Ideas of eternity.

[Alex]

When I was at school I remember one of our teachers talking to us about what happens after you die.

She believed that our souls all merge with a massive pure white light where all our personalites, thoughts and experiences merge with the light (I guess her idea of god) and we all share everything we were with everyone else becoming a single gestalt entity.

Me, I find that entire concept horrific. I have no wish to share myself in such a manner and experience such a total death of self. Another teacher told us heaven is spent with the people we love. I see a slight problem with that too. Because the people I would want to spent eternity with will have other people they want to spend time with too and sooner or later you are going to end up with people you don't like.

Anyway, what would you like an afterlife to be like?

[RCMerchant]

" To die- to be really dead- that would be glorious!"
Bela Lugosi- DRACULA (1931)
Just to sleep forever seems ok to me.
I don't have high expectations about death and the afterlife.
Eh. Whaddaya gonna do?  
It would be nice if Heaven was filled with lotsa naked women wanting me, but that would be better than going to a place filled with my dead relatives- who will just b***h and argue like they did in real life.

[Rev. Powell]

Bliss.

But to be honest, the idea of an afterlife seems totally ridiculous to me. Makes as much sense as a beforelife. It's nearly impossible to imagine it's true in any form.

[Svengoolie 3]

Bliss.

But to be honest, the idea of an afterlife seems totally ridiculous to me. Makes as much sense as a beforelife. It's nearly impossible to imagine it's true in any form.

I had an OBE once that makes me accept the idea of something more than the physical body.

Also quantum physics and long proven facts suggest there is something special about the human consciousness so it might exist beyond physical death.

Maybe the gnostics have it right, if any religion is right theirs is the one i'd hope was right.

The mainstream religions, the abrahamic ones, I do not and cannot believe in them, they're clearly human constructs made to create and justify social control.

[316zombie]

i'd like it to be how i believe it WILL be. i'll be doing a movie marathon of the past couple of lives, hopefully yell at myself  for the lessons i didn't learn, and compliment myself on the ones i did.
  then i'll have a nice meal while i think about things to remember next time. after that, i take a nap and wake up as a newborn. hopefully in good circumstances. at least, the circumstances i decided i needed to learn more.

[indianasmith]

I believe in the Biblical concept of heaven, pure and simple.
But as to what it was like - well, the Apostle Paul was known for being verbose, but after being allowed a glimpse of the other side, all he could say was:
"Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him."

I think it will be so far above and beyond our mortal existence there will be no basis of comparison.

[Svengoolie 3]

No matter how great heaven could be it doesn't make up for hell or the fact jesus himself said most people  will end up there. The whole idea that most peolle will end up in hell, and how horrible hell is going to be,  and most peolle will be there forever makes chrsitianity absolutely impossible for a lot of people  to accept.

Interestingly enough the people who created the original bible understood this.  The council of nicea was created by Charlemange to codify the christian faith after he converted the roman empire to it for political reasons. The council of nicea was called to create an official state  religion that would decide which of the numerous religious texts of the day would be considered "true" and which would be forbidden as false.

The council was given to understand that Charlemange would approve the final version and it would have to meet with his approval or esle.

They picked the books that we're regarded as the best suited to charlemange's agenda but their "audience research" indicated many peolle found the conceot of heaven for the few and eternal torture for the majority to be very off putting and made the christian religion unacceptable.

As a result, they picked "the apocalypse of peter" to be the final book of the bible they created. In the apocalypse of peter jesus returns to peter and takes him to heaven. Heaven is supposedly great and all,  but finally they come to the edge of hell and peter finally says that he has problems with so many peolle being there forever. Essentially he tells jesus he just can't be ok with that.

Jesus,  in TAOP,  tells peter that the truth is that hell is not forever and most peolle will eventually find their way out, but Jesus didn't tell peolle that because he didn't want them sinning more.  He let's peter decide whether or not to tell peolle the truth about hell, and leter decided to tell them because feeling hell was eternal made too many peolle unable to accept Christianity.

The council picked that as the last book of the bible but Charlamange heroes its he wanted his religion to basically terrorize people into  utter obedience to the state,  I. E.  Him.  The council could refuse to chat fe it,  be executed for defying the emperor and replaced by peolle who would follow his will or just change the ending of the bible. They chose the latter.


Herecs an article on the apocalypse of peter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter
 

[indianasmith]

No matter how great heaven could be it doesn't make up for hell or the fact jesus himself said most people  will end up there. The whole idea that most peolle will end up in hell, and how horrible hell is going to be,  and most peolle will be there forever makes chrsitianity absolutely impossible for a lot of people  to accept.

