comprised of heaven or hell. Of those that are self-righteous, where does one suppose these people assume they are going? Heaven, of course. So why should they be afraid?

What about the less than righteous? Where do these people believe they are going? Either heaven or hell. Of those that believe they are going to hell, should they be afraid? Perhaps, but many of these people seem overtly proud about their belief that they will inherit hell as an eternal rest stop, almost as if they embrace the idea of it. So even if hell exists and is actually the place of torment and gnashing of teeth many believe, why should they be afraid if hell is embraced?

What about atheists? Well, these people in all likelihood believe there is no reason to worry about a state that will never be experienced. If death is the end of consciousness, what is there to fear?

It seems the only people that might have a rational fear of death are those that never allow themselves to be “good enough” and hence believe they will be punished in the "Great Beyond".

What Makes God's Ideals Ideal?

I believe one of the subtle messages Jesus taught about ideals is that it is not enough, nay it is nearly meaningless I tell you, to follow ideals with practicality in mind. Meaning, if one follows ideals only within the context of what is deemed practical, he will likely never follow them when they are at all meaningful. In other words, I think Jesus was teaching us that ideals are only truly ideal when they are not practical.

For instance, consider Jesus' teachings on love as an ideal. If treated as such, love is most ideal or perhaps only ideal when it involves loving those that are most difficult to love. If you only love those that reciprocate, what credit is that to you? Even the devil of hell and mobsters are quite capable of this! Loving only those that love you certainly is practical but is far from ideal. Applying this principal to other things like forgiveness and mercy, it appears many might believe in ideals. However, their Achilles' heel prohibits them from actually exercising these ideals when it is impractical to do so. But when an ideal is exercised only when it is practical, it will not be followed when it is most needed. This is not ideal.

Isn't it touching that people have sympathy for an abused baby or an abandoned puppy? Of course people have sympathy for them! But this is a case of practical sympathy. It does not require anything close to that of a saint to be sympathetic to the plight of a suffering child or defenseless puppy. But what about having genuine sympathy for a convicted rapist, drug abuser or child molester facing dire consequences entirely brought on by his irresponsible and reckless behavior? At this point, most would adopt the ideal that he is reaping what he has sown. This certainly feels much more emotionally comforting for most because it is practical. Which means any and all sympathy for a “low-life” like this is conveniently abandoned in favor of the emotional satisfaction of feeling like he is getting what he deserves. But if the ideal of sympathy is taken seriously, what could possibly be a better demonstration of it than to have sympathy especially for a dreg like this?

Conversely, if we subscribe to the ideal that one should reap what he sows, there is no reason to have sympathy for a penniless widow if she is penniless because she did not prepare responsibly for this possibility. Are there many people that would not have sympathy for this woman? I would like to think not! My point is that no matter how much we try to act out and uphold ideals, if we do not do so absolutely, our ideals become merely relative. Which means they are not really ideal. They are simply arbitrary based on any given individual's preference.

With this realization then, I must admit I fail to see God as the author of many of our supposed "ideals" and moral convictions. Rather, I see ego as its principle author.