This might sound like a strange question but I have been wondering about this question after reading some of the hate/propaganda threads here. I'm not really interested in oneliners saying that yes, they do.

Can atheists really go to hell? According to most atheists religion is a social construction meant to bind people together and give them a purpose in life. Atheists in general set themselves more a more individual purpose.

An atheist does not believe in hell or in heaven, not even an individual hell or heaven. He does not expect to go to either of them, he expects to die. I'm not sure how to write this down but does the denial off hell or heaven not exclude the possibility of going there?

On the flip side I venture to say that theists must have a rather individual outlook on hell and heaven. Does this have any consequences for them? Is hell or heaven an individual place for them shaped after their believes?

Maybe it is too philosophical and I am sure I am not making my point very clear, but anyone have any (constructive) thoughts on this matter?

I was talking to someone the other day who doesn't beleive in Heaven (he doesn't really follow any religion, but the best way to describe him would be an ex-Jew/Taoist). We were talking about how we would love to be there if there is actually a Heaven. Just to see God's face when he asked "You did WHAT in my name??" If I were God, I think the only unforgivable sin would be to openly admit that you don't know me, no one has ever spoken to me. I work "in mysterious ways" and you couldn't begin to understand my thoughts or intentions, but then proceed with telling everyone that if they don't act or believe in this specific way, that I will condemn them to Hell. To use me in an attempt to control people's actions, thoughts and free will would be enough reason for me to deny your entry into Heaven.

We concluded that if there were actually a Heaven with a God judging who will be allowed in, the only people getting in would be Atheists.

An atheist does not believe in hell or in heaven, not even an individual hell or heaven. He does not expect to go to either of them, he expects to die. I'm not sure how to write this down but does the denial off hell or heaven not exclude the possibility of going there?

Well, Christians will no doubt say belief has no bearing on the reality or unreality of Hell. For example, I can say, "I don't believe in death," but that won't stop me from dying. Likewise, God is not Tinkerbell, needing our belief to survive.

Now, one certainly has the right to concoct an alternate vision of death (say, "Death is not what it appears to be," etc.), which is essentially what all Christians are doing when they opine on the possibilities of the afterlife. In that sense, what one believes is crucial to the event <i>before the fact</i>, but once death occurs, for instance, we <i>should</i> find out what it <i>really</i> means, individual interpretations be damned. Or perhaps not. After all, if one man's jar of urine is another man's work of art, so may the afterlife prove to be subject to individual tastes.

It's another thing entirely to talk about the Christian Hell as if its existence is certain and then wonder who gets in. To that end, all anyone can do is guess really... As far as I can tell, Gandhi must be roasting in Hell and Jeffrey Dahmer, who supposedly converted to Christianity just before his death, is sipping cocktails with the Lord. It's all very confusing.

If you're interested in the diversity of beliefs and experiences and their possible effects on "reality" as we know it, I suggest picking up "Mysticism and the New Physics" by Michael Talbot. Though it doesn't deal directly with this Heaven and Hell question, it does posit that individuals' unique perspectives actually do change environments. And it comes with a complimentary bag of psilocybin mushrooms. (Just kidding.)

Josh

If anything, I would call myself an agnostic, not an atheist.

From my experiences with religious people, there must be a great number of hells then -- pretty much as many as there are religions.

And I just don't know which one I would be send to ... All of them? None? Would Christians send me to their hell, but Muslims in their heaven? Or how is that?

So, in order to figure out whether atheists will go to hell, we first need to figure out which religion is the only right one, or settle for the POV that one human has a multitude of identities (and bodies?), so that each one of these identities can be send to its destined heaven/hell/purgatory/... .


To conclude, I'll quote some things from Arthur Rimbaud's "Season in hell" -- really worth reading
(English translations may vary a bit):

"I believe that I am hell, therefore I am in hell."

"I ought to have my own hell for anger, my own hell for pride, my own hell of caressings -- a concert of hells."



P.S.
There are things worse than hell. Think Wisconsin. :)

Hi spuriousmonkey

Well according to scripture belief or non belief has no effect.

John 3
16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


It's another thing entirely to talk about the Christian Hell as if its existence is certain and then wonder who gets in. To that end, all anyone can do is guess really... As far as I can tell, Gandhi must be roasting in Hell and Jeffrey Dahmer, who supposedly converted to Christianity just before his death, is sipping cocktails with the Lord. It's all very confusing.


Well Gandhi did read the Word of Jesus and said he would have become a Christian but he didn't because he said he never met any of His followers here on earth. Strange that one would reject God because one does not know anyone who has.

On the other hand Jeffery Dahmer read the Word Of Jesus and accepted it. i suppose being on death row focuses the mind and worrying about what others accept or reject never came into his calculations.

As the scripture says it is not being a goody goody that counts its what one believes, what they accept, that counts.

"He who believes in Him is not condemned"


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Simple answer monkey it depends on whats true when we die, if atheism is true we will all just cease to exist(religious people included), if a religion is true then those that believed in it will go to heaven, the others to hell, there are so many religions if one is true than many many people are going to hell, i prefer to enjoy life now and atheism is the only true way for me to do that, if im wrong im wrong theres nothing i can do about it, if im right at least i wont have wasted my life(by my standards), unfortunately monkey we wont know til we die, its good to speculate though.

Well according to scripture belief or non belief has no effect.
Doesnt this contradict with what you followed up with? Saying that he who believes is not condemned and he who doesnt is already condemned, therefore belief DOES have an effect, you can be good, not believe, and go to hell, thats justice for you.

My understanding of Hell is being 'Eternally Seprated From God'. I think all the visuals of Hell in religous doctrine symbolise this 'state of being'.
If people choose not to seek God in this life then that is their choice. But why wouldnt one seek answers to their own existence? Why wouldnt one want to embrace love in its entirity? Why wouldnt one take the gift of eternal life? If people reject love then they live in darkness. In this darkness ( symbolically ) there is great weeping and gnashing of teeth!

Adstar,

Now please listen to me:

You are taking your religion for granted. You are obviously forgetting what benefits and privileges you had in your life.

Let's suppose that Christianity is the only right and true religion.

In this case, you are one very lucky person that you have come to know this belief. One extremely lucky person to be given the chance to get to know this belief.

So Gandhi read the Bible, and I read it, and millions other people read it -- and we don't believe in it. Did you ever ask yourself ***why*** we don't believe in it?

Because we are hard-hearted, you may say? Because we consciously choose to live in a "lie"?

How can you be so cruel and refuse to give us, non-believers, the slightest *credit* that we actually speak *honestly* when we say that the Bible simply doesn't speak to us?


Do you think that because the Bible is the word of God -- that those to whom the Bible is numb have done something bad, on their own accord, and this then prevents them from hearing it?
Do you think that because the Bible is the word of God -- everyone will automatically hear it -- unless they are wicked people, wicked by their own choice and doing?

And the mentally challenged, the infants who die, the deaf and the blind, those who cannot read, those who have to work 16 or more hours a day -- all these people are condemned?


Did you ever stop to think how lucky you are that you know the Truth?


Don't give yourself credit for things you have not done: It was not your doing that you were conceived and carried to term. It was not your doing that you were born into a family that raised you and fed you. It was not your doing that you were born in a country and at a time where there were no disasterous earthquakes, floods, droughts, wars and such. Many people are not as lucky as you. Many people live in extreme poverty, many don't even make it to reach adulthood, because they are killed by disease, poverty, drugs ...


And now you dare condemn us and all these people -- and say "He who believes in Him is not condemned"??

This is the most coward sterility I can imagine.


If you insist that I am a liar or that I wish to live in a lie, even after reading the Bible, then you show how you are not being grateful for the privileges you have.

If you claim that your religion is the only right and true one -- think: How did you come to it?

If we are in the dark, then you must obviously had been given privileges that we hadn't been given. Did you ever stop to be grateful for that? Stop and think, how it was your family that raised you and fed you, how it was your neighbourhood who didn't beat you to death or harmed you otherwise, how it was a long long line of smaller and bigger events that you had *no* control over, but they were beneficient for you!

Getting to know God was not just your own praying and studying. It couldn't be further from that! You being able to get to know God, and the Truth was a matter of many things that you had no control of.


And yet you have the nerve to condemn and to criticize people -- for things they haven't done!


You mechanically quote the Bible. And forget that the first commandment is to LOVE people.

To LOVE people is more than just *say* that you love them.

To LOVE people is more than just put up with them.

To LOVE people is to take time and do everything that is in your power to understand their situation.

What do you know about the situation of each of us non-believers? Did you bother to inquire?
Did you ever wonder that not every person on this planet has been as lucky as you are?
Did you ever bother to think that you have had advantages in your life that most other people didn't have?

Did you ever bother to think that children grow up in dysfunctional families, with noone to really care for them? Did you ever bother to think that children get abused, in many ways?

