Ethics of Paradise

Quentin111

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
145
Reaction score
8
Points
56
I am an atheist, but I believe that in the future technologies will allow creating an artificial God, the Afterlife, Paradise, etc.
My question is: if you were to design Paradise, what rules would you set for getting there?
The attitude of different religions to the problem of life after death is quite different. Abrahamic religions have one, Buddhism has another, Shintoism has the third, and so on. Conflict between different ethical systems is possible (suicide in Christianity is a mortal sin, and in the Japanese Code Bushido is a way to save honor).
It will also be important to take into account the ideological features of alien communities, if they exist in our (and not only in our) Universe besides us. They also need to be taken to the Afterlife.
There is a theory that everyone will be given according to his faith. But in the case of atheists, you can also take them to Paradise.
The most attractive is the idea that after death you need to take everyone into Paradise - regardless of their deeds and faith in life. This will avoid uncertainty when, under different ethical and religious systems, the activities of different people are evaluated differently.
So in Paradise, I want to take both the righteous and the villains. Paradise, I imagine a place like a social network, where everyone chooses with whom to be friends with and with whom to communicate and whom to ignore.
One thing is certain: there will be no sin in the afterlife.
 

JoeMoma

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
15,176
Reaction score
2,677
Points
290
I am not so sure that an afterlife created by man-made technologies would be devoid of sin.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
1,924
Points
280
Paradise would be a material-free condition where pure spirit, knowledge and awareness were enjoyed by those who had experienced the opposites.
 

jehanne1431

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Messages
334
Reaction score
72
Points
90
The attitude of different religions to the problem of life after death is quite different. Abrahamic religions have one, <<< This has little value or fundamental importance to lump Islam with Christianity. One is far more merciful than the other. Many other crucial differences in judgment or virtue separate the two.

Suicide in Christianity is a mortal sin. <<< Not so. It may have been spoken of in those terms, yes, but never a formal teaching of Catholicism. Catholicism may define some sins as subject to being mortal, but it does not judge it be definitive in practice to any individual because of many mitigating factors. Nor has the Church ever declared any one particular soul to be in hell.

It will also be important to take into account the ideological features of alien communities, if they exist in our universe besides us. <<< This is unproductive fanciful musings, imo. But I imagine if one rejects the words and manifestations of the one true God, then they are free to rely on their imagination or dreams.

There is a theory that everyone will be given according to his faith. <<< As well as according to his works of charity, opportunities given, choices made and violation of one’s conscience.

But in the case of atheists, you can also take them to Paradise. <<< Yes, you very well could be taken to paradise. But not without taking great risks along the way. Not an easy road, imo.

What difference does it make that all religions have their own god or own theology when there is only one truth? You seem to be implying that truth cannot be known by humanity while on earth.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
1,924
Points
280
Perhaps truth is unknowable by humans.
Perhaps something essential and sufficient about truth can be known.
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
27,082
Reaction score
3,730
Points
280
Location
Sty
I am an atheist, but I believe that in the future technologies will allow creating an artificial God, the Afterlife, Paradise, etc.
My question is: if you were to design Paradise, what rules would you set for getting there?
The attitude of different religions to the problem of life after death is quite different. Abrahamic religions have one, Buddhism has another, Shintoism has the third, and so on. Conflict between different ethical systems is possible (suicide in Christianity is a mortal sin, and in the Japanese Code Bushido is a way to save honor).
It will also be important to take into account the ideological features of alien communities, if they exist in our (and not only in our) Universe besides us. They also need to be taken to the Afterlife.
There is a theory that everyone will be given according to his faith. But in the case of atheists, you can also take them to Paradise.
The most attractive is the idea that after death you need to take everyone into Paradise - regardless of their deeds and faith in life. This will avoid uncertainty when, under different ethical and religious systems, the activities of different people are evaluated differently.
So in Paradise, I want to take both the righteous and the villains. Paradise, I imagine a place like a social network, where everyone chooses with whom to be friends with and with whom to communicate and whom to ignore.
One thing is certain: there will be no sin in the afterlife.
"My question is: if you were to design Paradise, what rules would you set for getting there?"

I get to set the rules?...dang...this is going to be fun.
 

