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?
" 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? :question:
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.
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.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on June 01, 2019, 11:03:44 AM
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on June 01, 2019, 09:26:35 PM
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.
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.
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.
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/ (http://churchandstate.org.uk/2017/04/oklahoma-republican-declares-that-rape-is-the-will-of-god/)
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 (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/05/father-forced-14-year-old-daughter-to-marry-her-rapist/?fbclid=IwAR0mbp7dRT6MWh0mhKhiex20dsKqLCoh8W2QqCGngaLR_ognETz3RbVgGfw)
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.
Religion isn't a bad thing. PEOPLE are bad.
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.
"Is there no change of death in paradise?
Does ripe fruit never fall? Or do the boughs
Hang always heavy in that perfect sky,
Unchanging, yet so like our perishing earth,
With rivers like our own that seek for seas
They never find, the same receding shores
That never touch with inarticulate pang?
Why set the pear upon those river-banks
Or spice the shores with odors of the plum?
Alas, that they should wear our colors there,
The silken weavings of our afternoons,
And pick the strings of our insipid lutes!
Death is the mother of beauty, mystical,
Within whose burning bosom we devise
Our earthly mothers waiting, sleeplessly."
--Wallace Stevens, "Sunday Morning"
Quote from: RCMerchant on June 02, 2019, 08:35:05 AM
Religion isn't a bad thing. PEOPLE are bad.
I'd give you triple karma for that if I could!
Quote from: indianasmith on June 02, 2019, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: RCMerchant on June 02, 2019, 08:35:05 AM
Religion isn't a bad thing. PEOPLE are bad.
I'd give you triple karma for that if I could!
Very true. Religions do not cause war, people do.
Well, when religions call for killing anyone who disagrees with it, turning other people into slaves, treating women like property, etc id' say the religion is bad, but then since all major religion is a human construct you could say they are bad because they were created by people.
And if people are bad and a god did create them, what does it say about that god?
My personal theory is that humanity, or whatever it eventually becomes or it's descendants may have created the universe. Some new quantum experiments have indicated that either some form of time travel is possible or time is not as linear as we think. Maybe humanity reaches a level where it;s consciousness can transcend what we currently consider time, and possibly even looks back at what we now think of as 'the beginning' and sees itself already there looking back at it.
Quantum strangeness makes things possible that are almost impossible to envision and suggest possibilities that might make it possible for humanity to be it;s own creator.
Time has been proven to be less rigid as we used to believe and human consciousness can affect reality at very fundamental levels. The idea that humanity essentially creates itself is not as impossible as it might once have sounded.
Quote from: RCMerchant on June 02, 2019, 08:39:25 AM
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.
That sounds wonderful... and familiar.
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on June 02, 2019, 06:49:02 PM
Well, when religions call for killing anyone who disagrees with it, turning other people into slaves, treating women like property, etc id' say the religion is bad, but then since all major religion is a human construct you could say they are bad because they were created by people.
And if people are bad and a god did create them, what does it say about that god?
Perhaps it says that that God gave man free will; it is therefore man's choice to do wrong.
Quote from: Allhallowsday on June 02, 2019, 10:28:50 PM
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on June 02, 2019, 06:49:02 PM
Well, when religions call for killing anyone who disagrees with it, turning other people into slaves, treating women like property, etc id' say the religion is bad, but then since all major religion is a human construct you could say they are bad because they were created by people.
And if people are bad and a god did create them, what does it say about that god?
Perhaps it says that that God gave man free will; it is therefore man's choice to do wrong.
Hmm, religion says god gave man "free will" so man gets blamed for all wrongs. Then god says anyone who refuses to obey him will be destroyed and of course burn in hell for all eternity.
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on June 02, 2019, 06:49:02 PM
Well, when religions call for killing anyone who disagrees with it, turning other people into slaves, treating women like property, etc id' say the religion is bad, but then since all major religion is a human construct you could say they are bad because they were created by people.
And if people are bad and a god did create them, what does it say about that god?
I think you project your own misery, anger, and discontent onto everyone and everything else in the world.
You can't conceive of a good God because you can't find any good in yourself or anyone else.
Quote from: indianasmith on June 02, 2019, 10:42:27 PM
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on June 02, 2019, 06:49:02 PM
Well, when religions call for killing anyone who disagrees with it, turning other people into slaves, treating women like property, etc id' say the religion is bad, but then since all major religion is a human construct you could say they are bad because they were created by people.
And if people are bad and a god did create them, what does it say about that god?
I think you project your own misery, anger, and discontent onto everyone and everything else in the world.
You can't conceive of a good God because you can't find any good in yourself or anyone else.
Speaking very personally: what I went through as a child and as an adolescent (abandonment, sexual abuse, living through a war etc) should have by now turned me into some sort of psychopath with substance abuse problems, etc. Apart from the anger I carry with me on a daily basis - I draw some sort of weird strength from it - I'm actually quite stable.
And yes, I do have religious beliefs.
Mao,Hitler, and Stalin were all atheists.
I'm an atheist. I don't wanna be lumped in with those guys! I would never lump anybody with any belief, because there's always a ying with the yang with everything, so maybe I'm a Buddist!
What's the sound of one hand clapping? There is none. One cannot exist without the other! You would not have anything to compare it to!
