I am not about to become a Christian, at least yet. (But
who knows? I met get Alzheimer's disease someday and
lose my capacity for critical thought.) Anyway...
I think that annihilation of unbelievers makes WAY more
sense than "eternal torture" for these reasons...
#1. My principal reason for rejecting Christianity (though FAR
from the only one!) is the idea that a "god" exists who would
create a race of mortals (without their express consent), refuse
to give them clear instructions on what they're supposed to do
(with the exception of a moldy, musty, dusty, foggy, almost-incomprehensible ancient book of questionable authorship) and
then consign most of them to a torture pit for some nebulous
offense called "original sin," a fate to be avoided ONLY by an act of groveling called "the sinner's prayer." I think that this doctrine breeds
loathing for "God" in far more people than merely myself. (Indeed, it
dooms COURAGEOUS humans to eternal suffering, and only allows
cowards/grovelers/obsequious toadies into "eternal life!" Why
would a "God" behave like the most contemptible form of
human - i.e., a bully?) Why would "God" create a punishment
which by reason of its very barbarism, caused people to "sin"
(i.e., reject "God") when they heard about it, and thus be eternally
"damned"? And why WOULD "God" hate courageous people so
much, that he created a universe in which only COWARDS could
evade eternal torture?
#2. The Bible say, that the wages of sin is DEATH. Death is death,
right? (Or is "God" a word-mincer? To be eternally tortured means
you're eternally ALIVE... right?)
#3. Punishment exists, to serve one of the following three purposes:
     #1. Rehabilitation. (Christian "Hell" lasts FOREVER and never ends,
           so much for that one. NEXT PLEASE...)
     #2. As an object lesson for others, as a DETERRENT. Well, unless                  
           "God" reserves the decision to kick the "saved" out of "heaven" -
           impossible, unless "sin" is still possible there among the "saved",
           which would invalidate the whole "holy god" notion - there is no  
           need for making an "example" out of unbelievers to keep the
           "saints" in line. What would be the point?
     #3. Vindictive sadism. That's what we're left with, folks! (Never mind  
           that unless "God" is an incompetent boob, "he" MEANT for
           humans to "sin." And if "he" is not incompetent, he is therefore a
           sadist, and therefore EVIL.)
I refuse to worship an inept deity. I doubly refuse to worship an EVIL deity.
I call this courage. Call me a fool? I call you a coward. If there really is an entity worthy of the name "God" out there somewhere - who/which would "he" find more offensive?
Any thoughts on this, kiddies?

B-hominid

P.S. As for annihilation of unbelievers... well, why not? It's what most
of them thought they would get after death anyway! Indeed, in the case of atheists and agnostics - by rejecting "God", they ARE choosing annihilation, quite consciously! (They ARE NOT choosing eternal torture, no matter how many TV preachers, tent revivalists, and half-baked medieval theologians say they are!)
If "God" exists, and "he" truly cannot abide "sinners" - well, I guess "he" has a right to not allow them into "his" presence. What would the point be of keeping them around in a "hell", though? Why not just snuff 'em instead? That's what most human dictators would do (and so would you really want to worship a "creator deity" who was more sadistic that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Slobodan Milosevic and Pol Pot put together? Think about this carefully, folks..!)

"I am not about to become a Christian, at least yet."
____________________________________________________
Ooo!  Well, maybe you just need one of my fiery sermons.  Here goes:
"I like my religion the way I like my tea--hot!
'Cause I'd rather be a fool on fire than a scholar on ice,
'cause it's easier to cool a hot coal than to warm up a corpse.
Honestly, when I drive by them liberal churches, I take my hat off out of respect for the dead.  
Fubar, God wants you to be happy and prosper.  But before you can receive from God, you need to give to His work by faith.  Send a check to my ministry at the address given in the  private message section, and just watch your new income pour in.  You know, Fubar, when people attend my meetings, they often ask me why there are so many cadillacs in the parking lot.  Well, God blesses those who give generously to this ministry."

"My principal reason for rejecting Christianity (though FAR
from the only one!) is the idea that a "god" exists who would
create a race of mortals (without their express consent...)"
__________________________________________________
Uh, how can a guy consent to his creation before he even exists?

"...refuse to give them clear instructions on what they're supposed to do
with the exception of a moldy, musty, dusty...almost-incomprehensible ancient book?"
_______________________________________________________________________

OK, when I moved from Buffalo to Washington state, I forgot that I had put my old pizza on top of my Bibles, and, well, the rotting pizza made my Bibles moldy and musty.  I only opened that box a month later.  Bookstore Bibles might not be contaminated in this way.