And now you simply expect these people to be all willing to accept Jesus -- or they are choosing to live in a lie?!

It doesn't work that way. If you think it should, then I must say that you have a very poor knowledge of humans.


It really pisses me off to see Christians who with their conduct show that they are not grateful for what they consider to be the only right religion.


And now, for Christ's sake, yes, I say for Christ's sake, stop thinking that I have somethng against you.
You have yet a lot to learn about people, and about love and understanding.

But why wouldnt one seek answers to their own existence? Why wouldnt one want to embrace love in its entirity? Why wouldnt one take the gift of eternal life?

Because they have to work 16 hours or more a day.

Because they were abused as children.

Because they still are abused.

Because they had a dysfunctional parents.


Now please stop thinking that people who don't believe in God do so out of vanity or wishing to live in a lie or something like that.

And if you think that someone who has experienced abuse and violence will simply run into Saviour's arms: then I tell you that you know next to nothing about the human soul.

Because they have to work 16 hours or more a day.

Because they were abused as children.

Because they still are abused.

Because they had a dysfunctional parents.


Now please stop thinking that people who don't believe in God do so out of vanity or wishing to live in a lie or something like that.

And if you think that someone who has experienced abuse and violence will simply run into Saviour's arms: then I tell you that you know next to nothing about the human soul.


Firstly it is an assumption that I think people who dont believe in God are doing so out of vanity or whatever. I know enough about my own soul to understand why I didnt believe and it was because bad stuff had happened to me and the whole idea of God seemed like a sick joke. Whydid He just stand there watching you while you suffered?. Any decent God would intervene. Why didnt He intervene? Trust me when I say I understand that. But if Jesus presented Himself to those that suffer in the way He did to me then my point stands 'Why wouldnt you take this hand of friendship?'
If you actually had a revelation of Christ and still chose to reject Him then that would be your 'choice' but it would be an informed one.
I think people who suffer through no fault of their own are God's children and he looks after those and has a special place for those. I think to be eternally seperated you would have to actually know God's love fully and then reject it because love and peace was not for you.
In my experience, nothing had ever talked to my pain in the way that that revelation did and I could not have rejected the help that was offered because it 'was' the answer to my problems - my inner being testified to this.
Do I feel gratitude? Yes! Do I condemn others who dont believe or cant believe because the idea of God seems like madness? No of course not. If I come across those people I help them in practical ways to learn to receive love and friendship and know what it is to trust. If they know that I am a Christian and are touched by my support then maybe they will be able to receive the love of He who gave it to me in the first place.

peace

c20 :m:

Swedenborg's theory was that hell- or rather the many hells- wasn't actually for punishment. They were merely places where people who were unable to face god would hang out, varying according to taste and temperament.
The scene in hell in Shaw's Man and Superman is a Swedenborgian hell.

All atheists before the time of Christ went to hell without any hope of salvation whatsoever. Native Americans, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians.. whatever.. as long as they were not of God's covenant, they were condemned for being unholy.


May the Father of lights be praised.

C20,

But if Jesus presented Himself to those that suffer in the way He did to me then my point stands 'Why wouldnt you take this hand of friendship?'
If you actually had a revelation of Christ and still chose to reject Him then that would be your 'choice' but it would be an informed one.

I do *not* think that I had a revelation of Christ.
"Eternal life" means or says nothing to me -- I do not know what to do with it.
To me, Christianity is yet another cosmogony.

Now you can blame me for that, say that I made an "informed choice", if you must.
It just doesn't speak to me.

Do they believe in soul?
I mean that inside every body there is a soul, and if a person dies his soul comes out of him. If they do, so where all these souls would go?
If they not believe in souls, any way for every thing there is a reason, what they are here for, if they are so scientific (although I see that science leads to the idea that there is God) and believe in no God so can they say when the humanity started and how, I mean there must be a first human in here or say a couple (m and fm), and since they were the first they had no parents, so from where they came?
Scientifically the life in this earth for sure will end one day, so does it make sense that all that (life) happened to take place for no reason, just started between the minus infinite of time to plus one?

an Islamic story ( I'm not saying that to start a debit whether Islam is right or not) about God:-
a guy asked the prophet who is God, then the prophet kept asking that guy some questions like, have you ever been in a sinking ship (At the time he used to think that there is no God), the guy said yes, then the prophet asked him have you asked for help asked someone that you don't know, you don't see but just believed he has the power to do what you thought at that time is impossible (to be risked), the guy said yes, then the prophet said well this is God. (the conversation is not exactly as I said, I don't remember the exact one, but it is of the same points)

C20,



I do *not* think that I had a revelation of Christ.
"Eternal life" means or says nothing to me -- I do not know what to do with it.
To me, Christianity is yet another cosmogony.

Now you can blame me for that, say that I made an "informed choice", if you must.
It just doesn't speak to me.

What would speak to you?

My understanding of Hell is being 'Eternally Seprated From God'. I think all the visuals of Hell in religous doctrine symbolise this 'state of being'.

Heh, it sounds as if us living right now without God being around is having us seperated which means we're in Hell right this minute. I guess all of us in our past lives didn't accept the Almighty so we're in Hell right now. And the only reason why we have religion and people accepting God these days is to make-up for the past non-beliefs so we can escape this Hell in which we're in.

Who knows, the universe could have been created to be our prison with no way to reach him/her/it. All these planets here are created to tease us and wrack our minds to try and give us hope that we're not alone or in hopes that this may be where God and his creations reside. It's all now a game for God. He doesn't show his face and gets to give us all these false hopes to make us belief in him more and more. Ain't this Hell grand?

- N

Oh yeah and as for Atheists going to Hell, like the others have said, we don't know. First we'd have to know what the true religion is before we can accept their belief in what will happen to the non-believers. Some religions are more forgiving than others that outright condemn those of other faiths.

- N

My understanding of Hell is being 'Eternally Seprated From God'. I think all the visuals of Hell in religous doctrine symbolise this 'state of being'.
I can live with that.
If people choose not to seek God in this life then that is their choice. But why wouldnt one seek answers to their own existence?You assume the answer lies with god. I believe it lies elsewhere.
Why wouldnt one want to embrace love in its entirity?
You assume you need god to embrace love in its entirity. I believe i embrace love but i dont need god for it.
Why wouldnt one take the gift of eternal life?
You assume there will be eternal life to be given. And to me its not worth the sacrifice you must make now on the off chance it can be given. If hell is merely being seperated from god then i can live with it so i will be happy, and i will have enjoyed this life. Also if your only a christian for the reward of eternal life arnt you going to hell anyways because you dont truely believe?
If people reject love then they live in darkness. In this darkness ( symbolically ) there is great weeping and gnashing of teeth!
Again you assume rejecting god is rejecting love, i feel love and dont reject it, yet i dont believe in god.

Heh, it sounds as if us living right now without God being around is having us seperated which means we're in Hell right this minute. I guess all of us in our past lives didn't accept the Almighty so we're in Hell right now. And the only reason why we have religion and people accepting God these days is to make-up for the past non-beliefs so we can escape this Hell in which we're in.

Of course! This is Hell. That immediately explains the holocaust, 9/11, and Clay Aiken. No wonder there are so many fundies running around.

Still, I ended up here too... apparently, masturbation <i>did</i> turn out to be a sin. Damn.

Josh

@ Lemming3k

If you feel love and don't reject it, then what is love?


Agape?

@ JustARide

Let's not forget PM.. :D

@ Neildo

Religion and God have NOTHING in common. Well, unless you're a Calvinist...

Hi Lemmink3



"Well according to scripture belief or non belief has no effect."

Doesn’t this contradict with what you followed up with? Saying that he who believes is not condemned and he who doesnt is already condemned, therefore belief DOES have an effect, you can be good, not believe, and go to hell, thats justice for you.

Yes i can see your confusion i did not right that well. The original poster put forward the possibility that if someone does not believe in God or hell then they may not be liable to go there but if someone believed in hell and did not do the will of God that they would go there. (Now i know the poster did not say this exactly. but this is the message i got)

I was saying that someone’s eternal destination is not affected by ones non - belief in it. That is to say non belief in hell does not keep you from hell. What one believes does not affect the existence of the ultimate reality for that person.



you can be good, not believe, and go to hell, thats justice for you


If human thoughts on justice ruled in heaven than No man would be saved and All men would go to hell. Because God is perfect and no person (no matter how good they are) is perfect. God cannot accept anything impure in eternity. That is why Jesus is so important to us. Because through Him we can be accounted as rightious by Faith not by being perfect. God has offered through Jesus a gift of forgiveness to mankind, But a gift cannot be had without it being accepted and that is our part in the deal. We must believe in Jesus as our savor/Redeemer.

All praise The Ancient Of Days

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

@ Neildo

Religion and God have NOTHING in common. Well, unless you're a Calvinist...

