casualtiger2 said:Quantum physics shows us that precise measurement and predictability just aren't possible at certain levels of the physical world.
So why equate "nature" with "God"—basically, why lump God under the umbrella of the objective universe?
... Any experience of the objective universe is just indirect information, because it has to pass through the subjective universe—which, strangely enough, doesn't seem subject to the same natural, mechanical, or organic laws as the objective one. That’s really the main distinction between the two. The subjective universe has the option of acting "unnaturally"—meaning it isn't boxed in by the limitations of three dimensions and five senses. ...
The subjective universe, then, has this whole spectrum of possibilities—ranging from near-literal precision to total deception—simply because it isn't ruled by the laws of nature.
...
Where are you getting this idea that the subjective world isn't bound by natural laws and somehow involves "unnatural" action?
The fact that this "unnatural" aspect of the soul exists is pointed to by humanity's drive to impose man-made structures onto the objective universe—things like art and creativity, which are by definition set apart from the natural world, whether we're talking about the Pyramids, poetry, or political institutions.
The social base determines the social superstructure.
Karl Marx Quote
... The "right-hand path" is the way of unifying with universal reality (God or nature). Once that unity is fully achieved, the individual "I" is nullified; the person becomes one with the divine or the natural-cosmic order. In that state of heaven, or being/non-being in Nirvana, the ego ceases to exist—which is the ultimate goal of all Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist orthodoxies.
The idea that the individual "I" gets wiped out when merging with the divine is pretty debatable—especially since the ego isn't the same thing as the individual "I," as mentioned earlier.
Most people spend their lives chasing whatever gives them an edge—knowledge, power, freedom, status—basically anything that helps them climb the ladder in their own little corner of the world. It only makes sense that those practicing the spiritual "Left-Hand Path" would apply that same drive to the supernatural side of things. They aren't interested in following the rules laid out by the "Right-Hand Path," which constantly screams about how this kind of behavior is "evil." Those folks would rather you just stick to the script—follow God, follow nature, and be a well-adjusted, predictable part of the collective. Not exactly my style.
So, those who merge with God—do they just become these perfectly "well-adjusted collective people"?
The Left-Hand Path is essentially a journey toward inequality—a deliberate break from unity with the objective universe. It’s about isolating consciousness within this vast cosmos, forcing a kind of self-imposed psychological solitude that allows the practitioner to refine their soul, or psyche, to much higher levels. You aren't trying to fit into the world; you're forcing the universe to harmonize with your own will instead of the other way around. While the Right-Hand Path tends to be theocentric—or at least focused on some external higher power—the Left-Hand Path is purely psyche-centric. It’s ego-centric. It’s all about the soul. Definitions of the self, the ego, or the soul might vary depending on who you ask, but one thing remains constant: the individual is the undisputed epicenter of this path. The ultimate goal? A permanent separation of one's own intelligence from the objective universe—achieving an independent, immortal self-awareness that exists parallel to the world, interacting with it only on its own terms.
There’s just no way to actually isolate yourself from the objective universe—it's a myth. This whole idea that you can find a "path to isolating consciousness within an objective universe"—basically creating this state of forced psychic solitude to refine your soul or psyche to some higher level? It’s purely illusory.
The catch is this—you can't have "eternal separation" or some "immortal independent consciousness existing parallel to the objective universe" without merging with what we call God. In other words, you have to merge with the objective universe itself.
Any attempt at that kind of psychological self-absorption—that extreme sense of isolation—is just a one-way ticket to depression. Or, if you're lucky, it leads to nothing more than a massive, bloated ego.
I actually struggle with that too. It makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of strict believers—they view God as an objective fact, and they aren't easily swayed by things like personal logic or perception. In that framework, God is an axiom; He just *is*, and there’s no questioning it. Plus, God is viewed as fixed and unchanging, whereas nature is in a state of constant flux. Equating the two used to be considered a pretty dangerous heresy, so I still don't quite get it. Hinduism seems to handle this better—Shiva and Shakti are distinct entities that can merge and permeate one another, yet they maintain their own unique characteristics, because without that distinction, interaction wouldn't even be possible. Still, many philosophers argue that dualism isn't quite
in lately. 😁
casualtiger2 said:Quantum physics shows us that precise measurement and predictability just aren't possible at certain levels of the physical world.
