Conversation Board - some problems with the idea of an afterlife

orlando123

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 258
France

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #75 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 1:27pm

Hi

Well I have in fact looked from it at all sides. I have read Christian books, including most of the BIble, and attenbded churches and prayed to jesus etc. But I am no longer convinced. I think that looked at objectively, the creeds of standard Christianity are indeniabtly odd and a strange way for an omnipotent ruler of this awesome universe to have organised things. we tend to often not see this becasue we have grown up with its ideas as part of our culture. But if someone had just come along and started preaching it recently it would be considered a wacky cult.

It is also undeniable from an objective POV that there is very scanty evidence about the historical Jesus. my pesonal view is he probably did exist but made no big impact in his time, which may not be surprising given that going by the activities and annual Jewish festivals mentioned in the first three gospels (sen by the majority of scholars as being earlier than John) it is calculated he may only have taught for a year. This is disappointing, but it is IMO a fact, and you can only deny it by over-exaggerating the few scraps of evidence there are about him. As for contradicitons, the gospels and Acts disagree on the names of the 12 disciples, Jesus' grandfather's name, what he said on the cross before dying, who he appeared to after death, whether he gave his most important sermon on a mountain or in a plain, and so on. There is a well-worn saying that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and the gospels don;t give it, let alone provide a solid reason for holding beliefs that are supposed to decide the fate of your immortal soul.

It is fair to say that if you pick and choose you can find plenty of verses that are admirable in things attributed to Jesus, although it has often be pointed out that they were not uniquely original to him (the idea of doing to others what you would like them to do for you, for example, which I believe is found in the Old Testament as well as in other religions and philosophies), but I find some other things he is meant to have said or done less admirable and don;t think even from the Christian gospels there is any reason to claim he was "perfect"and "without sin".

So, for what'it's worth, my opinion is he probably did exist and had some good ideas - focus on trying to be compassionate and unjudgmental etc also he at times seemed to downplay the importance of sticking rigidly to some of the more pointless Jewish laws. However I don;t think certain beliefs about him (or even having heard of him) are necessary. I also strongly doubt he gathered crowds of thousands or performed most of the miracles attributed to him. In those days it was common for biographies of notable people to be embellished with claims to make them sound more godly and impressive, and the early Christains had a strong motive as they were trying to convince other Jews of the improbable idea that this crucified troublemaker was in fact the Messiah they were waiting for to usher in a golden age for the Jewish people (buy hey, they said, that'll happen when he comes BACK a second time, any time now --- which we are still waiting for).

As for your spiritual experiments telling you certain things about Jesus, I am not you and don;t know what this was like, but most skeptical people would not be particularly impressed by facts ascertained in that kind of way, even if it was meaningful for you.

However what you say - that JC existed as a man and was significant in world spirituality and was crucified is a far cry from full-on mainstream Christianity, with notions of original sin, hell, atonement, bodily resurrection and final judgment etc

Here's what St paul expected to happen (in his lifetime): 1 Thess : [13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep [dead], that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
[14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:

I fear I am more like the "scoffers"mentioned in 2 Peter : "saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

recoverer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 12:45pm:

Orlando:

I'd recommend that you consider the posts Don states he is going to post. You can't find out what is true by considering just half of the argument. I ventured on the trek of reading sources that deny the existence of Jesus for a while, but something inside told me this isn't a valid approach. Certainly some of the authors who deny the life of Jesus are biased for whatever reasons. So instead of limiting my search to an academic study, I opened my heart and mind and tried to find out spiritually, and had a number of experiences and received a number of messages which have told me that Christ is a major part of the spiritual reality of mankind, he did in fact exist as the man Jesus, and he was in fact crucified. I don't believe a person can honestly dismiss these facts, until they try to find out spiritually if they are true.

Regarding contradictions in scriptures, don't forget that mass media didn't exist during the time period in which Jesus preached. His teachings were passed on by word of mouth. Some weren't recorded until generations after he was crucified. Then the process of numerous translations took place. When you consider this, it would be quite surprising if some misunderstandings didn't take place.