Religion and God don't have anything in common? This is Hell we're talking about, no?

I said we'd have to first find out which is the true religion to see if an Athiest goes to Hell because not every religion says one will go to Hell. So we have to first establish if there's a Hell or not for one to go to hence the mention of following the correct religion. And God was also mentioned because some religions state that those that don't follow the correct God will go to Hell as well. So if I'm following the wrong God and there is a Hell, I'm screwed. Otherwise I'm fine and dandy. :)

- N

So, in order to figure out whether atheists will go to hell, we first need to figure out which religion is the only right one,

Ahh, the old "which religion is the right one" question! I think this should be given a thread of its own. If there's one thing that completely puts me off religion, its this question!

All atheists before the time of Christ went to hell without any hope of salvation whatsoever. Native Americans, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians.. whatever.. as long as they were not of God's covenant, they were condemned for being unholy.

I'm betting on the Sumerians/Babylonians to be right :p

--

a guy asked the prophet who is God...the guy said yes, then the prophet said well this is God.

I like that story :)

It makes sense too...you can interpret it many different ways too...my interpretation is that the prophet is saying that God is all around, in every person, people are God...people helping people, and etc.

I think if anything, hell would be where people didn't help each other in the slightest...where they took turns laughing at each other being destroyed, they just watched with utter hysteria, powerless to stop themselves from laughing and ENJOYING the destruction of another person while that person is crying out for help...and they want to help but can't...and enjoy that they can't...

That would be hell I think...and I do think that such a hell would take in people who have done terrible things like purposely hurt another for no reason other than enjoyment...

As to what happens when we die? Who knows, more importantly, who CARES? I personally have better things to do with my time than debate such nonsense on a daily basis (though it is fun to debate them every once in awhile...intelligent debate is usually worthwhile)...though I actually find it somewhat offensive that people claim the existence or non-existence of the afterlife...its.....pretentious, but meh...I can deal with being offended :)

We must believe in Jesus as our savor/Redeemer.
So if you dont believe in jesus then you do go to hell, even if your a good person, thats the point im getting at, most christians(i've met or spoken to) say if you dont believe in god/jesus then you go to hell, regardless of how good a person you are.
@ Lemming3k
If you feel love and don't reject it, then what is love?
Agape?
Im not sure what your getting at, i shall reply as best i can, love is a feeling, it does not need to come from god to be felt, the love of a friend or family member comes from them, not from god, i feel love from people in my life, i feel love without god or the need for him.

, most christians(i've met or spoken to) say if you dont believe in god/jesus then you go to hell, regardless of how good a person you are.

then i think u have been talking to the wrong christians im a christian and i dont think that a person going to hell is based on whethere they belive or not i think its how that person lives there life.

then i think u have been talking to the wrong christians im a christian and i dont think that a person going to hell is based on whethere they belive or not i think its how that person lives there life.
That would make more sense, perhaps you are a better christian and the others are the usual breed of clueless christians that know very little, however i do recall a priest saying it once, perhaps its a different sect of christianity, there are plenty of them now.

C20,

To first make up for something from a previous post:

I said:
Now please stop thinking that people who don't believe in God do so out of vanity or wishing to live in a lie or something like that.

To this you replied:
Firstly it is an assumption that I think people who dont believe in God are doing so out of vanity or whatever.

And what started this train of thought was this you said:

If people choose not to seek God in this life then that is their choice. But why wouldnt one seek answers to their own existence? Why wouldnt one want to embrace love in its entirity? Why wouldnt one take the gift of eternal life? If people reject love then they live in darkness. In this darkness ( symbolically ) there is great weeping and gnashing of teeth!

At the time, it seemed to me that "embracing love in its eternity" and "taking the gift of eternal life" was *most obvious* to you, a thing that goes without saying.
My point is that this is not obvious to everyone.

And when you said "rejecting love means that you live in darkness": I don't reject love. Just because I don't believe in a Christian God does not mean that I reject love.
And you can say that I live in darkness, if you must. I don't think so. And most of all: Daren't you even try to judge me. You know next to nothing about me.


And for your last question:

What would speak to you?

LOVE, sweetie, LOVE.

Love, not words. Love, not eternity. Love: it is the simple everyday things of real everyday life, and not some distant abstractions.

I deeply resent the thought that I should say to you, for example, that I love you, even in a Christian way.

I ask myself: "What am I doing that I could say that I love c20?"
Well, I don't see myself *doing* anything that would justify me saying that I love you. So I don't say that I love you.
If you'd get a PM from me everyday, and we'd have lunch together at least once a week, and do stuff, and I'd never forget your birthday and make you a nice present ... yeah, then I would say that I *love* you.
As long as I am only typing this post, I am only trying to be a communicator, and a well-intended one. That's not love.


NB: I'm not trying to charm you or anything. :) I only used a more personalized example to get my point across better.

u've got a point and thanx but on the other hand i dont associate myself with a specific group of christian. I belive what I belive and I make sense of what I understant to make sense regardless of what a priest may tell me, because you have to undestand he is just as human as the rest of us no more no less.

That would make more sense, perhaps you are a better christian and the others are the usual breed of clueless christians that know very little, however i do recall a priest saying it once, perhaps its a different sect of christianity, there are plenty of them now.


You mean those 'clueless christians' who read the Bible, the basis for their own faith?

Belief in salvation by faith in Jesus alone is one of the fundamentals of Christianity for many (probably more than half) Christians. What do you mean by 'better' Christian; a better person, or a person who better adheres to Christianity? If we're talking about the latter, then the better Christian is the one who takes what the Bible says literally.

I do think that this thread will never produce an answer. Since the idea of heaven and hell was forged by religious people it is ,in my opinion, not possible to transfer this concept and fit it on atheist, or other beliefs.
They just do not fit each other. An atheist obviously cannot go to the heaven created by christians.

Anyway, I suppose we might find the answer at the end of our road.

Belief in salvation by faith in Jesus alone is one of the fundamentals of Christianity for many (probably more than half) Christians. What do you mean by 'better' Christian; a better person, or a person who better adheres to Christianity? If we're talking about the latter, then the better Christian is the one who takes what the Bible says literally.
I meant its a better idea that good people go to heaven and bad to hell than just anyone who doesnt believe goin to hell, most christians no longer take the bible literally, in a way perhaps this makes them all bad christians, in a way it makes them more sensible, thats merely what i was getting at, i consider a better christian(or at least a tolerable one) one who has evolved from believing the whole bible without question to one that actually preaches the good stuff, it of course can be seen two ways.

I meant its a better idea that good people go to heaven and bad to hell than just anyone who doesnt believe goin to hell, most christians no longer take the bible literally, in a way perhaps this makes them all bad christians, in a way it makes them more sensible, thats merely what i was getting at, i consider a better christian(or at least a tolerable one) one who has evolved from believing the whole bible without question to one that actually preaches the good stuff, it of course can be seen two ways.

That might be a better idea (although still a morally corrupt one), but this isn't about better ideas. It's about Christianity.

Also, you are probably incorrect about most Christians: most Christians *do* believe that the Bible is literally, word for word, true.

South Star

[I]All atheists before the time of Christ went to hell without any hope of salvation whatsoever. Native Americans, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians.. whatever.. as long as they were not of God's covenant, they were condemned for being unholy.


May the Father of lights be praised.[I]

Everyone including adam and eve up until jesus "died on the cross" would've gone to hell- christians included. And sending people to hell because they weren't told about something when they were alive doesn't seem like something the "Father of light" would do.

In fact, I take this as proof that there cannot be a god or religion that is true, because they only develop over time, they aren't innate in human beings. So therefore no-one can truly know god because they aren't born with a knowledge of god. We are only told about it. It is man made.

As for going to hell. It probably wouldn't be so bad. An eternity of pain would mean that you would get used to it. An eternity in heaven would see the highest suicide rate ever- minding numbing boredom for eternity with no reason to exist; nothing to measure how we live our lives (i.e. pain or love); sex would be nothing because it's a biological mechanism; and on and painfully on.

Besides, how can christians know what heaven is like. They can't. I think they have it entirely wrong. The bible can't be relied upon as a source of truth- it contradicts itself to many times to make any clear statement about what i represents. That pretty much applies across the board I think.

The only thing worth living is life. Everything else is a hamburger once you've tasted the steak.

Matthew 7:15
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Wesisgod! Wesisall! Hell Is World Without Wes! Unpossible!

You mean those 'clueless christians' who read the Bible, the basis for their own faith?

Belief in salvation by faith in Jesus alone is one of the fundamentals of Christianity for many (probably more than half) Christians. What do you mean by 'better' Christian; a better person, or a person who better adheres to Christianity? If we're talking about the latter, then the better Christian is the one who takes what the Bible says literally.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

Taken from an unknown source. This was originally a letter to Dr. Laura regarding the legalistic views dealing with homosexual marriage, but it also fits here perfectly.