"and then consign most of them to a torture pit for some nebulous offense called "original sin," a fate to be avoided ONLY by an act of groveling called "the sinner's prayer?"
______________________________________________________________

Actually, you are mistaken on all 3 counts!  Hell is merely a self-chosen state of separation from God.  (2) The Bible does not teach original sin.  That doctrine is a much later patristic invention.  (3) Nowhere in the Bible do you find "the sinner's prayer."  I have some more palatable prayers that work very effectively, and even allow you to keep drinking beer and gambling."
           
     "#3. Vindictive sadism. That's what we're left with, folks! (Never mind  
           that unless "God" is an incompetent boob, "he" MEANT for
           humans to "sin.""
______________________________________

Well, I must confess that the thought of you eternally watching reruns of  Jerry Falwell's sermons does seem wickedly delicious!
I
"Anyway...I think that annihilation of unbelievers makes WAY more
sense than "eternal torture" for these reasons...P.S. As for annihilation of unbelievers... well, why not? It's what most of them thought they would get after death anyway!"
_______________________________________________________________________

Annihilation is revealed as a possibility by Bruce Moen's astral travels, Jesus' revelations to atheist Howard Storm during his NDE, and, yes, by the Bible.  Paul never mentions a word for Hell in his discussions of fate of sinners.  But he does agree with Bruce Moen and Howard Storm's Jesus in allowing for the possibility of annihilation just as you suggest (see e g. the use the Greek 'apoleia" [= "annihilation"] in Romans 9:22; Philippians 3:19).

Welcome back, B-man. I recognize your mellow understated style anywhere (e. g. your use of "darn" instead of the D-word).  After you left, there was a rumor that you had gotten religion and joined a Southern Baptist church.  Can it be that that rumor was mistaken. Oh, say it isn't so, Lord!   :(

Don

This is tiresome.  The idea that God is a caricature of a king on a throne, hurling lightning bolts, consigning some to Hell, mandating edicts of blind worship,etc...we've gone over it a thousand times, B-man, its all old/lame.  I'm surprised that Don has the energy to engage you anymore.

Anyone who reads this board will eventually share with others and with further investigation (on their own) get the message that consciousness, spirit, God and the universe are so much more than these childish renditions make them seem.

The only saving grace of your posts now, is that I actually believe that Don (dare I say it?) CARES about you, and might indeed be involved in a form of soul-bonding with you.  As such, I guess I kind of enjoy his smug humor and real (and only slightly hidden) desire to rescue you from your despair about God and christianity.

Sigh.

Matthew

[quote author=DocM link=1197341178/0#2 date=1197349000]This is tiresome.  The idea that God is a caricature of a king on a throne, hurling lightning bolts, consigning some to Hell, mandating edicts of blind worship,etc...we've gone over it a thousand times, B-man, its all old/lame.  I'm surprised that Don has the energy to engage you anymore.

Anyone who reads this board will eventually share with others and with further investigation (on their own) get the message that consciousness, spirit, God and the universe are so much more than these childish renditions make them seem.

The only saving grace of your posts now, is that I actually believe that Don (dare I say it?) CARES about you, and might indeed be involved in a form of soul-bonding with you.  As such, I guess I kind of enjoy his smug humor and real (and only slightly hidden) desire to rescue you from your despair about God and christianity.

Sigh.

Matthew
***********
I'm not necessarily speaking of a personal god, Doc.
But I find the notion that I will be subjected to tortures
after I die, INCREDIBLY offensive. Not just me, but most
of my friends and all of my family members (the ones
I give a crap about, not the fundamentalists) will face
millennia of tortures because they weren't "saintly"
types, who'd rather freeze their butts off as bellringers
for the Salvation Army than kick back at home and eat pizza,
drink beer and watch football...
If Don is right, I face "hell realms" after I die, unless I'm willing
to torture myself in THIS life. But what IS the point of that?
It seems that the afterlife is all about self-denial and torture,
assuming it exists. It is just a matter of do you torture yourself,
or do you turn the task over to demons or whatever after
you die???
That's why I'd like to think there's a metaphysical escape
for people like me, and the types of people I would want
to be around... into oblivion! (What sort of "universal
intelligence" or "Force" would deny that to people like
myself? It beats centuries of having my toenails pulled
out by the roots, that's for sure!)
AND TO DON:
What sort of people are allowed the "get snuffed" option
according to Howard Storm? (I read about his NDE but
I seem to have missed that.)

B-manoid

Dear Fubar
There are degrees of reward and punishment in the afterlife; as made very clear in the Bible

Jesus said in one sermon great is your reward in heaven and in another he said some would be punished with a few stripes and another with many according to their sins .

John 3;16 God so loved the "world" that he gave his only begotten son so whosever believes on him shall not perish but have eternal life Note! GOD SO LOVES THE “HOLE WORLD” (That is all of humanity) “NOT JUST A SELECT EXCLUSIVE FEW”

As you don’t question your own existence, why do you question Gods obvious existence? Your anger and unbelief can manifest in depression and illness so just go back to quite acceptance of things beyond human understanding. I say this because I have been where you are, angry and disillusioned but God loves you more than life

God bless you and Keep you until you meet him in glory "AS I KNOW YOU WILL".