Back to top

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #76 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 2:05pm

Orlando:

I believe our ability to experience increases as we grow spiritually. I found that as I've let go of limiting thought patterns and received energetic work from spirit guidance, my vibrational rate has increased. This has enabled me to make more complete contact with spirit guidance. Initially my energetic work mostly involved my awakened kundalini. After I opened myself to the presence of Christ, I started to receive energetic work and guidance from his presence. This energetic work goes beyond what kundalini ever provided. When I receive energetic work from Christ my awareness expands and I experience feelings of peace and love. I can tell that this energy is guided by an intelligence that knows precisely what it is doing.

Regarding your comment that Jesus didn't do much to help anybody, have you looked at his effect honestly enough to know this? Various sources of information have found that there is a such thing as lower realms. My guess is that billions of people have avoided such realms because of their Christian faith. Sure there are some Christians who are unloving, but why not consider the situation from Christians who "have" been influenced in a positive way? I know a lot of Christians who are good people partly because of their faith. Would you prefer that they live their life in just any way, and end up in a hell like realm?

Perhaps you would recommend they follow new age teachings. There are two problems with this approach. One, many people don't have the temperment for such teachings. Two, there are "many" new age teachings that "don't" represent the truth. If people would be just as willing to question new age teachings as they are to question Christianity, they would find that lots of inconsistencies and false premisses can be found in new age teachings, even though they have been written TODAY, in a World that is very media oriented, rather than two thousand years ago.

There is also the factor of how much Christ helps at the spirit level. This can't determined by reading books written by naysayers.

I'm not alone when it comes to experiencing Christ as a valid reality. For example, there are people who have experienced him during near death experiences, that had too much depth for these people to be experiencing simply according to what their belief system construct was at the time.

If a person really wants to find out what Christ is all about, he or she has to be wiling to be stripped of all that separates his or herself from his presence. Any takers?

Back to top

IP Logged

orlando123

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 258
France

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #77 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 2:15pm

I don;t think I said he never helped anybody, just that I believe, historically, he was probably a pretty minor figure, who has been built up into the central aspect of a religion (I don;t think he ever intended to start a new religion seperate from Judaism, centring on him rather than the Father).

I accept that Christian faith has helped to inspire good works, but it has also inspired evil and there are also people who do good things out of other faiths or just from ordinary human empathy. It's hard to balance out the role Christianity has played as such.

One of my other points was that you do not sound like a Christian in the usual sense, which I think Don is, from the tone of his posts. I don;t think the view the two of you have of Jesus would have much in common. You have a New Age type view of him as a loving presenece who enables you to grow spiritually, which is fine, but it's much less rigid and dogma-orientated than what usually goes under the name of Christiainity as developed from the Bible, creeds etc. If you see him as a kind of high-level spirit guide, and that seems to help you, I have no problem with that.

For that matter, in the last 2,000 years he's probably had plenty of opportunity to grow spiritually too ..

On the other hand maybe what you call Christ is just a partcular kind of energy or state of awareness that would go by other names in other traditions, as in when some people talk about "Christ-consciousness" as opposed to focussiung on the person/being Jesus, adn the name resonates with you becasue of where you were born/live

Back to top

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #78 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 3:06pm

Orlando:

Comments below within double quotation marks:

orlando123 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 2:15pm:

I don;t think I said he never helped anybody, just that I believe, historically, he was probably a pretty minor figure, who has been built up into the central aspect of a religion (I don;t think he ever intended to start a new religion seperate from Judaism, centring on him rather than the Father).

""Obviously we disagree about the above. Helping billions of people avoid lower realms and playing a key role in the spirit World hardly equate to "pretty minor figure." Plus, when it comes to how he has helped the physical World, I believe you would find he has done more to help the World than hurt it. Sometimes people have such a strong mindset against Christianity that they focus their attention on the negativity people have done in the name of Christ rather than the positives. I know, because I've been there.

One night, before I accepted the role of Christ, I was shown a crucifix. I asked why. I was shown an armless, legless, and headless manekin on a stand placed in the middle of a department store floor. The manekin had a white (as in white light) fur coat with black polka dots on it. This image came with the mental message, "they killed him (Jesus), they put him on display, they spotted his reputation." I next experienced myself pressing the high "C" note of my piano (not physically). I knew this to mean, "Christ represents the highest consciousness there is.""