So why equate "nature" with "God"—basically, why lump God under the umbrella of the objective universe?
... Any experience of the objective universe is just indirect information, because it has to pass through the subjective universe—which, strangely enough, doesn't seem subject to the same natural, mechanical, or organic laws as the objective one. That’s really the main distinction between the two. The subjective universe has the option of acting "unnaturally"—meaning it isn't boxed in by the limitations of three dimensions and five senses. ...
The subjective universe, then, has this whole spectrum of possibilities—ranging from near-literal precision to total deception—simply because it isn't ruled by the laws of nature.
...
Where are you getting this idea that the subjective world isn't bound by natural laws and somehow involves "unnatural" action?
The fact that this "unnatural" aspect of the soul exists is pointed to by humanity's drive to impose man-made structures onto the objective universe—things like art and creativity, which are by definition set apart from the natural world, whether we're talking about the Pyramids, poetry, or political institutions.
The social base determines the social superstructure.
Karl Marx Quote
... The "right-hand path" is the way of unifying with universal reality (God or nature). Once that unity is fully achieved, the individual "I" is nullified; the person becomes one with the divine or the natural-cosmic order. In that state of heaven, or being/non-being in Nirvana, the ego ceases to exist—which is the ultimate goal of all Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist orthodoxies.
The idea that the individual "I" gets wiped out when merging with the divine is pretty debatable—especially since the ego isn't the same thing as the individual "I," as mentioned earlier.
Most people spend their lives chasing whatever gives them an edge—knowledge, power, freedom, status—basically anything that helps them climb the ladder in their own little corner of the world. It only makes sense that those practicing the spiritual "Left-Hand Path" would apply that same drive to the supernatural side of things. They aren't interested in following the rules laid out by the "Right-Hand Path," which constantly screams about how this kind of behavior is "evil." Those folks would rather you just stick to the script—follow God, follow nature, and be a well-adjusted, predictable part of the collective. Not exactly my style.
So, those who merge with God—do they just become these perfectly "well-adjusted collective people"?
The Left-Hand Path is essentially a journey toward inequality—a deliberate break from unity with the objective universe. It’s about isolating consciousness within this vast cosmos, forcing a kind of self-imposed psychological solitude that allows the practitioner to refine their soul, or psyche, to much higher levels. You aren't trying to fit into the world; you're forcing the universe to harmonize with your own will instead of the other way around. While the Right-Hand Path tends to be theocentric—or at least focused on some external higher power—the Left-Hand Path is purely psyche-centric. It’s ego-centric. It’s all about the soul. Definitions of the self, the ego, or the soul might vary depending on who you ask, but one thing remains constant: the individual is the undisputed epicenter of this path. The ultimate goal? A permanent separation of one's own intelligence from the objective universe—achieving an independent, immortal self-awareness that exists parallel to the world, interacting with it only on its own terms.
There’s just no way to actually isolate yourself from the objective universe—it's a myth. This whole idea that you can find a "path to isolating consciousness within an objective universe"—basically creating this state of forced psychic solitude to refine your soul or psyche to some higher level? It’s purely illusory.
The catch is this—you can't have "eternal separation" or some "immortal independent consciousness existing parallel to the objective universe" without merging with what we call God. In other words, you have to merge with the objective universe itself.
Any attempt at that kind of psychological self-absorption—that extreme sense of isolation—is just a one-way ticket to depression. Or, if you're lucky, it leads to nothing more than a massive, bloated ego.
Science has worked incredibly hard to prove that the subjective world can be reduced to the ebb and flow of neurotransmitters. But honestly, that model doesn't hold water for me either. Just because something is "natural"—meaning it isn't artificial or supernatural—doesn't mean it's purely material. Thought is natural, and it certainly seems to have a material basis, but it isn't something you can touch or measure with a ruler. We have this complex interaction between hormones and the electrical bursts of neural networks. Those two processes aren't identical, nor are they independent; they are deeply interdependent.
casualtiger2 said:Quantum physics shows us that precise measurement and predictability just aren't possible at certain levels of the physical world.
So why equate "nature" with "God"—basically, why lump God under the umbrella of the objective universe?
... Any experience of the objective universe is just indirect information, because it has to pass through the subjective universe—which, strangely enough, doesn't seem subject to the same natural, mechanical, or organic laws as the objective one. That’s really the main distinction between the two. The subjective universe has the option of acting "unnaturally"—meaning it isn't boxed in by the limitations of three dimensions and five senses. ...