Please Read The Following;






Punishment and reward heaven and hell


I have also had to through the road of fundamental dogma and really think about the horrors of an everlasting hell for a finite sin in this brief existence on earth. “An INFINITE PUNISHMENT FOR A FINITE SIN” (not fair to me)
     
I know with absolute certainty, that I Alan, who is not perfect love, would never ever confine even a Hitler into eternal torment in hell. Then how much infinitely less likely would our beloved Holy Father God of eternal mercy and LOVE punish a mere mortal in this ultimately awful way? If I a mere mortal can differentiate between a minor transgression such as a hungry father stealing a loaf of bread for his starving family and the unspeakable evil of some members of humanity, how much infinitely more is our father God. ABLE TO DO THE SAME FOR US.

     
I truly love God and his son Jesus but know that he “equally loves those that do not know him”. “God loves the whole world and has equal mercy for all, and I trust their eternal healing of their souls to him”. I hope I have expressed myself properly.
     
Yes, Hitler and his kind are/was unspeakable wicked and cruel, but why must God lower himself down to the level of this psychopath? However, God is sovereign and will do just what he wants in the end and I cannot dictate what he will do. I can express, however, what I believe to be true even if I am wrong. Note! nearly every Christian I have met over these long years has had a slightly or markedly different understanding of biblical interpretation and I have finally reached the point where I have made up my own mind about the matter of an eternal hell. If God simply throws every non-born again person on earth into everlasting torment then his earthly creation is one colossal failure.

8-)

John 3;16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so whosever believes on him shall not perish but have eternal life Note! GOD SO LOVES THE “”WHOLE WORLD” (That is all of humanity) NOT JUST A SELECT EXCLUSIVE FEW



Below is a comment I received from an ex. pastor
Yes, Alan that is right, and you know, I was so liberated and truly free once the lord woke me up to the brainwashing lies of the ministry. I was in the ministry for 17 yrs. and followed what I was brainwashed to follow .how do they even get away with this is beyond me. what ever a man sewes,so shall he reaps, and god will not be mocked, is a dead giveaway that god does not have a eternal torture chamber to abort his children in, that were taught wrong, dressed wrong, talked wrong, or got brainwashed by the wrong preacher. In addition, the fact, if you reap what you sew, then why would he punish you again?  Does a non-Christian who lives a fairly modest and good life not sew what he reaps is he not punished by god the righteous judge in a in a fair way in, accordance with the severity of his sins. Are his sins infinite like eternal damnation? That would be double jeopardy. {2 punishments for one crime}.I have been screaming like a bungee for folks to wake up!

God Bless You,

Love,

Alan

B-man,

I wouldn't tell you how things are because the bible says so; I would ask you to use your common sense and look around you.  Is anyone imposing their will on you now to make you act a certain way?  Are you free to indulge in kindness and achievement or evil/perversion at your discretion now?  Why should an afterlife be any different?  It is not. Free will remains.  When you here of hells, hard as it is to believe, those who create their own hells or go there go willingly - not because of an imposed sentence.

Why the %@#&@ would anyone do that? (you may ask).  The answer is simple (and straight out of Swedenborg - thanks to Don for telling us of his writings).  After we die, the outer wrapping of our consciousness including our masks that we wear in society, fades away.  This leaves our innermost consciousness - our truest nature, without the mask we had to create to function in society.  If our nature, in general has been loving or respectful, that is where we gravitate toward (Focus 27, hollow heaven perhaps to use the monroe/moen system).  If our inner nature gets off on harm, inflicting pain, etc. - guess what?  We gravitate toward those realms with other like minded souls.  Where is the harsh taskmaster with a whip, consigning us there?  It is not a vengeful God, but ourselves.  I know this is a tough concept.

Inherent in your posts is the idea that there is a christian penal code/colony/jail all set up for us.  I find no evidence to support it.  A truer way to put things would be that our consciousness persists after death, but we move toward our innermost nature.  If we move toward love of others and God, we find ourselves with a wide range of freedoms in what some have called heaven or paradise.  If we move toward hate or perversions, we willingly go to where there are others doing the same thing (like attracting like).  


Doc

Interestingly enough even a quite 'New Agey' perspective can at least in theory allow for the possibility of annhiliation after death. As in if one identifies totally with ego, and builds little or nothing in life from love, then there's nothing to continue when/if this falls away or is destroyed.

It's not at all clear (to me at least) what exactly it is that continues even in a less extreme  case. I can't even set out a Buddhist view on this because I simply don't exactly know what's taught. It's fairly clear though that it's far from the simple personal 'self' comprised of body, mind and some sort of immortal soul that we're used to thinking of. More like we amount to some sort of energy wave in the absolute that in propagating creates this and the afterlife realities which without it in fact have no independent existence....