I won't cheat myself of having my mind open to ALL possibilities- no matter how outlandish they may seem- I believe in many things- and the concept of a God seems confusing, fascinating, and tempting. Buddism would be the way to go for me if I was to turn church.
And now I'm babbling while drunk at 4:30 in the morning!
Quote from: indianasmith on June 02, 2019, 10:42:27 PM
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on June 02, 2019, 06:49:02 PM
Well, when religions call for killing anyone who disagrees with it, turning other people into slaves, treating women like property, etc id' say the religion is bad, but then since all major religion is a human construct you could say they are bad because they were created by people.
And if people are bad and a god did create them, what does it say about that god?
I think you project your own misery, anger, and discontent onto everyone and everything else in the world.
You can't conceive of a good God because you can't find any good in yourself or anyone else.
What would a christian know about a "good god"? They worship a monster who orders children murdered, orders pregnant women "ripped open", orders a man to murder his own son, praises a man who offered to let a mob Rape his teenage daughters, sends famines to make children starve, floods the world and murders children, then has the gall to demand everyone utterly fear him and love him more than their own mothers and has prepared a pit of everlasting torture for those who do not, cannot and will not do so.
I know many people who are better in several ways than the christian or muslim god. That's one reason I can't buy Christianity, it means worshipping a god that is evil beyond imagining.
Quote from: RCMerchant on June 03, 2019, 03:26:52 AM
What's the sound of one hand clapping? There is none.
http://youtu.be/b6YSfEKMeC8 (http://youtu.be/b6YSfEKMeC8)
Try Taoism.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on June 03, 2019, 07:45:09 AM
Quote from: RCMerchant on June 03, 2019, 03:26:52 AM
What's the sound of one hand clapping? There is none.
http://youtu.be/b6YSfEKMeC8 (http://youtu.be/b6YSfEKMeC8)
Try Taoism.
Bart simpson answered this once.
I might go with gkosticism or maybe even the rosicrucians, their views seem to make sense. Well, more sense than most mainstream religions. Their views just also seem acceptable to me, they feel right.
In school I tried to reason out what death would be like without an afterlife.
We'd read Plato's The Apology of Socrates, & he said death without an afterlife would be like a dreamless sleep. That didn't make sense to me; I'd already read we always dream; we just don't remember them unless we wake up during them.
So I tried to solve the question using my understanding nothingness, based on what I'd learned in science. It would be dark, for there would be no light. It would be cold, for there would be no heat. It would not be wet; there would be no water. But darkness, coldness, & dryness are all things I could feel, & I wouldn't have a ind to feel them. I wouldn't have a mind to feel the passage of time.
So then what? Without an afterlife we could not feel death, but we could feel the events which led to our death, & we'd never realize those events ended. In short, hell is inevitable, but Heaven would have to be the work of a merciful God.
If Hell is a place... I'm not sure it would work if it was escapable. It would become an economic issue, & years of pleasure would no longer be scarce. The rich man might decide 5 minutes with Abraham are worth a 1000 extra years of torment. After all Lazarus has been sitting in Abraham's lap so long, it's only fair to pull him away.
Quote from: pacman000 on June 05, 2019, 12:32:18 PM
In school I tried to reason out what death would be like without an afterlife.
We'd read Plato's The Apology of Socrates, & he said death without an afterlife would be like a dreamless sleep. That didn't make sense to me; I'd already read we always dream; we just don't remember them unless we wake up during them.
So I tried to solve the question using my understanding nothingness, based on what I'd learned in science. It would be dark, for there would be no light. It would be cold, for there would be no heat. It would not be wet; there would be no water. But darkness, coldness, & dryness are all things I could feel, & I wouldn't have a ind to feel them. I wouldn't have a mind to feel the passage of time.
So then what? Without an afterlife we could not feel death, but we could feel the events which led to our death, & we'd never realize those events ended. In short, hell is inevitable, but Heaven would have to be the work of a merciful God.
If Hell is a place... I'm not sure it would work if it was escapable. It would become an economic issue, & years of pleasure would no longer be scarce. The rich man might decide 5 minutes with Abraham are worth a 1000 extra years of torment. After all Lazarus has been sitting in Abraham's lap so long, it's only fair to pull him away.
Sooooo, a "merciful god" creates a universe and life where "hell is inevitable" but heaven is only a possibility?
I'm no fan of mormonism and would love to see a certain Mormon in some sort of hell, and I think mormonism's effect on Utah is a good argument for keeping religion out of government, but I bave to admit their idea of he afterlife is better than most abrahamic spinoffs.
As to me if there is an afterlife I can't imagine it. Maybe there's a transition stage where things seem to be like your old life at first or at least are familiar for a while as you adjust. Maybe this life is just "existence 101" and it's point it to be he beginning of an existsence tbat goes behind it.
I look at humanity and while therecs so much awfulness in it there is also wonder. Wecve gone from the stone age to discovering and mastering some fundamental forces of the universe like the electron and the photon, we'vs cracked the atom open and found new worlds inside them, wecve done so much for creatures that thousands of years ago just used wood and stone.
Maybe there is something better and being this. But I never could accept any of the abrahamic views that tells us we exit either to be mindless praise production units for an egotistical megalomaniac or to suffer eternal torture for not becoming mindless praise production units for said egomaniac. Humans have developed such knowledge, grown our science and technology, we're able to be so much more than the dismal alternatives offered by the abrahamic faiths. I just feel they can't be right.