I guess we all should follow Biblical law down to the T :bugeye:

Adstar,


Matthew 7:15
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.


Was this directed at me?

It may aim at the prophets of WES :D

Altec,

It's no secret that some people have not progressed beyong a literal interpretation of the laws, but the fact is that the laws are not all there is. Even a loose interpretation of some of the laws still gives rise to problems.

But what did Jesus do? He tightened the noose. He said that just hating your neighbour secretly is already a sin punishable by the penalty for murder.

That's because the law does not and can never bring freedom. You don't even need to quote from the Bible, like that person did. If speeding is a crime, then does it mean driving 121 kph in a 120 zone is also strictly a crime? As you can see, that's missing the point of why there are laws. And that's what Jesus pointed out to those religious leaders seeking to attain perfection by following every law to the letter.

If Christ didn't come to fulfil the requirements of the law, even our best intention - our most concerted efforts - would have been in vain. It's no secret that some of the laws described in the Bible are no longer applicable - either culturally or legally. That's not because they're not valid anymore - it's because their validity lies somewhere else.

I ask myself: "What am I doing that I could say that I love c20?"
Does that mean you are powerless to care about him, even if you wanted to? I know what you mean, that it's not a practical option. But what about prayer? Isn't praying for someone, even when you don't know them, an act of caring?

Does that mean you are powerless to care about him, even if you wanted to? I know what you mean, that it's not a practical option. But what about prayer? Isn't praying for someone, even when you don't know them, an act of caring?

It may be for you.
I call it "a kind inclination". And mind you, I hold that kind inclination in high esteem.

I don't like the way the terms "love" and "care" are being stretched.

Stretched so wide that they sometimes, in an actual case, lose all meaning and importance.

Stretched so wide that they sometimes, in an actual case, lose all meaning and importance.
I agree with you completely. But 1 Cor. 13 doesn't allow it to be stretched, it just makes is contain more meaning. And God allows us to exhibit love in ways that would seem otherwise impractical.

Spuriousmonkey,

Christianity, like any other richly detailed mythology that has no basis in reality, inevitably succumbs to internal inconsistencies and multiple imaginary interpretations. The Christian concept of Hell - ideas that have been stolen and plagiarized from other mythologies is a myth within a myth.

The idea that Hell is a place of eternal torment (the primary theme and misconception throughout this thread) is not supported by the bible. This article provides and in depth analysis of the history of Hell, its variations, and how it is referenced in the bible.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.shtml

The final conclusion is simply that hell is simply death or the grave.

So do atheists go to hell? Surprisingly for Christianity, the myth has accidentally stumbled on some truth since hell is simply death and we all die then not only do atheists go to hell but then so does everyone else.

But the Christian myth then goes further, since it calls hell the FIRST death – the second death is perhaps a more interesting myth.

Enjoy
Kat

Interesting,


why is the myth on hell so dominant and continuously propagated as an concept?

Oh that seems obvious I would think. It is an inevitable extension of the heaven myth, a place of perfection must of course have an opposite.

Kat

Hmmm...

what about the fear factor?


Did the church use Hell as a concept to spread fear for god and to increase their own influence on the people?

C20,

To first make up for something from a previous post:

I said:


To this you replied:


And what started this train of thought was this you said:



At the time, it seemed to me that "embracing love in its eternity" and "taking the gift of eternal life" was *most obvious* to you, a thing that goes without saying.
My point is that this is not obvious to everyone.

And when you said "rejecting love means that you live in darkness": I don't reject love. Just because I don't believe in a Christian God does not mean that I reject love.
And you can say that I live in darkness, if you must. I don't think so. And most of all: Daren't you even try to judge me. You know next to nothing about me.


And for your last question:



LOVE, sweetie, LOVE.

Love, not words. Love, not eternity. Love: it is the simple everyday things of real everyday life, and not some distant abstractions.

I deeply resent the thought that I should say to you, for example, that I love you, even in a Christian way.

I ask myself: "What am I doing that I could say that I love c20?"
Well, I don't see myself *doing* anything that would justify me saying that I love you. So I don't say that I love you.
If you'd get a PM from me everyday, and we'd have lunch together at least once a week, and do stuff, and I'd never forget your birthday and make you a nice present ... yeah, then I would say that I *love* you.
As long as I am only typing this post, I am only trying to be a communicator, and a well-intended one. That's not love.


NB: I'm not trying to charm you or anything. :) I only used a more personalized example to get my point across better.

Hehe charm me lol. I do think you are charming but thats my personal interpretation of you from your words and the way you put them across but thats not the issue I guess.
I agree with your idea of love. It should be simple. As simple as a friend visiting you when you were sick :(
I am not saying for one moment that you should love me or anyone else for the hell of it, however if you saw me down a ditch and I was going to die down there very quickly, would you pull me out even if it meant you might slip in yourself.
If your answer is 'Yes' then I would thank you and thank God for you because you had showed a great love. The thing for me is that since we at least agree that 'Love' is the greatest thing of all, why shouldnt I accept that we were made with one express purpose i.e. to Love eachother.
If 'not' loving eachother brings us unhappiness then in that state I want to perish and be no more, I have lost my will to live and I accept death. However if we live in love I find I want to live forever. Love would seem fleeting and fickle if its lifespan was measured in my mortal years. It would itself be a lie in my eyes as it would present me with something most excellent and sacred only to rip it from my being 70 years hence.
When I say who wouldnt accept love, who wouldnt take eternal life, I was assuming that it was being presented to that person in a way that made the truth of love undeniable.


peace

c20

Hmmm...

what about the fear factor?

Did the church use Hell as a concept to spread fear for god and to increase their own influence on the people? I read an article some years ago that reviewed the history of Christianity and showed that for most of the past 2000 years it was the normal preaching technique to emphasize the terror of hell and that God is a wrathful God, etc. This seemed to be the primary tactic for recruiting Christians and maintaining their beliefs. The wishy-washy love story really didn’t seem to be very effective in past centuries where life was far harsher than we have come to expect in our modern world.

The current trend and perspective that Christianity is all about love appears to be just a modern emphasis, even though that philosophy has always been there it was simply not pushed until recently.

Kat

The current trend and perspective that Christianity is all about love appears to be just a modern emphasis, even though that philosophy has always been there it was simply not pushed until recently.
That's because the love story is redundant without the reality that death is not final. It makes no sense to tell the good news about Christ's life without there is no bad news. It's just recently that the bad news has become non-PC.

Jenyar,

That's because the love story is redundant without the reality that death is not final. What reality? It is still a baseless fantasy and false hope.

As we learn more about how the brain works we are seeing even less reason to speculate that souls and spirits might exist.

Kat

c20

I am not saying for one moment that you should love me or anyone else for the hell of it, however if you saw me down a ditch and I was going to die down there very quickly, would you pull me out even if it meant you might slip in yourself.

I have never been in such a situation yet, but I have helped rescue two dogs from a pool of very dirty dirty water, and yes, I was all messy at it, but I didn't mind.
I guess I'd help you too. :)

Katazia,

As we learn more about how the brain works we are seeing even less reason to speculate that souls and spirits might exist.

And as we learn more about the brain, the more important it becomes to realize that some rules and values are needed if humanity is to stay alive.

-Kat-
wouldnt u think that the more we learn about the brain the more we should realize that there are a lot of things that we have yet to discover, let alone understad ?

Rosa,

And as we learn more about the brain, the more important it becomes to realize that some rules and values are needed if humanity is to stay alive. I don't see the connection. What is the connection between neuroscience and morality? Apart from something very indirect?

Kat

Greywolf,

wouldnt u think that the more we learn about the brain the more we should realize that there are a lot of things that we have yet to discover, let alone understad ?No that doesn’t make any sense. As we learn more about the brain we improve our ability to establish a more accurate estimate of how much we have yet to learn and discover. This is a continuous process with each new discovery reducing the outstanding workload.

Kat

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

Where did I say this? Where did I actually advocate any of this Biblical law as a good thing?

My post claimed that a better Christian is one who follows the Bible literally. Christianity is about Jesus, a character found only (debatable, but let's please not get into that) in the Bible, and he quoted from the OT. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Christianity is all about the Bible.

Just as a 'better' murderer kills the most people possible, a 'better' Christian follows the Bible, word for word, as closely as possible.

Katazia,

I don't see the connection. What is the connection between neuroscience and morality? Apart from something very indirect?

There is an important connection between them, external to neuroscience though.
Science advances, "we are seeing even less reason to speculate that souls and spirits might exist," and we know about how living organisms are made, how they function.

In such a situation, the philosophy of science and the social value of science become important factors of *what is allowed to do*: "Sure, we can clone people. But should we do that? Is it moral? What would it lead to?"