I accept that Christian faith has helped to inspire good works, but it has also inspired evil and there are also people who do good things out of other faiths or just from ordinary human empathy. It's hard to balance out the role Christianity has played as such.

""Covered above.""

One of my other points was that you do not sound like a Christian in the usual sense, which I think Don is, from the tone of his posts. I don;t think the view the two of you have of Jesus would have much in common. You have a New Age type view of him as a loving presenece who enables you to grow spiritually, which is fine, but it's much less rigid and dogma-orientated than what usually goes under the name of Christiainity as developed from the Bible, creeds etc. If you see him as a kind of high-level spirit guide, and that seems to help you, I have no problem with that.

""I have a lot of respect for Don. He knows the Bible and its history much better than I. Even though he can be a bit harsh at times, I believe he has a lot of reverence and love for God and Christ. This means a lot to me. When it comes to his Biblical interpretations, he does so at a level that is clearly above the level of many fundamentalists. For example, he has shown that God and Christ don't sentence people to hell. Rather people live their lives in a manner that causes them to end up in such a realm. If they try to grow beyond such a realm, God and Christ will insure they receive help.

You're right that Don and I don't see eye to eye on some things. I believe this is fine. It is hard for people to believe exactly the same while in the physical, and it is probably preferable that they don't. In the end, when it is time for us to move on, I believe Don and I will move on to a nice place. When I first joined this forum I was one of the people who would get upset with Don. As is obviously clear, my feelings about Christ, and hence Don, due to various experiences and life changes, are different now.

I can understand why people get upset with Don when he speaks is a demeaning way. But I can also see why he gets upset when people repeatedly speak against Jesus and the Bible as they do on this forum. They tread on ground that is sacred to Don. The thing that is probably really annoying is that people don't seem to consider his contrary arguments. Why present a viewpoint, when one isn't willing to consider the alternative?

Regarding who Christ is, as far as I can tell the Gospel of John has the best description. Christ is the principle through which God created the universe, and Jesus came to this World to represent this principle. This principle existed long before the birth of Jesus took place.

Going by what I've found out about the World of spirit, they have a pretty good idea of how things are going to turn out down here. Therefore, they probably understood well ahead of time that some of Jesus' teachings would be misrepresented. Yet, they went ahead and sent him. Something to think about. Wink

""

For that matter, in the last 2,000 years he's probably had plenty of opportunity to grow spiritually too ..

On the other hand maybe what you call Christ is just a partcular kind of energy or state of awareness that would go by other names in other traditions, as in when some people talk about "Christ-consciousness" as opposed to focussiung on the person/being Jesus, adn the name resonates with you becasue of where you were born/live

""Spoken about above.""

Back to top

IP Logged

pulsar

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 163
Europe
Gender: male

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #79 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 3:16pm

Hi there,

Mhhh, is Christian religion based on Jesus as a godfigure...don't think so. It is more the way to reach his father, not having anymore the image of an angry god, who wipes you right of the spot if you dare to think about sin. It is just that he made love and faith (maybe he was kind of the first new age "prophet") the center of the relationship between human and divinity.

What you say about creeds and dogma, yes, I think it much washes away the spirituality, or a relationship with god, that could be spiritual. Don't know why it is like this, but religious systems of the eastern countries are much more spiritual bound to their e.g. gods (yes of course Buddhism itself is not the normal religious type of thing, because there is no creator).

2000 years, yet a lot of time, but I doesn't matter in how far he has grown spiritually, that is nothing to worry about. But it is also interesting in how far human was able to manipulate over and over again using religious motivations (some of the leaders that did so were just into religion to state their power), so it is more a question of "what can we really learn from the bible", than saying "omg, look at what was done in the name of god, believing is crue"l (seriously, is god to blame for idiots only acting for their own sake?). The last one (nonbelieving because of brutality in religions name, the two tolitarian systems of the 20th century would be the best example that nonbelieving also causes slaughter in stating they do it for humanity's sake) is the most stupid quote I have ever heard of in the discussion of wether religion or not, or which one is the true religion.