JoeMoma

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
15,176
Reaction score
2,677
Points
290
I am an atheist, but I believe that in the future technologies will allow creating an artificial God, the Afterlife, Paradise, etc.
My question is: if you were to design Paradise, what rules would you set for getting there?
The attitude of different religions to the problem of life after death is quite different. Abrahamic religions have one, Buddhism has another, Shintoism has the third, and so on. Conflict between different ethical systems is possible (suicide in Christianity is a mortal sin, and in the Japanese Code Bushido is a way to save honor).
It will also be important to take into account the ideological features of alien communities, if they exist in our (and not only in our) Universe besides us. They also need to be taken to the Afterlife.
There is a theory that everyone will be given according to his faith. But in the case of atheists, you can also take them to Paradise.
The most attractive is the idea that after death you need to take everyone into Paradise - regardless of their deeds and faith in life. This will avoid uncertainty when, under different ethical and religious systems, the activities of different people are evaluated differently.
So in Paradise, I want to take both the righteous and the villains. Paradise, I imagine a place like a social network, where everyone chooses with whom to be friends with and with whom to communicate and whom to ignore.
One thing is certain: there will be no sin in the afterlife.
"My question is: if you were to design Paradise, what rules would you set for getting there?"

I get to set the rules?...dang...this is going to be fun.
 
OP
Q

Quentin111

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
145
Reaction score
8
Points
56
I believe that Paradise should be open to everybody.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
597
Points
190
I believe that Paradise should be open to everybody.
It already is...

But outside are are dogs and sorcerers, murderers and idolators, and everyone who loves and practices deceit.
How about a "lie in salvation"?

Who said that? Sounds unethical.
"But outside are are dogs and sorcerers, murderers and idolators, and everyone who loves and practices deceit"

So which one are you?
 
OP
Q

Quentin111

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
145
Reaction score
8
Points
56
I believe that Paradise should be open to everybody.
It already is...

But outside are are dogs and sorcerers, murderers and idolators, and everyone who loves and practices deceit.
Christianity professes love for everybody, including dogs and sorcerers, murderers and idolators, and everyone who loves and practices deceit. :)
 

hobelim

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
9,171
Reaction score
471
Points
130
Location
elsewhere
I believe that Paradise should be open to everybody.
It already is...

But outside are are dogs and sorcerers, murderers and idolators, and everyone who loves and practices deceit.
Christianity professes love for everybody, including dogs and sorcerers, murderers and idolators, and everyone who loves and practices deceit. :)

Yeah, Jesus preached love for everyone too and then he ruthlessly extirpated false doctrines and publicly humiliated actors and lying religious frauds without pity..

according to Jesus, they were bound for destruction and without his instruction and guidance they were doomed to never enter the kingdom of Heaven.

I suppose how love is expressed necessarily differs from one person to the next.
 
Last edited:
OP
Q

Quentin111

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
145
Reaction score
8
Points
56
Jesus also preached "if they hit you on the left cheek, turn the right one".
 

hobelim

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
9,171
Reaction score
471
Points
130
Location
elsewhere
Jesus also preached "if they hit you on the left cheek, turn the right one".

Yes, taken from the personal injury law stating a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe.

A slap on the cheek isn't even on the list as a personal injury. At the time a slap on the cheek was considered an insult not an assault. Thats how slaves were treated.

Jesus was teaching that sticks and stones break bones, but names will never hurt me kind of thought.In other words .. don't seek retaliation in court for an insult that doesn't qualify as an injury.

He was not teaching people to not defend themselves against violence or to believe that seeking retaliation or restitution in court for any evil suffered is wrong.

What kind of person would teach people that they just have to take shit from everybody? Not Jesus. He didn't take shit from anybody.
 
Last edited:

RodISHI

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
21,050
Reaction score
5,888
Points
280
People with pharisees spirits seem to want to apply their own precepts of the Word for their self justification schemes and scams.

Cheek.PNG
 
OP
Q

Quentin111

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
145
Reaction score
8
Points
56
Jesus also preached "if they hit you on the left cheek, turn the right one".

Yes, taken from the personal injury law stating a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe.

A slap on the cheek isn't even on the list as a personal injury. At the time a slap on the cheek was considered an insult not an assault. Thats how slaves were treated.

Jesus was teaching that sticks and stones break bones, but names will never hurt me kind of thought.In other words .. don't seek retaliation in court for an insult that doesn't qualify as an injury.

He was not teaching people to not defend themselves against violence or to believe that seeking retaliation or restitution in court for any evil suffered is wrong.

What kind of person would teach people that they just have to take shit from everybody? Not Jesus. He didn't take shit from anybody.
It turns out that a Christian is not obliged to forgive his enemies? God will forgive?
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top