The higher the science, the more obvious the moral choices.
The more obvious the moral choices, the greater the need for a morality code.

That's because the love story is redundant without the reality that death is not final. It makes no sense to tell the good news about Christ's life without there is no bad news. It's just recently that the bad news has become non-PC.

So loving others, as Christ would have you do, or spreading his message of love is pointless if there is no hell? Why? Does "love thy neighbor" carry no weight without a horrendous eternal punishment option? It may not have the grandiose mythical proportions or the "salvation" and heavenly reward attached, but still, it's not a <i>bad</i> idea.

Perhaps if Christians (or followers of any faith predicated on afterlife reward/punishment) stopped living in the future, the present moment might benefit greatly. Suppose death is the end. Would that automatically render any act of love that preceeded it meaningless? Can people not rejoice in a moment - however fleeting - without the concern that it bears directly on some grand eternal scheme?

I've run across a disturbing number of Christians who, it seems, cannot even enjoy life <i>before</i> death if they are not certain that all the bad souls are being properly roasted below them.

Even without the prospect of Heaven or Hell, life can involve a great deal of both pain and pleasure, and I see no reason why our actions here require an eternity of bliss or suffering to supply them with meaning.

To paraphrase Yoda, "Love or do not love. There is no try."

Josh

So loving others, as Christ would have you do, or spreading his message of love is pointless if there is no hell? Why? Does "love thy neighbor" carry no weight without a horrendous eternal punishment option? It may not have the grandiose mythical proportions or the "salvation" and heavenly reward attached, but still, it's not a bad idea.
I wasn't speaking of our relationship with other people, but of Christ's relationship with us. If love was all that was needed, I'm sure He could have achieved more with bringing his Father into it.

But why did God need to intervene in the first place?

I've run across a disturbing number of Christians who, it seems, cannot even enjoy life before death if they are not certain that all the bad souls are being properly roasted below them.
I've come across many people who live that way, but they were trampling people in this life instead of the next. Selfish pleasure is overrated, either way.

Even without the prospect of Heaven or Hell, life can involve a great deal of both pain and pleasure, and I see no reason why our actions here require an eternity of bliss or suffering to supply them with meaning.
It's a matter of perspective. Christian have their hell in this life as much as anybody, but at least they can always find hope in that it's all the hell they'll ever have to face. Suffering just would have had no meaning otherwise. And to be honest, that's what most people struggle with.

What really raises one's indignation against suffering is not suffering intrinsically, but the senselessness of suffering. - Friedrich Nietzsche

It's a matter of perspective. Christian have their hell in this life as much as anybody, but at least they can always find hope in that it's all the hell they'll ever have to face. Suffering just would have had no meaning otherwise. And to be honest, that's what most people struggle with.


It should be noted atheists also believe this life is the only hell they'll have to face -- as you said, a matter of perspective.

While I agree that senseless suffering is what troubles us most, I don't think lack of eternal reward/punishment immediately zaps all "meaning" from suffering. After all, many will still suffer for good causes: to save others, to make the world a better place, to liberate. About this time, Christians usually point out that suffering -- the result of sin -- is the natural product of free will, without which the whole system would <i>surely</i> be pointless.

That does not, of course, provide context and meaning for the majority of suffering -- disease, natural causes, accidental death, murder, etc. -- but it does not entirely negate the value of suffering either.

Our need to cast all suffering as meaningful does not necessarily make our self-important fantasies true, any more than watching Fox News makes Iraq a gleeful wonderland of peace and democracy.

“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms with that indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”
<b>— Stanley Kubrick</b>

Josh

About suffering, from the POV of Zen:

We suffer because we have the wrong wishes.

Very, very simple.

About suffering, from the POV of Zen:

We suffer because we have the wrong wishes.

Very, very simple.

Suffering is caused by the entropy of the universe. Once one need is fullfilled, another one is needed. Pleasure, therefore, is simply a state of rest between two modes of suffering. You can hardly deny suffering because it is the most powerful force in our universe. Putting a burning iron on your skin can hardly be willed away through a wish (although Tibetan Monks seem to have come fairly close).

I just thought of an answer for
"Can atheists really go to hell?"

How about:
Don´t know before you try!

better ignore this and keep talking about zen.

That does not, of course, provide context and meaning for the majority of suffering -- disease, natural causes, accidental death, murder, etc. -- but it does not entirely negate the value of suffering either.

All of these things have meaning and PURPOSE in the larger context of natural systems. It is the inevitable result of the humanist-pragmatic thinking following the Judeo-Christian conception of the universe that most people today see the unvierse as nihilistic because it is so ONLY to humans. They accuse the universe, the very thing that sustains them, as being indifferent, when in actuality it is our greatest 'gift'. In the time before these death worshipping religions, ancient civilizations didn't apply personal meanings to death, but accepted it as a natural return. Suffering was a challenge to be overcome and each day was fullfilling in that never ending struggle. Life is in itself a purpose and man is the vessel of nature looking back at itself. You don't need a god or some ideology (Marxism comes to mind) to give purpose to existence.

Suffering is caused by the entropy of the universe. Once one need is fullfilled, another one is needed. Pleasure, therefore, is simply a state of rest between two modes of suffering. You can hardly deny suffering because it is the most powerful force in our universe. Putting a burning iron on your skin can hardly be willed away through a wish (although Tibetan Monks seem to have come fairly close).


That's not how I mean it.
If you have a wound, you feel pain, by all means.

But, and here's the clue to evaluation, it is up to you whther you choose to suffer at this pain.
You can accept this pain, and see if you can alleviate it -- by seeking medical help and such.

But you can also suffer at this pain, pitying yourself or thinking that you should/could/would be doing somethng else. In this case, you are *not accepting* the reality of pain -- since your wishes are somewhere else.

Well in that case I'm a moron. It is often difficult to convey multiple meanings over the internet.

We suffer because we have the wrong wishes.

It's actually, "suffering is caused by desire". Even simpler! :p

- N

"Suffering is caused by American Idol."

Anyone interested in forming a religion around that? If so, I'm in.

Josh

We suffer because we sympathise with those who suffer. There's nothing wrong with that, and nothing to flee from or to deny. It's the one faculty we have that we cannot easily dismiss. It shows our sensitivity towards the system that sustains us - and in contrast, our disappointment when it doesn't. When nature fails us, we need to be able to count on each other, and how much can we trust each other?

I think the feeling of being alone in our suffering is much worse than anything else we fear.

And since we're all lemmings, whether we embrace our fate or not, we all realize that in death we will be ultimately alone. In death, every counterweight that permitted us to have significance in this universe comes crashing down on what we used to call "life". At that stage, nothing we did, believed, or thought we knew makes any difference whatsoever. Unless there's a God.

We suffer because that's the way it is. Animals who suffer survive better.

Sorry, but it isn't really much deeper than that.

Neildo,

It's actually, "suffering is caused by desire". Even simpler!

But not all desires cause suffering.
The desire for you to poo actually brings you relief, when you comply with it.
Hehe. ;)



Josh,

"Suffering is caused by American Idol."

Yup, too much watchin' television got me chasing dreams ...

We suffer because that's the way it is. Animals who suffer survive better.

Sorry, but it isn't really much deeper than that.
Just the fact that it's such a controversial issue has already made it deeper than that. Or how do you define "depth"?

Not that it hasn't been said before...
"Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

Just the fact that it's such a controversial issue has already made it deeper than that. Or how do you define "depth"?

Perhaps 'depth', in this context, simply concerns the following question: how complicated is the answer?

Also, just because some people turn it into something controversial doesn't mean it actually is. To people who understand evolution, the reason for suffering is painstakingly (no pun intended) obvious: suffering is a quick and dirty way to make animals avoid certain behaviours.

Any other explanation appears to be hand-waving. I have yet to see a decent argument for an alternate reason for suffering.

In death, every counterweight that permitted us to have significance in this universe comes crashing down on what we used to call "life". At that stage, nothing we did, believed, or thought we knew makes any difference whatsoever. Unless there's a God.

This is nonsense. To suggest that nothing we do (before death) makes any difference whatsoever is ridiculous. Do you think that everything your great-great-grandparents did was meaningless? If so, you have to admit that your own life is meaningless; you wouldn't be here without them. Just because you die doesn't mean everyone else dies at the same time.

God has nothing to do with it.

This is nonsense. To suggest that nothing we do (before death) makes any difference whatsoever is ridiculous. Do you think that everything your great-great-grandparents did was meaningless? If so, you have to admit that your own life is meaningless; you wouldn't be here without them. Just because you die doesn't mean everyone else dies at the same time.
On the contrary, I believe history provides the context in which we live. But whether what they did was meaningful can only be answered by them. If their existence was simply fodder for ours, that hardly makes it meaningful. Whether they died or are still alive is of no significance - as long as they existed and multiplied, we're fine. No need to bring meaning into it. As you said, it's not much deeper than that.