Of course, the christian point of view is just one key to the divine, look at the three big religions (they nearly have the same words written), the ideas you have in christianity, you could also find in others ones, also the beliefs held in the east of our globe (if I got it right, there were similarities between Krishna and Jesus of being born as the one gods (or the highest gods) children).
But thats lack of tolerance, if we try just to verify our own religion as the only one, the plenty of spirituality, and serving the god you chose (it is not really chosing another god, just another name and different words, actually belonging to the same thing) will be always in the background, and the useless dogma-fights will on and on. That was my problem with religion, I always asked myself how low minded can one be to just searching facts to reveal their belief as THE ONE, and not seeing that all religions just want the divine, and it is the same thing they are all praying to, just with other names, scriptures, symbols, not seeing they key ideas are not that different. So you could say there is god, or the divine principle, but no right religion ??.

Love,

pulsar

Back to top

it is determined.

IP Logged

orlando123

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 258
France

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #80 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 5:52pm

Recoverer

You don;t seem to be reading what I say very carefully, not that you have to. but we seem to keep misunderstanding each other. I just meant I believe from my historical study of the evidence that in his time on Earth he was not a major personality then. I don;t claim to know anything about whether or not he has since saved billions of souls from lower realms.

As for God and Christ not sentencing people to Hell, or about people growing beyond such mind-sets and being helped to move on, this is New Age teaching and nothing to do with what Christians have taught for hundreds of years. The Christian church has always taught you are sentenced to eternal Heaven or Hell on death and that's it. Also the Christian church has always taught we are born sinful and derserving of Hell and hence go there whatever we do unless we have accepted, through belief, the sacrfice that Christ is supposed to have made on my behalf. I don;t think you believe that and neither do I. Neither do lots of modern liberal Christrians. I have no problem with liberal Christians, although I think being one can be tricky because you have to ignore a lot of stuff the reigion has taught in the past including stuff that's in black and white in the Bible. I am not sure that, reading between the lines in the synoptics, Jesus intended to leave behind a doctrime where people went to Hell if they didn;t hold certain beliefs in him though. I think he wanted to reform Judaism so people were less hung up on the letter of the law and more loving instead. However one thing I am not so keen on is that he is portrayed as believing in eternal damnation for a good number of humanity, which seems excessive, based on just one life, even if someone has behaved badly and unlovingly.

But if communing with what you see as Christ helps you personnally, go for it. Perhaps you have a better understanding of him that the church has historically done.

PS I try to avoid just "trashing"Christian beliefs, I try to give reasonaed opinions. However I don;t see why I should not get irritated with a belief system which consigns me to an eternity of pain becasue I remain unconvinced by its teachings. At the end of the day that describes traditional Christianity. Not your version, but the one taught for past centuries by the Catholic Church and major Protestant denominations. Even within the churches they have traditionally excluded each other from Heaven, and the Roman Catholic Church still does not accept Protestant priests as valid priests or their communion services as a valid mass etc. presumably they actually think Protestants probably go to hell, thought they would be too PC to say so these days. Equally many Protestants probably think the RCs are going to hell. At the Council of Trent in the 19th Century the RCC pronounced an anathema (formal relgious curse) on protestants, which has never been revoked.

Oh and I personally find the gospel of John the least useful and convincing. Most Bible scholars consider it the latest gospel and the one most reflective of devoloping church doctrine about Jesus rather than the historical Jesus. I see him as having , as I say, focussed on getting people to be loving and forgiving, also unmaterialistic etc as, it would seen likely from the gospels, he expected the end of the world, and God's judgment, to arrive at any time, at which point material things would be no use to anyone, rather the state of their souls. You are very welcome to disagree and prefer the grandiose doctrines in John about Christ being there are the beginning of time and God creating the world "through him"(whatever THAT means) and no one getting to the Father except through him (same comment) being one with the father etc, if that floats your boat.

Back to top

IP Logged

orlando123

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 258
France

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #81 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 6:17pm

pulsar wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 3:16pm:

Hi it is the same thing they are all praying to, just with other names, scriptures, symbols, not seeing they key ideas are not that different. So you could say there is god, or the divine principle, but no right religion ??.