The subjective universe, then, has this whole spectrum of possibilities—ranging from near-literal precision to total deception—simply because it isn't ruled by the laws of nature.
...
Where are you getting this idea that the subjective world isn't bound by natural laws and somehow involves "unnatural" action?
The fact that this "unnatural" aspect of the soul exists is pointed to by humanity's drive to impose man-made structures onto the objective universe—things like art and creativity, which are by definition set apart from the natural world, whether we're talking about the Pyramids, poetry, or political institutions.
The social base determines the social superstructure.
Karl Marx Quote
... The "right-hand path" is the way of unifying with universal reality (God or nature). Once that unity is fully achieved, the individual "I" is nullified; the person becomes one with the divine or the natural-cosmic order. In that state of heaven, or being/non-being in Nirvana, the ego ceases to exist—which is the ultimate goal of all Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist orthodoxies.
The idea that the individual "I" gets wiped out when merging with the divine is pretty debatable—especially since the ego isn't the same thing as the individual "I," as mentioned earlier.
Most people spend their lives chasing whatever gives them an edge—knowledge, power, freedom, status—basically anything that helps them climb the ladder in their own little corner of the world. It only makes sense that those practicing the spiritual "Left-Hand Path" would apply that same drive to the supernatural side of things. They aren't interested in following the rules laid out by the "Right-Hand Path," which constantly screams about how this kind of behavior is "evil." Those folks would rather you just stick to the script—follow God, follow nature, and be a well-adjusted, predictable part of the collective. Not exactly my style.
So, those who merge with God—do they just become these perfectly "well-adjusted collective people"?
The Left-Hand Path is essentially a journey toward inequality—a deliberate break from unity with the objective universe. It’s about isolating consciousness within this vast cosmos, forcing a kind of self-imposed psychological solitude that allows the practitioner to refine their soul, or psyche, to much higher levels. You aren't trying to fit into the world; you're forcing the universe to harmonize with your own will instead of the other way around. While the Right-Hand Path tends to be theocentric—or at least focused on some external higher power—the Left-Hand Path is purely psyche-centric. It’s ego-centric. It’s all about the soul. Definitions of the self, the ego, or the soul might vary depending on who you ask, but one thing remains constant: the individual is the undisputed epicenter of this path. The ultimate goal? A permanent separation of one's own intelligence from the objective universe—achieving an independent, immortal self-awareness that exists parallel to the world, interacting with it only on its own terms.
There’s just no way to actually isolate yourself from the objective universe—it's a myth. This whole idea that you can find a "path to isolating consciousness within an objective universe"—basically creating this state of forced psychic solitude to refine your soul or psyche to some higher level? It’s purely illusory.
The catch is this—you can't have "eternal separation" or some "immortal independent consciousness existing parallel to the objective universe" without merging with what we call God. In other words, you have to merge with the objective universe itself.
Any attempt at that kind of psychological self-absorption—that extreme sense of isolation—is just a one-way ticket to depression. Or, if you're lucky, it leads to nothing more than a massive, bloated ego.
You can't isolate yourself from the objective universe—no matter how much you refine your psyche, you're still subject to the law of gravity. What *is* possible is isolating yourself from the "collective subjective universe"—essentially, social expectations, constant interactions, and everyone else's worldview. Ideally, this happens while immersed in nature, so you don't lose the psychophysical functions necessary to survive in a physical body due to losing touch with the collective illusion. Again, if someone is absolutely certain that their "something" will continue to exist after death, then they're free to mess around with those kinds of extremes.
Thomas Nelson25 said:Maybe that's just a thing for those ultra-spiritual types. Personally, negativity hits me hard sometimes, and honestly? I'm fully aware of it—I've got it under control. And I know exactly why it happens.
It's the yin and yang.
Literally.
I get it. The second you start defining one half of something as the "negative," you’ve already set the seesaw in motion. 😁
Andrew White6 Asks:
When you really sit down and dig into how Orthodox views regarding God and His divine laws work, you start to see something undeniable. If you look closely at those spiritual principles, the parallels between them and the laws of nature—whether organic or mechanical—are impossible to ignore.
