The Evangelical Universalist Forum

If Heaven exists, is murder wrong?

#1

Theoretical philosophical question here, not a serious inquiry or an expression of desire.

Presuppose that God exists and that there is a “heaven” after death if you’ve acted well enough in your lifetime. If Heaven is better than Earth without the same trials and tribulations and sufferings, would murdering an innocent person to speed along their journey to a better world or to relieve them of the burdens of physical existence (think of Thanos from The Avengers) be considered wrong?

I would argue yes, it would be, because it violates that person’s will, it causes the pain of separation for that person’s loved ones, it robs society of their contributions, and it robs them of their Earthly life which must be highly significant/important in some way, otherwise I don’t think we’d all be here on this planet and I don’t think we’d have evolved a sense of morality. It just seems fundamentally wrong on an instinctual level. Furthermore, unless someone is being a direct threat to ourselves or others, I don’t think we have a right to take away that which was given by God.

Additionally, assuming they’re conscious in some way after death, would being murdered be considered bad by the victim? Would they feel truly harmed? If near death experience accounts are to be believed, they generally feel cheated of a life and experience with the people they love, but it’s ultimately made “okay” by the loving warm light they report encountering. Part of me hopes this is true, but another part of me feels like my sense of justice and right and wrong is shaken if they experience nothing but bliss after death if they’re murdered.

Thoughts? Do you agree or disagree?

#2

Murder is morally wrong regardless of whether or not heaven or even God exists.
That which harms another person (or yourself) is morally wrong.

However, I understand the question. When I was a little boy, I asked my older sister, “Why don’t we kill ourselves so that we can get to heaven sooner?” She responded, “If we kill ourselves, we won’t get there!”

#3

Which seems to confirm my theory that life on Earth is important and significant in some fashion

#4

:+1:

#5

It’s a particularly interesting question from a universalist perspective. If everyone goes to heaven, why don’t we all kill ourselves or others to get there sooner?

I think there is a refining process before going to heaven and that it won’t be pleasant not because God will torture us but because in his Divine Light the weight of our sins will induce unimaginably deep regret and shame.

#6

That’s pretty much how I imagined it, and there are some near death experience accounts that seem to bear that out

1 Like
#7

The question is a non sequitur unless one is mentally challenged. It is not easy for a rational mind to follow through on an intent to end a person’s life. The act of hanging oneself (perhaps the most popular) is not a pleasant way to “do yourself in”, as Eliza Doolittle might have expressed it. It is painful and not always successful. Other methods are equally distasteful. Apart from that, life is sweet. We have an in-built desire to hang on to it, ever hopeful that tomorrow will prove to be better.

2 Likes
#8

Yepper :+1:

#9

I’ve never before encountered anyone who labelled a question non sequitur. What do you think non sequitur means? I’m asking this, not in the sense of a challenge, but in order to understand your statement.

#10

Oh dear, woe is me, for I am undone. I know you to be a scholar of classical languages, Paidion, and take no offence about being corrected. I can only profess a mea culpa and fall back on the lame excuse that my native language is Gaelic, not Latin or Greek or even English.

That being said, it could be true to claim that readers of my post understood the point I was trying to make despite my display of abject illiteracy. Chad, for example, apparently had no problem interpreting what I had written. Maybe that’s because language is not always fixed in time. Usage and meaning can evolve. In any case, if a reader can read into what is written and arrive at the intent of the author, does it really matter if a word or phrase is not always grammatically correct? These days, one has to stay woke or he will remain in a blissful (?) state of ignorance.

But, Paidion, I do sincerely value your comment - along with all your other clarifications that help us to understand what the original texts in scripture actually mean.

#11

Thank you for your response, Inversessian. I wasn’t trying to demonstrate your “display of abject illiteracy” compared to my “scholarship in classical languages.” I was simply trying to understand what you mean.

I still want to know why you consider the above question "non sequitur." I just don’t know what you mean by “non sequitur” and how your meaning relates to the question. I still want to know.

Is it just because Chad responded “Yepper” that you think he had no problem interpreting what you had written? I guess I could have responded that way too, but if I had, that would not indicate that I understood. Could you give your response in other words so that I can understand?

#12

We are a convoluted lot here on this forum. And for me personally, I enjoy it. And to address Norm’s view, hey he pointed out his view.