Well this is a common opinion and I think it depends what you mean. Christianity is similar in some ways to Judaism becasue Jesus was a Jew and islam is similar in some ways because Mohammed was obvisously influenced by the Bible stories and by Christian and Jewish monotheism (as opposed to the polytheism in Arabia before him). However they have pretty big differences when you get down to the nitty gritty and the differences with Buddhism and hindism etc are even more. But I guess you can say that the human impulse towards wanting a bigger meaning/context for life other than the purely physical and day to day is what links them all.

PS I'm not sure if I misunderstood your comment about godless totalitarians, but did you know HItler was a lifelong Catholic who often mentioned God in Mein Kampf, and who had God With Us as one of his slogans, which was inscribed on nazi uniform belts? I don;t think religion or no religion makes for a good person, it is how they act to others that counts, which is also pretty much what most religious liberals think these days anyway

Back to top

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #82 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 6:41pm

Orlando:

Once again, my responses within the double quotation marks.

orlando123 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 5:52pm:

Recoverer

You don;t seem to be reading what I say very carefully, not that you have to. but we seem to keep misunderstanding each other. I just meant I believe from my historical study of the evidence that in his time on Earth he was not a major personality then. I don;t claim to know anything about whether or not he has since saved billions of souls from lower realms.

""Considering what has followed through out the years, he has been a major influence.""

As for God and Christ not sentencing people to Hell, or about people growing beyond such mind-sets and being helped to move on, this is New Age teaching and nothing to do with what Christians have taught for hundreds of years. The Christian church has always taught you are sentenced to eternal Heaven or Hell on death and that's it. Also the Christian church has always taught we are born sinful and derserving of Hell and hence go there whatever we do unless we have accepted, through belief, the sacrfice that Christ is supposed to have made on my behalf. I don;t think you believe that and neither do I. Neither do lots of modern liberal Christrians. I have no problem with liberal Christians, although I think being one can be tricky because you have to ignore a lot of stuff the reigion has taught in the past including stuff that's in black and white in the Bible. I am not sure that, reading between the lines in the synoptics, Jesus intended to leave behind a doctrime where people went to Hell if they didn;t hold certain beliefs in him though. I think he wanted to reform Judaism so people were less hung up on the letter of the law and more loving instead. However one thing I am not so keen on is that he is portrayed as believing in eternal damnation for a good number of humanity, which seems excessive, based on just one life, even if someone has behaved badly and unlovingly.

""I don't believe that concepts such as eternal darnation (I actually typed darnation with an "n" in the midde this time

) are a good deal. I believe it is better to inspire with love than fear. Only love will change the World for the better. The eternal darnation concept is one of the key things that turned me off to Christianity when I was in Jr. high school. I believe this is partly what the spotted manekin I was shown was about. People spotted Jesus' reputation by saying he talked about eternal darnation. I once read that the original gospels didn't say eternal darnation, this was added by a counsel commisioned by emporer Constantine. Perhaps there are people who need such a message, because they won't respond to a message of live according to love. Some people have different requirements. I used to take offense if a Christian would tell me I'm going to hell, but not anymore. Some people would say that I'm going to hell, because I don't believe in fundamentalist ideas. Some day they'll find out how things really work.""

But if communing with what you see as Christ helps you personnally, go for it. Perhaps you have a better understanding of him that the church has historically done.

PS I try to avoid just "trashing"Christian beliefs, I try to give reasonaed opinions. However I don;t see why I should not get irritated with a belief system which consigns me to an eternity of pain becasue I remain unconvinced by its teachings. At the end of the day that describes traditional Christianity. Not your version, but the one taught for past centuries by the Catholic Church and major Protestant denominations. Even within the churches they have traditionally excluded each other from Heaven, and the Roman Catholic Church still does not accept Protestant priests as valid priests or their communion services as a valid mass etc. presumably they actually think Protestants probably go to hell, thought they would be too PC to say so these days. Equally many Protestants probably think the RCs are going to hell. At the Council of Trent in the 19th Century the RCC pronounced an anathema (formal relgious curse) on protestants, which has never been revoked.