Of course they are—humanity essentially invented that version of God and His laws just by observing the Natural World. 🙂
Andrew White6 said:"Quote:"casualtiger2 As expressed by Benjamin Taylor6:
At its core, quantum physics demonstrates that once you reach a certain level of the physical world, precise measurements and absolute predictability simply become impossible.
Why do people tend to conflate "nature" with "God"? It’s an interesting question—why is there this persistent tendency to frame God as being subordinate to, or even synonymous with, the objective universe? |
When you take a deep dive into how Orthodox views of God and divine law are structured, it becomes impossible to ignore the striking parallels between those spiritual principles and the laws of nature—whether you're looking at organic growth or mechanical systems. My intention here isn't to dismiss the massive, well-known divide between scientific inquiry and religious faith. Rather, I want to suggest that both perspectives actually stem from the same fundamental source: a pursuit of objective truth.
"Quote:"| Where exactly are you getting the idea that the subjective experience isn't subject to the laws of nature? I can't help but wonder why you feel there’s some kind of "supernatural" force at play there. |
If you look at things from an empirical standpoint, there’s a clear distinction between the world around us and the products of the human mind. You won't find pyramids, sprawling railway networks, or even a basic Stone Age hand axe just lying around in the wild. Nature follows its own set of rules—an apple falls from a tree because gravity demands it—but in the human mind, nothing is quite that predictable. Ideas don't just fall into place; they are constructed.
"Quote:" The foundation of any society ultimately dictates its superstructure. It’s a fundamental principle: the underlying economic and social structures shape everything else—our laws, our culture, and even our shared values.
Karl Marx |
Even if we take this premise as a given, we have to acknowledge that the various iterations of the USSR, China, and those other real-socialist regimes were far from identical. Their differences are telling, aren't they? It really makes you wonder: doesn't this point toward the existence of a distinct subjectivity within the bases themselves?
"Quote:"| The idea that the individual self is somehow canceled out during union with the Divine is a pretty controversial claim—especially when you consider that the "ego" isn't actually the same thing as the "individual self," as we discussed earlier. |
When we talk about "harmonization," what we’re really talking about is a form of annihilation. It’s that process where you lose everything that makes you unique in relation to the absolute.
"Quote:"| Does merging with God simply turn us into nothing more than "well-adjusted members of the collective"? It’s an interesting way to frame it—as if spiritual transcendence is just a fancy term for becoming perfectly socialized, compliant citizens who fit seamlessly into the crowd. |
In atheist collectivism, we’re really just looking at a different kind of collective fetish. They swap out deities for "historical necessity," making it the new god of communism. Lacan and Žižek actually touched on this, identifying it as the "Big Other." Being pedantic about the terminology won't change the underlying reality; subjectivity remains subjective, and objectivity remains objective, no matter what label you decide to slap on it.
There is simply no way to truly isolate yourself from the objective universe. It’s an illusion to suggest that a "path toward isolating consciousness within an objective universe" actually exists—as if one could enter a state of forced psychological solitude to refine their soul or psyche to some higher level of perfection. It just isn't possible.
The catch here is that this idea of an "eternal separation"—the notion of an immortal, independent consciousness existing parallel to the objective universe—simply can't hold up without merging back into what we call "God," which, in your view, is just the objective universe itself.
I hold a view that is diametrically opposed to yours. We are all essentially "condemned" to ourselves; we are forced to perceive the world strictly through our own eyes and walk using our own two feet. Anyone who believes they aren't their own center of the universe, or thinks they can think with someone else's brain or walk with someone else's legs, is simply kidding themselves.
In my eyes, any attempt at that kind of psychological self-centeredness or extreme detachment can only lead to one of two things: deep depression or, at best, a massive sense of inflated ego.
And euphoria? Of course, it can lead to that too.
Euphoria and depression—pleasure and pain—that is our fundamental lot while we are alive, because we aren't plants or inanimate objects.
Even when you feel like you're standing on your own two feet, you aren't truly independent. You're still tied to gravity. 🙂
Andrew White6 said:"Quote:"casualtiger2 As expressed by Benjamin Taylor6:
At its core, quantum physics demonstrates that once you reach a certain level of the physical world, precise measurements and absolute predictability simply become impossible.