Unless what they did was meaningful to us in another sense, such as if we like what they left us. That includes their belief in God or gods. And we decide that. So even things that were most meaningful to them have only a 50/50 chance of being meaningful to their decendents. That's why God asked Israel to keep their faith and teach it to their children - so that each generation wouldn't have to relearn what the previous generations had been taught.
Deuteronomy 4:9
Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them.
Nobody should discard history lightly, no matter how much we disagree with what it includes. But we can only do that if we are interested in preserving meaning. Nature couldn't care less what we thought or did, and if we were truly animals, neither would we. Whether we undertand gravity or not makes little difference to whether we fall down or not. Understanding suffering as only an evolutionary reality is just an animalistic acceptance of it, which bears very little relation to the depth of experience we historically attached to it. To echo Nietzsche again, if God gave reason to our life, then life without God is meaningless. That is especially true if our own existence should be dedicated to the survival of those who come after us. After all, we are the "fit" ones who have survived for the sake of survival. Our failures are potentially humanity's failure.

We're not really permitted to enjoy, because enjoyment is a weakness in the battle for survival. Yet survival is meaningless without enjoyment. What are we left with?

Because if God does not give us meaning, or permit us to enjoy his gift of life, then what does? That's why the Teacher could only find hedonistic solutions to the problem of meaninglesness, and eventually had to conlcude that they leaves much to be desired. To quote once again from Ecclesiastics:

There was a man all alone;
he had neither son nor brother.
There was no end to his toil,
yet his eyes were not content with his wealth.
"For whom am I toiling," he asked,
"and why am I depriving myself of enjoyment?"
This too is meaningless-
a miserable business!

Well in that case I'm a moron. It is often difficult to convey multiple meanings over the internet.

Dontcha worry. :)
Misunderstandings are the essence of uderstanding. Of course, only if you accept that there is a misunderstanding, and are willing to clear it up.

[QUOTE=Jenyar] "...we all realize that in death we will be ultimately alone."
*************
M*W: I don't believe at death we will be "ultimately alone." We don't really know what awaits us other than what we've been told by people who haven't experienced death. Having recently lost my mother whom I cared for two years before she died, she had visions of loved ones who preceded her. She talked to them. I knew her time was imminent. She looked forward to seeing them, because she thought they were real, and they may have been! Who am I to say she was hallucinating? When my father died, I felt his presence at his funeral. I heard his voice in my left ear as they were lowering him into the grave. He told me not to cry, he was still here. I've felt his presence ever since.

Death--there is no such thing. It's an illusion. It's a transition from physical existence to the spiritual dimension. If we cross over that dimension, we lose our physical life. Once in the spiritual state, the spirit has no limitations of being. Transiting the dimension is a time for happiness and laughter. It's the ultimate reward. Our physical existence is torture, because for x number of years our spirit must haul this heavy glob of flesh. When we discard the flesh, our spirit is free, and we are never alone. We have returned to God.

Jenyar:

That's all very nice, but you haven't given a single reason why God has anything to do with it.

Death--there is no such thing. It's an illusion. It's a transition from physical existence to the spiritual dimension. If we cross over that dimension, we lose our physical life. Once in the spiritual state, the spirit has no limitations of being. Transiting the dimension is a time for happiness and laughter. It's the ultimate reward. Our physical existence is torture, because for x number of years our spirit must haul this heavy glob of flesh. When we discard the flesh, our spirit is free, and we are never alone. We have returned to God.

And this is known how?

Either you believe it or not. It is that simple Hastein.
After all, you cannot prove it. (Can you? no surely not)

And this is known how?
*************
M*W: Through spiritual wisdom. It's no different than trying to prove the Bible or that Jesus existed. We won't know until we get there.

Through spiritual wisdom. It's no different than trying to prove the Bible or that Jesus existed. We won't know until we get there.
Then it in fact is not 'known'.

Then it in fact is not 'known'.

M*W doesn't really care about contradiction, though, so don't expect any sort of meaningful reply concerning this.

Funny how she lumps her belief into the same category as the Bible, something she vehemently denies as divinely inspired.

Also, M*W: you say that we "return to God", yet you simply define God as humanity. So we 'return to humanity.' This makes no sense at all unless you believe in a traditional-type afterlife.

It's actually, "suffering is caused by desire". Even simpler! - me

But not all desires cause suffering.
The desire for you to poo actually brings you relief, when you comply with it.
Hehe.

Suffering is still caused by having to go poo. :p The same with that person who mentioned love.

We suffer to obtain that which we desire; we suffer when we're unable to obtain our desire; and if we obtain our desire, we suffer once it ends.

That's the whole point of when some say to not have any expectations. If you expect something, and it doesn't happen, you'll be let down. And if it happens without expecting it, you'll be surprised. So basically only good can come from not having any expectations in the same sense that suffering is caused by desire. Have no desires and you're on the road to the happy life. (and this isn't directed at you since I'm sure you already know all that)

- N

There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome.

Neildo,

We suffer to obtain that which we desire; we suffer when we're unable to obtain our desire; and if we obtain our desire, we suffer once it ends.

Am I from another world or what?!
I can understand the position you stated, but I couldn't say it goes for myself.

I understand suffering from the POV of wishing for the wrong things.

If my desire is to have the floor polished to high sheen: If it takes me several hours of backbreaking work to polish the floor in our house: So be it. It comes with the deal. I accept this, and I don't suffer at this work then. And later, when I'm done, I go back and look at my work, and admire it.

(It has happened that after I have sown a particularly nice PJ, I would get up, even though I was just about falling asleep, turn the lights on, and once more look at the thing I made. I must be one totally simplistic bastard. :) Yeah, I'll shut up.)

Jenyar,


We suffer because we sympathise with those who suffer. There's nothing wrong
with that, and nothing to flee from or to deny. It's the one faculty we have
that we cannot easily dismiss. It shows our sensitivity towards the system
that sustains us - and in contrast, our disappointment when it doesn't. When
nature fails us, we need to be able to count on each other, and how much can
we trust each other?

I think the feeling of being alone in our suffering is much worse than
anything else we fear.

And since we're all lemmings, whether we embrace our fate or not, we all
realize that in death we will be ultimately alone. In death, every
counterweight that permitted us to have significance in this universe comes
crashing down on what we used to call "life". At that stage, nothing we did,
believed, or thought we knew makes any difference whatsoever. Unless there's
a God.


Well, reading this, it must be that the way I was brought up is completely
different than yours. Maybe because I was left to myself so much, that I am
not afraid of being alone. And not afraid of being alone in my suffering.
Maybe I am mentally more resilient than you. Be this in a good or in a bad way.

This is probably another reason why Christianity has little or no effect on
me: in order for me to accept it, you'd first have to convince me that I am
helpless. My experience, however, is such that I don't feel helpless, at
least not mentally.

So far, I came to this conclusion, but I may be wrong about you:
You NEED God, while I don't need God.

So far, I came to this conclusion, but I may be wrong about you:
You NEED God, while I don't need God.
I do need God, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. My experience is that people are usually very certain about what they want, but they know little about what they need - especially if that need is already being fulfilled or being compensated for. If you are anything like me (I'm not saying you are) then your need for compansionship can be amply fulfilled by yourself. The danger is that we lose the need empathize with others, because if we can do it alone, theoretically so can they. Being mentally self-sufficient should make you more caring, because as long as you are willing to retain a sensivity to the hurt and loneliness of others, your resilience can be a great comfort to them.

I don't have to convince you that you're helpless. After all, I don't think God created us unable to help ourselves. But the areas where we need God covers even our abilities. Such as our inability to prevent death - we can treat the symptoms, and if you're content with that then yes, you might think you don't need much more. Or our inability to work our own salvation - to restore our relationship with our Creator when we have become convinced we can live without Him. But what if this life you take for granted really comes from God and will go back to Him? It's not just our needs that matter then, but our existence itself.

The problem is that we have narrowed our definition of "life" (and "love" as well) to accomodate an existence without God. People are simply being content with less. You have seen this yourself in people who categorize their experience of the mysteries of life into neat scientific formulas and convenient words.

The reason I feel such an affinity towards you is that you seem to realize life is more than we are able to describe, greater than our imagination or our science, and that the corpus of knowledge available is not limited by our ability to understand it. It's a lot like the affinity I experience with God - and, like you I presume, I "need" that mystery, and I resent it when people reduce it into little boxes they can stash away in the bottom drawer.

Jenyar,


My experience is that people are usually very certain about what they want, but they know little about what they need - especially if that need is already being fulfilled or being compensated for.

This I warmly agree with. It took me several years to realize that I *need* some time to myself, for example.

However, there are also *invented* needs: needs that we do feel that we have, and are fulfilling them. But these needs are actually cover-ups or escapes from real needs.