Oh and I personally find the gospel of John the least useful and convincing. Most Bible scholars consider it the latest gospel and the one most reflective of devoloping church doctrine about Jesus rather than the historical Jesus. I see him as having , as I say, focussed on getting people to be loving and forgiving, also unmaterialistic etc as, it would seen likely from the gospels, he expected the end of the world, and God's judgment, to arrive at any time, at which point material things would be no use to anyone, rather the state of their souls. You are very welcome to disagree and prefer the grandiose doctrines in John about Christ being there are the beginning of time and God creating the world "through him"(whatever THAT means) and no one getting to the Father except through him (same comment) being one with the father etc, if that floats your boat.

""Going by what I've read, people contend that the gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew were written 55-65 years a.d., while the Gospel of John was written 100 years afterwards. Don says he has evidence that the Gospel of John was written by a person who actually lived during the time of Christ.

Bruce Moen writes about how he met the planning intelligence. This presence was the creator of and aware of several universes. This being told Bruce we all exist on its lent awareness. Bruce asked this being if it was God, and the being answered no. It told Bruce that if he would've traveled one disc layer higher (during a prior experience), he would've found God. Perhaps Bruce was in contact with what I refer to as Christ. The first time Christ's presence visited me in a very noticeable way, I had the impression that this presence could be anywhere it wants to be and in as many places it wants. Perhaps because it is everywhere. When I communicate with it I feel like I'm in contact with a presence similar to the presence Bruce described when he wrote about making contact with the planning intelligence. This presence often responds to my questions or provides input while I meditate, by providing me with different kinds of experiences. Here's one example. I'm meditating one day, I'm in an expansive state and feeling love, and suddenly I find myself at the back of a cargo plane with the back hatch open. The plane is flying upward and is trying to gain enough velocity to do so. I'm at the back of the airplane because I'm trying to detach a piece of cargo from the floor, which I could tell symbolized sexual attachment. This attachment is bogging down my energy so I can't ascend completely.""

Back to top

IP Logged

orlando123

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 258
France

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #83 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 7:01pm

I'm glad at least we agree hell (especially teaching children to fear it) is a bad idea Angry

The issue of which bits of the gospels Jesus said and which he didn;t is one that will keep scholars arguing for a long time yet - the Jesus Seminar was founded to try and do it but between them they only agree on a small number of what they consider "definite" quotes. BTW I am pretty sure the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with it, he seems to get blamed for everything at the moment (maybe Dan Brown's influence?) I don;t think he had anything to do with selecting the Bible books or editing them (or having other people do so). What he did do was call the Council of Nicea, which decided on what was going to be key Christain doctrine and what was going to be - henceforth - heresy and also made Christianity a trendy religion that could help your career, instead of a widely disliked, and at times persecuted, minority

You misinterpreted me again about the historcial Jesus. I was referring to him as a figure in his time period. I know that since then he (or at least the Church's version of him) has been "influential" . It would be hard to deny that!

Thanks for the explainations of the kinds of insights you get.

Back to top

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #84 - Aug 10^th, 2007 at 7:41pm

Orlando:

Whoever/whatever Christ is, my guess is that he isn't uptight about the different ways people think of him, eventhough he probably doesn't approve of when people use his name for hate based agendas, such as how the kkk does so.

The main thing I try to stress is that Christ is able to help people if they seek such help.

Regarding people not wanting to give Jesus credit for what he accomplished, I doubt he takes it personally. I speak up for him out of love and respect, and because of what my experience has told me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Never say die

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 177
Gender: male

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #85 - Aug 11^th, 2007 at 9:30am

Orlando,

I'm heading towards being convinced scientifically due to the increasingly widespread development of rational and objective explanations that support the paranormal rather than debunk it. This alternative scientific paradigm (I'm not sure if I showed you this link before) will not easily convince the western mind that has learnt the mechanistic materialist model.

http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/

I mentioned the above site. On first glance to the skeptical mind you probably find its presentation too simplistic and an advertorial for a book. Dark matter, the law of gravity they are topics worth debating, they beg further investigation.

What is most convincing to me is that I have read the same theories in many other places. The consistency of the research and the fact it personally makes sense to my world view, that is why I personally am heading towards being convinced. We all have a different set of life experiences and have been exposed to different discourses of information, basically I'm saying is I see a definite pattern emerging for me to atleast personally be convinced that not only do these phenomena exist but they can also be supported with science.