Why do people tend to conflate "nature" with "God"? It’s an interesting question—why is there this persistent tendency to frame God as being subordinate to, or even synonymous with, the objective universe? |
When you take a deep dive into how Orthodox views of God and divine law are structured, it becomes impossible to ignore the striking parallels between those spiritual principles and the laws of nature—whether you're looking at organic growth or mechanical systems. My intention here isn't to dismiss the massive, well-known divide between scientific inquiry and religious faith. Rather, I want to suggest that both perspectives actually stem from the same fundamental source: a pursuit of objective truth.
"Quote:"| Where exactly are you getting the idea that the subjective experience isn't subject to the laws of nature? I can't help but wonder why you feel there’s some kind of "supernatural" force at play there. |
If you look at things from an empirical standpoint, there’s a clear distinction between the world around us and the products of the human mind. You won't find pyramids, sprawling railway networks, or even a basic Stone Age hand axe just lying around in the wild. Nature follows its own set of rules—an apple falls from a tree because gravity demands it—but in the human mind, nothing is quite that predictable. Ideas don't just fall into place; they are constructed.
"Quote:" The foundation of any society ultimately dictates its superstructure. It’s a fundamental principle: the underlying economic and social structures shape everything else—our laws, our culture, and even our shared values.
Karl Marx |
Even if we take this premise as a given, we have to acknowledge that the various iterations of the USSR, China, and those other real-socialist regimes were far from identical. Their differences are telling, aren't they? It really makes you wonder: doesn't this point toward the existence of a distinct subjectivity within the bases themselves?
"Quote:"| The idea that the individual self is somehow canceled out during union with the Divine is a pretty controversial claim—especially when you consider that the "ego" isn't actually the same thing as the "individual self," as we discussed earlier. |
When we talk about "harmonization," what we’re really talking about is a form of annihilation. It’s that process where you lose everything that makes you unique in relation to the absolute.
"Quote:"| Does merging with God simply turn us into nothing more than "well-adjusted members of the collective"? It’s an interesting way to frame it—as if spiritual transcendence is just a fancy term for becoming perfectly socialized, compliant citizens who fit seamlessly into the crowd. |
In atheist collectivism, we’re really just looking at a different kind of collective fetish. They swap out deities for "historical necessity," making it the new god of communism. Lacan and Žižek actually touched on this, identifying it as the "Big Other." Being pedantic about the terminology won't change the underlying reality; subjectivity remains subjective, and objectivity remains objective, no matter what label you decide to slap on it.
There is simply no way to truly isolate yourself from the objective universe. It’s an illusion to suggest that a "path toward isolating consciousness within an objective universe" actually exists—as if one could enter a state of forced psychological solitude to refine their soul or psyche to some higher level of perfection. It just isn't possible.
The catch here is that this idea of an "eternal separation"—the notion of an immortal, independent consciousness existing parallel to the objective universe—simply can't hold up without merging back into what we call "God," which, in your view, is just the objective universe itself.
I hold a view that is diametrically opposed to yours. We are all essentially "condemned" to ourselves; we are forced to perceive the world strictly through our own eyes and walk using our own two feet. Anyone who believes they aren't their own center of the universe, or thinks they can think with someone else's brain or walk with someone else's legs, is simply kidding themselves.
In my eyes, any attempt at that kind of psychological self-centeredness or extreme detachment can only lead to one of two things: deep depression or, at best, a massive sense of inflated ego.
And euphoria? Of course, it can lead to that too.
Euphoria and depression—pleasure and pain—that is our fundamental lot while we are alive, because we aren't plants or inanimate objects.
When you mix those two things together, you end up with this manic depression that’s incredibly tough to deal with—even when you know you're the one who triggered it.
Euphoria isn't really about pleasure, and depression isn't just about pain. When you have too much euphoria, it actually starts to hurt. And with depression, after a while, you just stop feeling anything at all—not even the pain itself.
Andrew White6 said:There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts at play. Both terms actually refer to different spiritual trajectories. The terms "Right-Hand Path" (or *dakshinachra*) and "Left-Hand Path" (*vamachakra*) are borrowed from esoteric—meaning by definition non-materialistic and otherworldly—tantric doctrines within Hinduism. The first materialist philosopher in India was Charvaka (around 600 BCE), and he has nothing to do with this development, neither in origin nor in actual meaning.