Vaj,

What makes you, Vaj?  Strip away ego, upbringing, etc. and you are left with a being perceiving the universe and himself/herself.  Descartes wrestled with this type of issue and came up with his famous  "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am."  

We are unique examples of the universe/God perceiving itself.  Take away gender, sexual orientation, upbringing, education - everything that you associate with ego, and there is still you as a point of perception in the universe.  You are aware.  That awareness may be full of unfulfilled potential if you have not experienced an existence full of experiences.  So, at the very least, we are, stripped of everything, an intelligent being of perception - full of potential tendencies that grow with experience.


Matthew

That's one view Doc. But Buddhism would argue that Decartes was about as wrong as he could have been on that. (that discursive mind has no continuity, and that what it builds when it's as is usually the case misused is ego)

That thought is one of the least solid indicators that some sort of personal self exists. That pretty much all human suffering follows from the fact that we mistakenly equate the existence of it and a physical body with some sort of 'self'.

The point of perception you mention may be closer to this reality, although even that seen as a 'me' may be illusory in as much as a wave crossing the ocean for example crimps the sea to look like a physical thing but is in fact only a transmission of energy.....

Here's a rather longer account of the same thinking: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/nshell09.htm

just throwing in an idea. JC took his body with him is what the rumor is, as they didn't find his body. (this time frame dimension only)
so, he converted his physical cells into light particles is what I'm thinking; in other words he took with him "all of his being."
so we call ourselves energy composities, as matter is energy. this shouldn't be too hard to figure out from this pov. so we say we are the light. Light. capitalize word. Divine.

the person who does not develop his potential here would return to his oversoul, ego, my point of view upon transition, but his personality, (of his own making) would be heavy with negative dark substance thoughts. It would not be able to "rise" with the rest of his bodies of which I'm thinking we have more bodies than one, we have seven. but I'm from the old esoteric school. I realize this. so throw this away, if not in your thought system.

the personality is not the ego though. the permanent ego. it is manufactured here as the fruits of your labor here. in other words, you are correct, we move into PUL areas, or loosh making as Monroe so enchantingly called it back when he was with us in the flesh.
loosh is like crops. or fruits the soul makes. it is to be in service to one another, or call it development of universal mind, assistability, what Kyo calls it.
assistability is the basis of the "we are one" concept. it is what happens when an emergency occurs and you save someone's life without thinking about your own.
its like an instinct most of us have and didn't know we had.

but the person who turns his head during an emergency, is the one who turns away from love and from giving love, but he will take love, just hasn't developed by conscious effort how to give love. I surmise he will not be annhiliated as the ego would be given another opportunity, but the negative elements would be recycled, the selfish, grasping part of such a person is what cannot survive except in the shadow regions of the lower astral valleys for a time. but the personality is not the intrinsic being of our essence, so it's like the transmutation of thought forms. we all do belief system crashes, the personality would be crashing is all. the intrinsic part of you keeps on evolving. the ego itself is not bad, in this perspective and can transform, but must develop a will to do that, all on it's own before guidance is sent inward to that person.

in other words, from the old school, prayer, is to 'ask and receive."

love, alysia

Vajra,

I've read impressive encounters with the newly deceased, many of whom were surprised to find that upon "waking up" on the other side, they were essentially the same as prior to thier deaths.  Swedenborg writes that this initial feeling of being the same, gradually wears down, as with the life review, the outer aspects of a personality fade away leaving our innermost desires and tendencies.  Yet what has impressed me, has been the persistence of our individual perception, while being part of a whole.  The wave crest on the ocean may appear unique, but really not be, but since mediums adepts and loved ones have communicated with deceased people, I can only conclude that we do not simply merge into unthinking nothingness.

The toughest part about this discussion is that being incarnate, as you and I are currently, there is doubt.  Does anything persist?  Are the agnostics and atheists correct (life's a be#$ch and then you die)?

There has been enough posted on these forums, enough personal anecdotes and experiences to, if not substantiate the persistence of consciousness after death then to raise serious doubt about the cessation of consciousness after death.


M

In truth I simply don't know what the truth is Doc, and so like the rest of us get on with life trying not to get hung up on anything but ultimately trusting in some sort of basic goodness, Grace, annihilation, or whatever our pet theory is.

I don't disagree that there's lots of afterlife experience that points to our (at least initially) maintaining our individuality. Even in a form only a very little different to the physical, at least at first.

Buddhism (mostly, there are minority views within it that differ) though seems to provide for two levels of uncertainty after this.

The first is that of how much gets stripped off as we progress through the Bardos (the various stages of the afterlife process) on the way to rebirth or wherever - it looks like (unless you aer enlightened - see below) that at best it's a set of attributes that makes it through. (maybe the positive bits that Alysia mentioned)

But that a highly egocentric persona will be ripped apart on the way through (the ego gets stripped off and in a variety of cosmic recycling/conservation of mind goes to fuel karma), and after all that is very likely to end up in a pretty unpleasant reality.