Back to top

IP Logged

Never say die

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 177
Gender: male

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #86 - Aug 11^th, 2007 at 9:37am

orlando123 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 7:01pm:

I'm glad at least we agree hell (especially teaching children to fear it) is a bad idea Angry

.

I agree. I've read that the doctrine of eternal damnation is a mistranslation of the Bible. I read they mistranslated the Hebrew? word for aeon to the Hebrew? word for eternal. Aeon only means 'a period of time'. There was nothing to suggest that hell was meant to be eternal. It just seems scarier and a better way to force people to get into line.

Back to top

IP Logged

Berserk2

Super Member

Offline

Posts: 844
Gender: male

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #87 - Aug 11^th, 2007 at 1:45pm

Orlando,

You've written enough posts now that provide me a better sense of who you are. True, I've elsewhere noted obvious basic errors in your historical inferences, but these are hardly your fault. I am now convinced that you do have an honest and somewhat open-ended spiritual quest. I ask you only to make one concession: I will soon create a thread directed to several of the serious points you have made and I ask you to try to consider my case from a perspective unfiltered by your previous research. Of course, this request is ultimately impossible to fuflil, but at least please try to make the effort.

The greatest enemy of church growth is some of the Christians who attend church and the narrow-minded pastors who lead them. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and so many pastors and Christians have one fundamental spiritual flaw that sabotages their growth potential and their efforts at outreach: they don't know what they don't know. Consequently, they don't persevere in asking themselves questions like these: "Where is the line between ultimate mystery and questions that have satisfactory answers? Precisely why can't we answer certain questions? How close can we come to answering them? Are there more constructive related questions that we can answer? And to what extent can we verify our answers by direct experience and observaton?" These questions of course are seldom adequately addressed on this site. I don't object to the frequent criticisms of Christianity here, but the dogmatism with which they are expressed is often easily dispatched. Posters need to couch their objections with phrase like "IMO," or "my impression is," "I suspect that," "in my experience," "from my limited research," etc.

For example, Bruce Moen's grotesque mischaracterization of Christian belief is reprehensible not for its content, but for its ignorant dogmatism. He is rightly obsessed with the glorious potential of performing soul retrievals but his anti-Christian bias blinds him to the fact that early Christianity has the potential to serve as his most effective ally in promoting this quest. As I've often documented here, the New Testament and the early church provide the earliest LITERARY documentation for the practice of soul retrievals and this documentation debunks the myth that early Christians were hellbent on promoting the doctrine of eternal damnation with no postmortem oppportunity for spiritual growth. Bruce's diatribes would be quite acceptable if he made it clear that he is only speaking from the perspective of his earlier life as a Missouri Synod Lutheran. But his tone generalizes to the Bible and Christianity in general and this error taints his otherwise commendable quest with a tinge of mindless bigotry. I have addresses these issues before and, I guess, I need to repackage past threads in a new format for the benefit of newbies. Too bad I threw away all my earlier threads! So stay tuned, Orlando. I'm very busy in my new pastoral role, but eventually I will meet all of your objections head on. New paranormal experiences abound in my church.

Don

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 11^th, 2007 at 5:13pm by Berserk2 »

IP Logged

vajra

Ex Member

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #88 - Aug 11^th, 2007 at 4:20pm

Hi guys. My intention is not by coming in here to suggest that I know better, but to float the suggestion that maybe it's not so good to get caught up in what is essentially an academic style winners and losers debate.

Progress along the path we all profess to follow is surely not determined by academic or conceptual knowledge or expertise - it's about becoming something else. Namely a person (eventually much more than an a simple person) who as a result of what they are (have become) is increasingly able to live as an expression of love - love for the self, and love for all other sentinent beings. There's lots of ways this can be expressed depending on your tradition and preferred use of language.

There's many that are highly realised who struggle to rub words together intelligibly, and who from a certain perspective are incredibly rough diamonds who can be and often are quite forceful and direct - but who by simply being communicate more truth and influence more powerfully for the good than words ever can. Who no matter how they speak exude an amazing gentleness and sense of soft groundedness. Who can only be assessed by what they are, and what happens around them. They may not even be conceptually aware of what they are.

