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..!)

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

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.



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

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....

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

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

Quote:


  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.

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....