The second is that even this core 'self' is illusory, that it must eventually merge back into the absolute, into  primordial mind and hence lose its selfhood or differentiation. This (implying loss of self as it does) seems terrible to the ego, but it isn't necessarily so.

A realised person CAN if they so desire delay this by delaying their return to the absolute (dharmakaya) and instead using mind to keep themselves together as an entity to be reborn again to help other beings in this reality, but this again is a temporary state. (this in Buddhist terms is a Bodhissattva) They may also be able to retain some sort of identity as a tendency or emanation in the dharmakaya, but I'm not sure about this.

This idea of an eventual merging with primordial mind (or with God, dare I say it) isn't that different to what's written in some at least nominally Christian traditions which set out a vision of succeeding levels of existence (heavens), each entailing higher levels of consciousness, a merging and eventually arriving at the One. The likes of Robert Monroe uses different language but basically sets this view out too...

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 11:53am:

That's one view Doc. But Buddhism would argue that Decartes was about as wrong as he could have been on that. (that discursive mind has no continuity, and that what it builds when it's as is usually the case misused is ego) That thought is one of the least solid indicators that some sort of personal self exists. That pretty much all human suffering follows from the fact that we mistakenly equate the existence of it and a physical body with some sort of 'self'. The point of perception you mention may be closer to this reality, although even that seen as a 'me' may be illusory in as much as a wave crossing the ocean for example crimps the sea to look like a physical thing but is in fact only a transmission of energy..... Here's a rather longer account of the same thinking: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/nshell09.htm

 Hi Vajra, i deeply respect Buddhism as a whole, the basic tenets of same.   I would like to tell you a bit about the Edgar Cayce readings.   Growing up, from a young age, i was very, very curious about spiritual and nonphysical beliefs and belief systems.   I read a lot about many different beliefs and sensed so much truth in all of them, particularly in the parts different belief systems basically agreed upon.  

 So, when i came upon the Cayce readings, well i was pretty excited because in them you can find bits and pieces of Buddhism, Christianity, some Hinduism, some Jewish, and other organized belief systems all rolled into one cohesive belief system.    Yet, its still just that, a belief system and by its inherent nature is limited and limiting.  

 But i'm try to not be an extremist, and while like Bruce Moen or Bob Monroe, i believe that self experience is very important, there is ever an imortant balance between the inner and outer, until this completely dissolves as well.  

 So, while i try to rely on intuition and my own experiences, i also still look to "outer" belief systems and examples such as Cayce or Yeshua for example.  

 Anyways, keeping in mind that one can find bits and pieces of Buddhist, and other thought within these readings, the source of Cayce's readings, strongly and repeatedly emphasized that the sense of individual self and self awareness was given to us by the Creator, and will eternally exist except in some very rare cases like Bruce Moen or Cayce's source occasionally addressed.        

 If its eternal, and given to us by Source itself, does that make it a "illusion" of perception alone?    To me, the best definition of illusion, is that which is temporal in nature.   The physical is temporal in nature, and someday will not exist.   So in that sense, i would call physical an illusion.    But like Matthew said, our individual self awareness and consciousness existed before physical and will exist after physical.    

 Dunno, let me put it astrologically for a moment, there is an axis or polarity in the Zodiac which really highlights this individuality/self aware and Oneness/collective issue.  

 The signs Leo and Virgo emphasize individuality and uniqueness, and their opposite signs Aquarius and Pisces represent and emphasize the collective or Oneness i.e. the sameness of all.   It has been said, that opposite signs are really part of a larger Whole, so Virgo and Pisces are really VirgPisceo in nature, when looked at from a non dualistic perspective.

 Maybe these are both equally true at the same time?   Maybe someone born under say Virgo, part of their lessons or focus here, is to not concentrate so much on Oneness in such a collective, sameness kind of way that its opposite sign Pisces tends to concentrate on?   Virgo in many ways, very strongly represents what some have called the "left brain aspect of self", and Pisces represents very strongly and purely the "right brain aspect of self".    

  It's the merging of these and the reconciling of paradox which to me, brings the full picture and beingness into view.    Christ never told others, "you and all your sense of unqiue, individual self hood, will eventually dissolve into pure Oneness".    He said, you are part and parcel of the Whole, and may become the Whole and yet still be a part within same.  

 Or as Cayce's source oft said, "The gift of God to man is an individual soul that may be one with Him, and that may know itself to one with Him and yet individual in itself, with the attributes of the whole, yet not the whole."