Put it another way. As we progress the territory shifts from the conventional to include other subjective realities (which are the topic of much of what gets posted here), and ultimately our relationship with the absolute. Once the first is transcended language becomes at best highly limited as a means of expression.

Even setting this aside I don't have the skills to access the language to accurately communicate what I truly feel in a forum like this. I'll repeatedly as a result of this or of older habitual word use make inferences that I don't really mean. I'll sometimes read stuff I posted afterwards and think 'oops, I didn't really mean that'. Or over time my position on topics will evolve. Maybe as a result of my changing, but maybe also simply because my thoughts on the issue have clarified. Some of what I post is probably way off to others further down the road, or to those using differing terminologies. But what the hell - that's life.

I've had a good number of years around academia, and have to say that my observation is that as the space became more intellectual the heart was squeezed out of it - and was replaced by self interested competing egos who cared little about the harm they did to others.

It's very possible for an environment to arise that amounts to a babble of competing egos, one where the game has little to do with helping anybody, and where the noise or tone negates any shreds of truth that may be around. There's maybe even a law that says that the spiritual value of what's said is inversely proportional to the sum of its intellectual superiority and the pernickity-edness and earnestness with which it is spoken.

Despite an ability to pontificate with the best I quickly lost any residual tendency to attribute unconditional respect to heavy duty learned debate. I realised that so far as transmission of truths is concerned there's a point fairly quickly arrived at beyond which language and the discursive intellect stop contributing.

Language or conceptual thought can't adequately express what is ultimately ineffable anyway. You can only circle around the space, and almost by saying what it is not imply what it is. The rest is down to tone and some sort of unconscious mind to mind connection.

The one really solid use for intellectual insight such as this forum provides is that properly used it helps us along the path - it provides some insight into what we could be doing, what's possible and what we can expect so that fear or ignorance don't cause us to veer off course or stop.

A final thought. It's presumably the case that we all participate in this forum in the hope of helping others along their way. That surely means the creation of a friendly space where we can express our views in a spirit of friendly discussion and exchange.

Where while differing views may be tabled there is room for all. Where by our attitude and gentleness we leave the space needed so that all can table their views, hear what others have to say and as a result reposition their own views without having been forced into a corner that causes them to close, or to feel the need to defend.

We all have to come to our own truths, and we all seem to profess to support this principle. (which is the one reason most here seem to object to dogmatic religion)

So why not trust in others basic sanity and process??

Pardon the length.

Back to top

IP Logged

orlando123

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 258
France

Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #89 - Aug 12^th, 2007 at 4:49am

Hello Don

Thanks for the recognition of my sincerity etc.

I would be interested to know more about why you believe there is evidence the early church practiced soul retievals and did not believe in eternal damnation. My own research suggests the early Christians were interested above all in Chrit's imminent return when they thought the Christian dead would be raised again and the living and dead would live immortally in a new kingdom he would establish on Earth. Although damnation for nonbelievers was also an issue I think it's debateable (from what I remember) as to whether this was originally mostly thought of as just them being destroyed or even just staying dead as opposed to eternal punishment, although there is certainly evidence to suggest the latter too. I'm not aware though of evidence suggesting a beilef in post-mortem "retievals"or chances to spiritually evolve and so on, which seems a more New Age kind of idea, with influences from Eastern religions and shamanism (IMO!). Oh, one reference to the kind of practices descibed on this board does come to mind though where paul refers to someone being "caught up into a third heaven (whether on the body or out of it I don;t know)", but that doesn;t refer to retreivals. Or are you referring to Christ's "harrowing of Hell'?

But then again I don;t think religious ideas seemed to be or should be fixed once and for all. Maybe you have insights they lacked.

Good luck with the new church.

Vajra

You make a sensible point, that it would seem likely spiritual growth is not much furthered by lots of intellectual argument. Also I am well aware these kinds of arguments (about the historical Jesus or about religious doctrines etc) just go on and on anyway and there are many different points of view that can be taken and rarely can one be proved right.

In any case Don does not see a very dogmatic kind of Christian from what he says anyway. He appears to be more interested in experiences than doctrine, and seems to want to help people.

Back to top

IP Logged