I still think that the need for a God as Christianity defines God is that kind of an invented need; a need that is there to cover up another need, or to rationalize a need that isn't rationally tangible.


If you are anything like me (I'm not saying you are) then your need for compansionship can be amply fulfilled by yourself.

I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean by that. My need for companionship is fulfilled thus that I go out and make some new friends, spend time with old ones. Or post here. Well, it is done by myself, since I am the one going out.


The danger is that we lose the need empathize with others, because if we can do it alone, theoretically so can they. Being mentally self-sufficient should make you more caring, because as long as you are willing to retain a sensivity to the hurt and loneliness of others, your resilience can be a great comfort to them.

Would you call me a cold bitch? Would you call me insensitive? -- That is, judging by my actions here, and the ones you know of from my posts.


Such as our inability to prevent death - we can treat the symptoms, and if you're content with that then yes, you might think you don't need much more.

Why would you prevent death by all means?!
My grandma died last December. She had been in a more or less unconscious state due to a stroke. As it was, her death came naturally.

But if anything, and this is my emphasis when it comes to "preventing death", what one should think about is preventing bad ways of living and thinking.

If someone stuffs himself with hamburgers, gets fat and dies of heart failure: would I want to prevent his death?
No, not really. It was his own doing. He knew that all that fast food was bad for him, yet he kept on eating. He signed his own death certificate.

On the other end, something else is a situation like a car accident, and people dying due to it. I think we should accept that such things do happen. And that things are always the maximum, and the only way they can be. There is no other way, no second try.
Yes, right now we may not have the means to completely cure a broken backbone, for example, and that person, if they do survive, are bound to live as a vegetable for the rest of their life.

If we look at the situation *from far*, yes, it may be depressing to see that happening.

But if we take a look *up close*, we see that science is working all the time, and it does what the overall social and scientific situation allow.

I can understand that someone, on seeing that their close relative died to insufficient medical treatment, while somebody else with a similar injury, but in a different hospital, treated by different means, survived and is well -- that relative of the deceased may feel that injustice happened.

But the thing is that if it could be otherwise, then it would be otherwise.

I was medically mistreated too, luckily not too badly, but it prolonged my pains for about a month: Yes, I could scream and shout "Injustice!". Yes, I could COMPLAIN about it. I could call upon God to make things right.
I could feel victimized.

But I didn't, and I don't.
I know now that I could sue the hospital, but back then I wasn't sure about it. If I should get mistreated again, and it will be possible to sue the hospital, I guess I will do it. (I just hope it won't happen though! :) )

It is all about learning, and realizing that we cannot change the past.

Also, what is more: IMO, when bad things happen and people say, "I wish it wouldn't happen", "It shouldn't happen", "God should intervene", "With such bad things happening, we have no choice but to believe in a God who will make it right and judge rightly" -- I think that something else is really the matter.

People are sometimes, often probably, afraid to admit how hurt they feel, afraid to admit how helpless they feel, afraid to admit that one just cannot do anything to prevent an earthquake.

Instead of facing our fears and emotions, and have them and live them -- we make up elaborate belief systems that allow us to rationalize those emotions; belief systems that take those emotions from us or distance us from them.

And this is why people practising a certain religion often differ so greatly from what their scriptures tell them to do: rationalizing simply isn't an honest way to have and to face one's emotions.


Or our inability to work our own salvation - to restore our relationship with our Creator when we have become convinced we can live without Him.

Why would I need salvation? You see, this is where you'd first have to convince me into the truth of the Christian characterization of God and humanity.


But what if this life you take for granted really comes from God and will go back to Him?

I try to keep this outlook (courtesy of Wes):

I am doing exactly what it is that I think I should be doing now.
Maybe I'm pretending that I'm not.
Maybe I should re-evaluate what it is I think I should be doing.
Maybe I should re-evaluate what it is that I am not doing and start doing it.
Regardless, I'm doing what I think I should be doing.

If I would seriously have to accept Christianity, I know that now, I would have to FORCE myself into it. Forced beliefs may be real, with real output, but they are never honest.


It's not just our needs that matter then, but our existence itself.

I think my outlook covers that well.


The problem is that we have narrowed our definition of "life" (and "love" as well) to accomodate an existence without God. People are simply being content with less.

I don't agree with that. If things could be otherwise, they would be otherwise. Content with "less" -- less than what?
If you judge reality by some idealistic "how it should be, but isn't" -- then you're bound to be unhappy.
With such an outlook, a change for the better is extremely hard, if not impossible -- as reality is being constantly questioned and undervalued.


The reason I feel such an affinity towards you is that you seem to realize life is more than we are able to describe, greater than our imagination or our science, and that the corpus of knowledge available is not limited by our ability to understand it.

Oh, sugar cakes, an affinity towards me? Aren't I one lucky bastard! :)
I will speak with candour: To me, you seem scared. Someting seems to be pressing you down.

Sorry for the long post, but the occasion called for it. :)

There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome.
*************
M*W: Right-on!

M*W doesn't really care about contradiction, though, so don't expect any sort of meaningful reply concerning this.

Funny how she lumps her belief into the same category as the Bible, something she vehemently denies as divinely inspired.

Also, M*W: you say that we "return to God", yet you simply define God as humanity. So we 'return to humanity.' This makes no sense at all unless you believe in a traditional-type afterlife.
*************
M*W: When I said "return to God," I was speaking about the spiritual realm. When we shed our physical body, our spirit returns to the One Spirit of God which dwells within the one body of humanity to continue its spiritual work. The One Spirit of God has been the same for all eternity. Only our physical bodies change, but not our spirit.

Then it in fact is not 'known'.
*************
M*W: It is known to the more spiritually advanced, and that would eliminate Christians, would it not?

Originally Posted by Red Devil
There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome.

*************
M*W: Right-on!
I SAY DOWN WITH THE VATICAN!!!

It is known to the more spiritually advanced, and that would eliminate Christians, would it not?
Yeh it would, but thats just like it is 'known' to christians that everyone else is going to hell, thats the point im making, the whole spiritually advanced thing holds as little water as the bible.

*************
M*W: When I said "return to God," I was speaking about the spiritual realm. When we shed our physical body, our spirit returns to the One Spirit of God which dwells within the one body of humanity to continue its spiritual work. The One Spirit of God has been the same for all eternity. Only our physical bodies change, but not our spirit.

Yet you 'know' this, just like Christians 'know' that they are right about the Bible.

Oh, wait, you're more 'spiritually advanced.' I suppose you 'know' that, too, even though you don't back it up with any sort of evidence, or even logic--just dribbling rhetoric.

Am I from another world or what?!

ROSAMAGIKA IS THE SISTER OF MARVIN THE MARTIAN!!!!

Psst, pass it on..

- N

There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome.

Red, I'm assuming you're Anglican, which is the Church of Rome, hold the marinara. If you're from another sect, my apologies.

Though, I will say the idea of heaven is fundamentally full of shit. How is following God's to get into paradise moral? It's not. It's pragmatic, assuming you buy the heaven/hell concept. It's a contract, not any innate goodness.

"There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome"

almost every religion believes in heaven and hell, even if the names are different, by saying that you basically said "all religion is wrong" risky...

Perhaps heaven and hell exist in many religions because those two termini are useful in converting people. There is always some thought of getting rewarded or punished according to the lifestyle. Heaven and hell is just a tool used by most religions to get more followers.

Neildo,

ROSAMAGIKA IS THE SISTER OF MARVIN THE MARTIAN!!!!

Psst, pass it on..


May your diodes rot!

:p

Dreamwalker,

What you just said also implies that religion is there to rule and to govern the state. The justification for the king to be a king. A king is to be obeyed because he is sent by God.

As you have it in Europe: ein König is nicht viel wert, solange er nicht vom Papst zum Kaiser ernannt wird.

Of course. It is undoubtalbe that many religions have the aim of gaining followers. Most would only be content when all of mankind follows them.
This of course has various political implications and consequences. Most
of todays prominetn religions have so many followers because they were or are political engaged. If christendom was not chosen as the state religion of Rome, if it was not political motivated, their influences would be much smaller or they would no longer exist.

Dreamwalker,

So the main reason for the widespreadedness of Christianity is a matter of state politics and warfare -- and not of Christian religion?

In the beginning, yes that was the main reason. Faith was always enforced through military force, oppression and the pursue of unbelievers. Things like holy wars, persecution of witches. Not to forget that Christianity was also spread through the Roman empire, and it was spread with force there.

Of course there was always the Christian beliefs, which also spread because people saw some sense in them. But those beliefs are not so extraordinary or uncommon to explain such a great area of importance.