  I would say, its a beautiful gift even in its paradoxical nature.   It's the merging of Yin and Yang, its the perfect and pure Hemi-Sync state of consciousness.   Real individuality is not of the ego, which is strongly tied into and which created the physical to begin with.    Even in my deepest and most ecstatic Oneness moments during meditation far from the physical vibratory state, i still had a sense of self, of individuality and unqiueness.   And one of my main centerings in my meditations, is thanking Source for this beautiful gift.  

Bman -
 Have you ever read Howard Storm's My Descent into Death?  It gives a clear account of an amazing near death experience where someone is clearly loved by Jesus but freely chooses to be put back into hell because he is more comfortable there.  Hell, if its eternal, is eternal because the inhabitants freely choose to hang out there rather than with God.  And God loves and respects us enough to allow us to choose where we will end up.  God is not actively punishing people, people are actively choosing an existence of punishment and selfishness over one of love and selfless joy.

What you say Justin is pretty much where my head in no very well worked out way is too. I think that absolutely distinct apparent 'selfhood' is a feature of this reality. It's real viewed from the perspective of conventional egotistical consciousness, but as you say not permanent. Higher levels of consciousness though permit a view of a very different scenario - self seems to fall away and be replaced by a more dispersed awareness:

No longer personal I am the Light
Dispersed
Thought a whisper in the distance
Nothingness
All

Progressively higher levels of consciousness bring us closer to unity, but simultaneously we don't lose the ability to function as apparent individuals.

I could surmise that a realised person that can enter the absolute or the Dharmakaya can be both simultaneously a part of it, and at the same time capable (as in the case of the many Buddhas) of manifesting as emanations of whatever aspect of it they are/were. Although as realised they can probably manifest a very wide range of both loving and wrathful personalities, at all sorts of levels of form from the lowest to the highest - perhaps the very many beings they experienced being over many many lifetimes.....

 :) ;) If you know what I think I mean....

Seems to me that curageous people make courageous mistakes and get courageous karma - hot like my tea. :-) Wimpy people make wimply mistakes and get wimpy karma. I think Jesus' remark about them was, "Because thou art neither hot nor cold I shall spew thee out of my mouth."

Courageous people also tend to get there faster, whether they believe in the current mythology or not. Reminds me of Star Trek where Klingons scream loudly when a friend dies - to warn the lord of death to watch out.

What I don't understand is how come you let these people rain on your parade?

dave

Seems to me that curageous people make courageous mistakes and get courageous karma - hot like my tea. :-) Wimpy people make wimply mistakes and get wimpy karma. I think Jesus' remark about them was, "Because thou art neither hot nor cold I shall spew thee out of my mouth."

Courageous people also tend to get there faster, whether they believe in the current mythology or not. Reminds me of Star Trek where Klingons scream loudly when a friend dies - to warn the lord of death to watch out.

What I don't understand is how come you let these people rain on your parade?

dave
*****************
Well Dave,
I'm a sort of poor man by American standards. But I'm a RICH man by planetary standards. And my level of physical health is TRULY unusual by world standards! This world is sheer, utter hell for 90% of the people upon it.
Makes me wonder, what tortures await  me after I die. (Does "God"
like to play games, ya think???)
Does it not stand to reason that if a "God" exists (or even an intelligent "akashic ether" or what have you) that He/It is an evil, sadistic XXXXXXXXX??? (And look at the animal kingdom, where some 60% or so of animals are parasites on others. What sort of "God" would create tapeworms, or grubs which eat out the insides of other animals while they are alive. Or how about the leprosy bacillus??? Sure you can have brutalities like predation, war, ect. but some forms of suffering - including those of ANIMALS, who one cannot accuse of sin - seem more the work of an evil genius that a callous, or even stupid creator...)

B-humanoid

Bman -
I know your post wasn't directed at me but I would like to respond.


Quote:

And my level of physical health is TRULY unusual by world standards! This world is sheer, utter hell for 90% of the people upon it.

This is the argument of evil and suffering again.  Natural evil (and suffering) comes about because there needs to be regular laws of nature that form a baseline, so that cause and effect are in play, and actual moral choices can be made and ethics can happen.  If someone has a physical ailment, its because there are physical laws that govern our present existence, and if we didn't have them then the universe would not make sense, and causality would break down.  If only the good results happened and cause and effect broke down people would have good health magically, no matter what was done to their bodies.  Then actually doing something terrible to someone else's body would no longer have an ethical or moral component to the action, or would have an unclear moral consequence.
 Its debatable whether or not the physical universe was created for anything else other than the possibility of real moral choices to come about.


Quote:

Makes me wonder, what tortures await  me after I die. (Does "God" like to play games, ya think???) Does it not stand to reason that if a "God" exists (or even an intelligent "akashic ether" or what have you) that He/It is an evil, sadistic XXXXXXX???