So, what are we really talking about? According to established tantric beliefs, there is a natural flow of universal cosmic force through the human body from left to right, which mirrors the north-to-south flow of cosmic energy. When the human body is oriented toward the east—with the left hand facing north and the right facing south—it was believed the body was in harmony with the natural flow of the universe. This is the "Right-Hand Path," or *dakshinacha*—the path of alignment with the cosmic order. The reverse orientation is the "Left-Hand Path," or *vamachara*, an antinomian practice believed to run contrary to nature and the cosmic law. It’s essentially a rebellion against the divinely ordained order, which requires a much greater strength of will. Those who choose to "go against the current" articulate themselves more fully and individualize themselves against their surroundings, allowing for greater independence and freedom.
In short, the key distinction between these two paths is the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy: between submitting to a "higher power" and resisting it; between merging harmoniously with one's environment and asserting one's own individuality.
A materialist will eventually realize that even after they have "sold their soul to the devil," they still possess a self—allowing them to translate all material events into another form, thereby catching the thread of spirituality and constructing their own world.
Aside from the fact that the Left-Hand Path predates the Judeo-Christian concept of the devil, what you're describing is actually impossible within that specific practice. In a spiritual sense, the "devil"—or the antinomian element found in the Judeo-Christian tradition—is actually the practitioner of the Left-Hand Path themselves. Therefore, "selling one's soul to the devil" would simply mean selling oneself to oneself (the supreme deity of the Left-Hand Path).
...both paths lead in the same direction...
Are the direction of union with God in eternity and the direction of separation in eternity heading the same way? Not even orthodox faiths would claim that. The path toward heaven—that is, toward harmonious unity with God—and the path toward hell—eternal separation from God—are not moving in the same direction. If you try to "walk both paths," you aren't going anywhere (which, according to orthodox beliefs, means you're headed straight to hell/separation from God).
If you look at it that way, both roads seem to lead straight to hell. Take the first one, and you just end up becoming a mindless plant; take the second, and you’re stuck in a perpetual struggle against everything in existence.
Andrew White6 said:There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts at play. Both terms actually refer to different spiritual trajectories. The terms "Right-Hand Path" (or *dakshinachra*) and "Left-Hand Path" (*vamachakra*) are borrowed from esoteric—meaning by definition non-materialistic and otherworldly—tantric doctrines within Hinduism. The first materialist philosopher in India was Charvaka (around 600 BCE), and he has nothing to do with this development, neither in origin nor in actual meaning.
So, what are we really talking about? According to established tantric beliefs, there is a natural flow of universal cosmic force through the human body from left to right, which mirrors the north-to-south flow of cosmic energy. When the human body is oriented toward the east—with the left hand facing north and the right facing south—it was believed the body was in harmony with the natural flow of the universe. This is the "Right-Hand Path," or *dakshinacha*—the path of alignment with the cosmic order. The reverse orientation is the "Left-Hand Path," or *vamachara*, an antinomian practice believed to run contrary to nature and the cosmic law. It’s essentially a rebellion against the divinely ordained order, which requires a much greater strength of will. Those who choose to "go against the current" articulate themselves more fully and individualize themselves against their surroundings, allowing for greater independence and freedom.
In short, the key distinction between these two paths is the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy: between submitting to a "higher power" and resisting it; between merging harmoniously with one's environment and asserting one's own individuality.
A materialist will eventually realize that even after they have "sold their soul to the devil," they still possess a self—allowing them to translate all material events into another form, thereby catching the thread of spirituality and constructing their own world.
Aside from the fact that the Left-Hand Path predates the Judeo-Christian concept of the devil, what you're describing is actually impossible within that specific practice. In a spiritual sense, the "devil"—or the antinomian element found in the Judeo-Christian tradition—is actually the practitioner of the Left-Hand Path themselves. Therefore, "selling one's soul to the devil" would simply mean selling oneself to oneself (the supreme deity of the Left-Hand Path).
...both paths lead in the same direction...
Are the direction of union with God in eternity and the direction of separation in eternity heading the same way? Not even orthodox faiths would claim that. The path toward heaven—that is, toward harmonious unity with God—and the path toward hell—eternal separation from God—are not moving in the same direction. If you try to "walk both paths," you aren't going anywhere (which, according to orthodox beliefs, means you're headed straight to hell/separation from God).
Do you honestly believe that's impossible? My faith tells me
otherwise. 😁