Well, I suppose that would make the question of "good" and "evil", and so by extension, "heaven" and "hell", relative things - relative to whomever or whatever one allowed to define those things for him.
A Christian might say "God defines good and evil, heaven and hell. Whatever God says, goes." A Satanist might see things precisely opposed to that, since they tend to be more in opposition to Christianity than any actual celebration of Satan. An Atheist, on the other hand, might define those concepts to mean whatever promotes his own self-interest is "good", and whatever opposes his interests to be "evil", but to an Atheist, the question of heaven and hell would be moot.
So, I suppose in the final analysis, whomever one is cheer-leading for gets to define good and evil, heaven and hell, in that person's eyes.
One man's meat is another man's poison.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
But do mortal men actually get to call the shots like that as regards good and evil, heaven and hell? Or does whomever wins the Final Battle get to define those concepts as if they were right all along, because "history is written by the victors"?
Another way to look at it would be to say "if no one is right, then everyone is wrong" - so everyone would have to choose a "side", either consciously or not - and live (or die) by the results of that decision.
We also must keep in mind that Satan or "The Devil" was originally conceived of as a far different creature than the one invented by the Catholics and spread throughout Christianity by them - tainting Christianity one might say.
Originally it seems, he was perceived as merely a subservient adversary. For example, in the Garden of Eden, or as expressed in Job as an accusatory prosecuting attorney. A subservient "foil" to God, whose function was to showcase God's mercy... or vengeance. He was not the all-powerful, un-human entity the Catholics created and promoted. It seems that all "good" needs a counter-point to exist. Yin to yang. For of what use is trying to understand the concept of "good" without an opposing concept of "evil" to bring it forth? What is "light" if there is no "dark" to contrast it against? What point is there in a "heaven" if there is no "hell" to compare it against? Would all of those thing not be simply "what is" without a counterpoint to contrast it against and define it, and never even a consideration?
.
A Christian might say "God defines good and evil, heaven and hell. Whatever God says, goes." A Satanist might see things precisely opposed to that, since they tend to be more in opposition to Christianity than any actual celebration of Satan. An Atheist, on the other hand, might define those concepts to mean whatever promotes his own self-interest is "good", and whatever opposes his interests to be "evil", but to an Atheist, the question of heaven and hell would be moot.
So, I suppose in the final analysis, whomever one is cheer-leading for gets to define good and evil, heaven and hell, in that person's eyes.
One man's meat is another man's poison.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
But do mortal men actually get to call the shots like that as regards good and evil, heaven and hell? Or does whomever wins the Final Battle get to define those concepts as if they were right all along, because "history is written by the victors"?
Another way to look at it would be to say "if no one is right, then everyone is wrong" - so everyone would have to choose a "side", either consciously or not - and live (or die) by the results of that decision.
We also must keep in mind that Satan or "The Devil" was originally conceived of as a far different creature than the one invented by the Catholics and spread throughout Christianity by them - tainting Christianity one might say.
Originally it seems, he was perceived as merely a subservient adversary. For example, in the Garden of Eden, or as expressed in Job as an accusatory prosecuting attorney. A subservient "foil" to God, whose function was to showcase God's mercy... or vengeance. He was not the all-powerful, un-human entity the Catholics created and promoted. It seems that all "good" needs a counter-point to exist. Yin to yang. For of what use is trying to understand the concept of "good" without an opposing concept of "evil" to bring it forth? What is "light" if there is no "dark" to contrast it against? What point is there in a "heaven" if there is no "hell" to compare it against? Would all of those thing not be simply "what is" without a counterpoint to contrast it against and define it, and never even a consideration?
.