And what reason do you have to back up this view of God?  The fact that there are repercussions for poor behavior?  Actually the idea that there is justice in the afterlife makes up for the fact that people can have terrible lives presently, and actually brings meaning to suffering and pain.  If there was no justice in the afterlife, if there was not a God who set up laws of (spiritual) cause and effect, then the world would truly be an absurd, sick joke for most of humanity.  Most people talk about this as 'the problem of evil' as an argument against Christianity.  I think the real 'problem of evil' is that if one doesn't believe in an afterlife there truly is no meaning, goal, or value in all of life that is permanent and worthwhile - life, and especially pain and suffering, is a sick joke for most of humanity.


Quote:

(And look at the animal kingdom, where some 60% or so of animals are parasites on others. What sort of "God" would create tapeworms, or grubs which eat out the insides of other animals while they are alive. Or how about the leprosy bacillus??? Sure you can have brutalities like predation, war, ect. but some forms of suffering - including those of ANIMALS, who one cannot accuse of sin - seem more the work of an evil genius that a callous, or even stupid creator...)

The suffering of animals come about not because of their sin (which they don't have), but because of these natural laws that are in play which are necessary for an orderly universe to exist.  And an orderly universe is necessary for ethical and moral choices to be made.  Tapeworms and other parasites came about through natural selection, which is a law that governs interactions that leads to evolution.  To have the evolution of thinking creatures, natural selection must allow for the development of parasites as well.  You cannot have one without the other, while still upholding cause and effect for the majority of events of the world.

Put another way, how could God create a physical existence that didn't have cause and effect in play where there is a real ethical system produced?  Or how could God keep the positive effects of natural selection / evolution while getting rid of the negative effects and still allow cause and effect to reign so that there could be a real ethical system?  The answer to both of these questions, is that it cannot be done.  If you set up laws that allow for the development of humanity in the form of a Francis of Assisi or Nietzsche, then the same laws allow for the development of tapeworms.

Well, B-Man, I'm at a loss to find a way that makes me think that any putative divine being would take the trouble to bother anyone. Doesn't compute.

If I screw up, like not putting gas in the car, I get karma, like running out of gas. The solution is add gas. There's no heaven or hell involved. If I were to do some stupid thing that would leave me feeling guilty, then at death I'd probably go to a place where I'd continue to feel guilty. That has nothing whatsoever to do with a God. When I got tired of feeling guilty, I'd go elsewhere. Again, no God required.

As far as I can see, the world is a logical place, and the only time we get to see God, at least from here, is when we look at the beginning of everything. God was the Big Creator - but now that it all is created, God seems to have fragmented to provide myriads of souls to experience the creation. So as those souls create their own problems they experience what they created - and since everyone is God, at least in this way of looking at it, you could say that God is what makes their afterlife. Or you could just notice that even when people are reporting their regressions, they generally have nothing at all to say about God - they're just dealing with their own stuff.

So it seems to me that the courageous person thus stops arguing with present day mythology and goes on forward to make things work. And whatever is experienced in that process is simply due to errors, if any, as well as accomplishments.

If you want my version of a quick trip to hell, how about those suicide bombers who die and go off into seclusion with 72 teen age virgins. That might be fun for a week or two, but can you imagine eternity, locked up with 72 screeching teeny boppers? And that too has nothing to do with God. Insted, it's the age old problem of getting what we wish for and then discovering that we didn't really want it. Or at least, not that way.

dave

Predictably enough I tend towards Dave's view on karma.

Another argument in favour of it is the thought that being happy in this life seems to require the development of equanimity (which in turn flows from higher consciousness and understanding of life, leading to support from higher energies and the collapse of delusional beliefs)  so that we  become able to rest easy with or 'go with the natural or divine flow' of events.

In the selfish and deluded mode that's more typical we end up always trying to buck this. We grasp after what we mistakenly presume will make us happy (money, women, cars whatever), and regardless of whether or not we succeed in realising our urges we usually end up making ourselves deeply unhappy.

In doing so we create a displacement of events away from the natural flow which seems to represent some sort of divine optimum.

Karma seems to amount to some sort of divine balancing of the books - when we create such a displacement from optimum in the flow of events we somehow end up having to ride out the consequences which show us the error of our ways, but which are painful. But which restore our consciousness to where it should have been again.

The issue underlying all of this seems to be that happiness arises not from altering our external circumstances, but from remaining connected with light, and by relating wisely to our experience.

Per the four noble truths there doesn't seem to be any means by which any particular external reality can bring anything better than a transient ersatz sort of happiness which in the longer term is anyway impermanent and going to cost us when the tide of our fortune turns. No matter what we try in this regard 'life is suffering......'

It seems to me, B, that you have simulated annihilation every night when you go to sleep. I mean, how do you know you're going to wake up tomorrow?

Besides that, how do you know you're going to "wake up" in the next minute?

love, blink :)

wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 9:11pm:

It seems to me, B, that you have simulated annihilation every night when you go to sleep. I mean, how do you know you're going to wake up tomorrow? Besides that, how do you know you're going to "wake up" in the next minute? love, blink :)

 Good and interesting point Blink.  