Interestingly enough the people who created the original bible understood this.  The council of nicea was created by Charlemange to codify the christian faith after he converted the roman empire to it for political reasons. The council of nicea was called to create an official state  religion that would decide which of the numerous religious texts of the day would be considered "true" and which would be forbidden as false.

The council was given to understand that Charlemange would approve the final version and it would have to meet with his approval or esle.

They picked the books that we're regarded as the best suited to charlemange's agenda but their "audience research" indicated many peolle found the conceot of heaven for the few and eternal torture for the majority to be very off putting and made the christian religion unacceptable.

As a result, they picked "the apocalypse of peter" to be the final book of the bible they created. In the apocalypse of peter jesus returns to peter and takes him to heaven. Heaven is supposedly great and all,  but finally they come to the edge of hell and peter finally says that he has problems with so many peolle being there forever. Essentially he tells jesus he just can't be ok with that.

Jesus,  in TAOP,  tells peter that the truth is that hell is not forever and most peolle will eventually find their way out, but Jesus didn't tell peolle that because he didn't want them sinning more.  He let's peter decide whether or not to tell peolle the truth about hell, and leter decided to tell them because feeling hell was eternal made too many peolle unable to accept Christianity.

The council picked that as the last book of the bible but Charlamange heroes its he wanted his religion to basically terrorize people into  utter obedience to the state,  I. E.  Him.  The council could refuse to chat fe it,  be executed for defying the emperor and replaced by peolle who would follow his will or just change the ending of the bible. They chose the latter.


Herecs an article on the apocalypse of peter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter
 

Virtually EVERYTHING you said about the Council of Nicea is dead wrong.  First of all, it was convened by Constantine, NOT Charlemagne, who would not be born for 500 more years.  Secondly, it did NOT finalize the NT Canon, or even attempt to.  Most of the books that make up our New Testament were already universally accepted by the early church at that point.  The Council of Hippo, about 70 years later, was summoned to examine the New Testament and make sure all surviving works of the Apostles were included.   They did debate a few shorter works that were not as widely circulated (II and III John, James, Jude, and II Peter to be precise), and ultimately decided they were authoritative and apostolic in origin.  They also ruled out two popular works, The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, which were simply too late in time (early 2nd century) to have been authored or sponsored by the Apostles.

As for the Apocalypse of Peter - first of all, it wasn't written by Peter, or anyone who knew Peter.  It dates to the late 2nd - early 3rd century, long after Peter was martyred in 69 AD.  It was NEVER considered to be part of the canon, the mainstream church rejected it from day one because it was a Gnostic forgery with Peter's name slapped on it in a failed attempt to give it credibility.

Your ignorance of the history of the church is second only to your ignorance of Christianity's actual teachings.  If you want to read a thoughtful and accurate treatise on the doctrine of hell, and why so many find it troubling, I recommend THE CASE FOR FAITH by Lee Strobel.  He has an excellent chapter on the problem of hell.

In the meantime, seriously, if you're going to embarrass yourself with this level of inaccuracy, just keep your mouth shut.

[Svengoolie 3]

You're right, i kmixe up the two names. Most of what I said is true tho.

BTW this ain't the good ol' when Christians could silence their critics anymore.

[indianasmith]

No, most of what you said was wildly inaccurate, beyond the mixup with the names.
You completely misrepresented the purpose and proceedings of the Council of Nicea, and assigned the Apocalypse of Peter an importance that it never possessed in the mainstream church.

Honestly, I have no desire to silence you.  Your ignorance, unwillingness to learn, and blind hatred of all Christians does nothing but make us look good.

[Svengoolie 3]

Nothing can make peolle who believe this look good.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2017/04/oklahoma-republican-declares-that-rape-is-the-will-of-god/

[Svengoolie 3]

I understand christians in america wanting someone to make them look good though, when things like this happen.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/05/father-forced-14-year-old-daughter-to-marry-her-rapist/?fbclid=IwAR0mbp7dRT6MWh0mhKhiex20dsKqLCoh8W2QqCGngaLR_ognETz3RbVgGfw

[indianasmith]

Chairman Mao was a radical atheist and he murdered 40 million of his own people.
I guess I'll judge ALL atheists everywhere for all eternity by his behavior, then.

[RCMerchant]

Religion isn't a bad thing. PEOPLE are bad.

[RCMerchant]

If there is an afterlife-and I sincerley hope there is- I ain't gonna bet on it or anything-I would like it to be just free of this mortal shell and zoom threw the universe,checking out all the strange worlds.