[quote author=dave_a_mbs link=1197341178/15#18 date=1197502128]Well, B-Man, I'm at a loss to find a way that makes me think that any putative divine being would take the trouble to bother anyone. Doesn't compute.

If I screw up, like not putting gas in the car, I get karma, like running out of gas. The solution is add gas. There's no heaven or hell involved. If I were to do some stupid thing that would leave me feeling guilty, then at death I'd probably go to a place where I'd continue to feel guilty. That has nothing whatsoever to do with a God. When I got tired of feeling guilty, I'd go elsewhere. Again, no God required.

As far as I can see, the world is a logical place, and the only time we get to see God, at least from here, is when we look at the beginning of everything. God was the Big Creator - but now that it all is created, God seems to have fragmented to provide myriads of souls to experience the creation. So as those souls create their own problems they experience what they created - and since everyone is God, at least in this way of looking at it, you could say that God is what makes their afterlife. Or you could just notice that even when people are reporting their regressions, they generally have nothing at all to say about God - they're just dealing with their own stuff.

So it seems to me that the courageous person thus stops arguing with present day mythology and goes on forward to make things work. And whatever is experienced in that process is simply due to errors, if any, as well as accomplishments.

If you want my version of a quick trip to hell, how about those suicide bombers who die and go off into seclusion with 72 teen age virgins. That might be fun for a week or two, but can you imagine eternity, locked up with 72 screeching teeny boppers? And that too has nothing to do with God. Insted, it's the age old problem of getting what we wish for and then discovering that we didn't really want it. Or at least, not that way.

dave
*****************
Maybe I'm just a dirty old man, Dave... but I'd WAY rather spend eternity
locked up with 72 "teeny boppers" at my beck and call, than spend eternity in a... MONASTERY. (Which is how most religions picture "Heaven." You've gotta give Islam credit for SOMETHING. eh?)
That being said, I'd take oblivion over the teeny bopper party OR the monastery (or the Eternal Torture Pit for that matter.) The question is, will I get it..?

B-anthropoid

Interestingly enough Buddhism argues that the apparent 'flow' of a continuous stream of consciousness is in fact a delusion. That as Blink says we mistake an unconnected series of moments of creation (dreaming) for this.

That continuity of awareness exists only at the level of the absolute, of for example the light discussed on the other thread. That we superimpose snatches of mind made experience over this.

It could be true - we certainly seem to experience abrupt breaks between moments of awareness. Watch carefully what's in your awareness at a given time. Its like something was abruptly switching us between channels - like some sort of celestial security guard sitting in front of a big bank of camera monitors and switching between them.

One moment conscious of an ache in the foot, then snap!, thinking about what's for lunch, then snap! teeny boppers. There really are abrupt breaks between them....

I recall somewhweere seeing a cartoon of God winding up the universe and setting it adrift to do its own thing. I think that's to the point. That we happen to derive from the same cosmic ectoplasm is, at least at the human level, not important. In order that this Cosmos thing work in a realistic manner, we have to fend for ourselves and not have some Cosmic Meddler messing it up. And that's also true for the afterlife.

I don't think God is malicious. I actually don't think God is much involved and interested on our level at all. "God is love," they say. That's nice. My parents were also loving when they watched me, at about three years old, pick up a bumble bee and get stung - "The kid's gotta learn." And that's to the point, although there might have been a better way.  We don't need God to hold our hands when we can blunder along by ourselves. The great value of negatve karma is that we learn - and unfortunately, we learn primarily through adversity. Reminds me of the Arab proverb, "The wise man trusts in Allah. But he still ties up his camel." So in this season of love and beauty I'm giving the wife a .380 ACP for Xmas. I love my neighbors, but I think the term is "tough love".

My experiences suggest that after the body falls off we realize that all of this stuff is a dream. We made it up. At that point we can recognize the nature of the dreamer, which makes us the ones who dream up reality. Or we can delegate authority back to God and come back for another round of BS. The latter case is pretty obvious - we see it everyday. The former, however, makes you God, and all the others around us equally so - even those snatches of mental imagery, like the 72 virgins, are thus our own fault - or blessing, depending upon taste. Sounds fishy to me, at any rate.  I suspect that the whole idea was to create more martyrs out of the gullible. - There is an advantage to that - it thins out the idiot population, a form of practical eugenics. Leaves me to wonder who's going to be left after they've blown up all their kids and can't have any more.

Anyhow, my friend, putting aside the icky sweetness of the seasonal potlatch, we get to the good wishes part. Here's to a round of brandied ciders, a bucket of Mead, a fireplace with the Yule log burning brightly, and maybe a Druidic damsel to help celebrate getting snowed in for a week - much better than teeny boppers!

dave