Some parts were also luck, at least in retrospective. If the French would not have repelled Muslim invasions from Africa, Europe might have been controlled by Muslims, turning it into islamistiy country. This would have resultet in Muslim settler in America. This would the result in a majority of Muslims. Alas, the Christian did win and here they are now.

Dreamwalker,

So the main reason for the widespreadedness of Christianity is a matter of state politics and warfare -- and not of Christian religion?

Pretty accurate I think. The church has always been very heavily political and used to run governments/countries as it did itself. Kings would quake before its power, all based on fear. The popes in their day ruled by dictat and by fear, threatening the gullible populace with hellfire and damnation if they fell out of line.

The Catholic Church survived because a Roman emperor thought it'd win him a battle.

The Protestant Reformation would have been still-born if the German princes didn't want a tax break.

The LDS wouldn't have made it out of the Midwest if those early Saints didn't want to fuck their nieces.

Oh, and if Mohammed hadn't butchered the polytheists of Saudi Arabia, no one would give a cursory fuck about Islam.

RosaMagika

I still think that the need for a God as Christianity defines God is that kind of an invented need; a need that is there to cover up another need, or to rationalize a need that isn't rationally tangible.
Christianity is not a rationalization (although it can lead to them, just like any paradigm), or even a compensation, it's an abstraction – a worldview that functions less to explain (some don't realize this) and more to direct. Our need for God does not lie on a physical level – that's just a side-effect – but on a spiritual one. Things like camaraderie, music, poetry and romantic evenings also fulfil this spiritual need to an extent, but that's because they depend on our ability to experience spiritual events. They bring out our ability to perceive the spiritual – many things can do that. But if our spiritual needs were only temporary, these things could be called muses and that would be the end of it. The truth is our spiritual lives reach beyond our physical needs, and that mysterious, non-scientific part of it cannot be satisfied like we satisfy ourselves with a good meal or a good movie, it needs to be sustained. Only God could sustain a spiritual life like food sustains a physical one.

Incidentally, the connection was originally not so abstract – sacrifice was a way to represent that spiritual hunger, a way of giving what you needed to survive in order to receive a spiritual return. Call it "spiritual survival".

Would you call me a cold bitch? Would you call me insensitive? -- That is, judging by my actions here, and the ones you know of from my posts.
No, anything but. You seem genuine, thoughtful and sensitive. I'm trying to show you that your antagonism towards Christianity is unfounded, using the experience of suffering as an example. A person can be perfectly self-sufficient without losing his sensitivity towards others. It requires a genuine capacity to feel, just like religion requires the capacity to have faith, even if you have no immediate need for it. It's no coincidence that the topics of God and suffering frequently occur in the same discussion – often at opposite ends of it.

But if anything, and this is my emphasis when it comes to "preventing death", what one should think about is preventing bad ways of living and thinking.

If someone stuffs himself with hamburgers, gets fat and dies of heart failure: would I want to prevent his death?
No, not really. It was his own doing. He knew that all that fast food was bad for him, yet he kept on eating. He signed his own death certificate.
That's my emphasis as well: sin may "only" lead to spiritual death, but it has real manifestations and real consequences in our physical lives. What you said above is the classic "you will reap what you sow". I hold that it remains true whether you realize or accept the consequences or not. How many people continue to smoke even after they develop lung cancer? It's not because they're stupid, but because they have made peace with the consequences. The effort is just more than they feel is worth it against the immediate rewards. It is quite possible to make peace with the idea that you will die, or that you don't need God, if you are already content with the status quo. That's often why people resent my faith: I make things uncomfortable if I tell them that they shouldn't just accept life at face value, because it's not "all there is". The usual response is to bring up examples of things that are supposed to fall in the same realm – from flying pink elephants, purple spotted squids and Santa Claus to the Tooth fairy. Because those are things they know aren't "real", they (very ironically) fall back on them.

On the other end, something else is a situation like a car accident, and people dying due to it. I think we should accept that such things do happen. And that things are always the maximum, and the only way they can be. There is no other way, no second try.
Yes, right now we may not have the means to completely cure a broken backbone, for example, and that person, if they do survive, are bound to live as a vegetable for the rest of their life.

If we look at the situation *from far*, yes, it may be depressing to see that happening.

But if we take a look *up close*, we see that science is working all the time, and it does what the overall social and scientific situation allow.

I can understand that someone, on seeing that their close relative died to insufficient medical treatment, while somebody else with a similar injury, but in a different hospital, treated by different means, survived and is well -- that relative of the deceased may feel that injustice happened.

But the thing is that if it could be otherwise, then it would be otherwise.
That's a very fatalistic and abstract "could". Sometimes the truth is that if people had acted differently, things really could have turned out differently. It will drive you mad to dwell on those "what if's", but that's because they are actually plausible alternatives. Believing in God won't change your reality, but it will be a different perception of it that will change the way you act on it, the choices you make, the spiritual life you lead. It's a hard adjustment sometimes, and the benefits aren't always obvious, but it will affect others as well – and that's as important as it gets.

It is all about learning, and realizing that we cannot change the past.
And why shouldn’t that apply to religion?


Instead of facing our fears and emotions, and have them and live them -- we make up elaborate belief systems that allow us to rationalize those emotions; belief systems that take those emotions from us or distance us from them.

And this is why people practising a certain religion often differ so greatly from what their scriptures tell them to do: rationalizing simply isn't an honest way to have and to face one's emotions.
If people didn't need coping mechanisms they wouldn't have created them... If things could have been otherwise it would have ;) But we do, and not all of them are valid – once again, most are temporary solutions, like taking an aspirin for pain, or Prozac for depression. They're temporary solutions that we repeat endlessly. That's because they address the symptoms and not the cause. Celebrities flock to Kabbalah and Scientology centres because they find comfort in the spirituality they represent – and they're fads for exactly the reason you mention: they're a cop-out for facing the reality. However, you don't allow for the possibility that the reality is that they have no relationship with God, and no way of facing fears and emotions that are simply beyond their frame of reference. You can become a Buddhist monk and expand that frame of reference until you're blue in the face, but it will never restore your relationship with God. It will be a temporary addiction – as paradoxical as that sounds.

Why would I need salvation? You see, this is where you'd first have to convince me into the truth of the Christian characterization of God and humanity.
Because you are either looking for salvation or think you already found it one way or the other. It's that nebulous reality called "fulfilment" – that quest for reaching your full potential and being exactly who you mean to be. Salvation is the availability of the eternal life God means us to have, which is the realization of the temporal one He gave us.

I try to keep this outlook (courtesy of Wes):

I am doing exactly what it is that I think I should be doing now.
Maybe I'm pretending that I'm not.
Maybe I should re-evaluate what it is I think I should be doing.
Maybe I should re-evaluate what it is that I am not doing and start doing it.
Regardless, I'm doing what I think I should be doing.

If I would seriously have to accept Christianity, I know that now, I would have to FORCE myself into it. Forced beliefs may be real, with real output, but they are never honest.
You'll only have to force it if it differs drastically from what you're already doing, and it doesn't sound as if it is. You only have to change if change is required. God requires that you be honest about who you are, even when it only means confessing your sins to Him. Honesty and humility requires at least the willingness to change. And yes, I know - that applies to me, too.

I don't agree with that. If things could be otherwise, they would be otherwise. Content with "less" -- less than what?
If you judge reality by some idealistic "how it should be, but isn't" -- then you're bound to be unhappy.
With such an outlook, a change for the better is extremely hard, if not impossible -- as reality is being constantly questioned and undervalued.
On the contrary, I think only people without ideals may never feel the need to change. The rest are simply content with their life lacking direction (or have convinced themselves of that). Every time you obey a law – whether a moral or social or government law – you are submitting to an ideal. Laws represent exactly "how things should be, but isn't". If things really couldn't be otherwise, we would have accepted crime and criminal behaviour and said "if things could be otherwise, they would be".

I will speak with candour: To me, you seem scared. Something seems to be pressing you down.
What you sense is concern, or maybe frustration. I doubt it will make sense to you, but there it is. Even with all my doubts and uncertainties, with everything I know or don't know, it is distressing to see people simply content with "not knowing", as if there's nothing to know.

There isn't much that scares me, but what I perceive is a pressing need in people to justify their beliefs instead of just having them and being sure of them and living them. Everything I write in these forums are just chaff for the fire if I don't live them. If I didn't have that conviction, maybe I really would have been scared.

atheist cant go to my home as they dont believe in me only religious zealots have the right or the wrong if you prefer

Jenyar,


I'm trying to show you that your antagonism towards Christianity is unfounded,

Unfounded?!

My disgust for Christianity is for Christianity as I know it. Of course, say, the Christianity I know is not the "true" Christianity ...

Christianity is, IMO:

1. It's sexist.
You may say that it is all about metaphorization. But, as a woman, I simply cannot accept that I should worship a male God and a male Saviour. The choice of metaphors should be more careful.
Rewrite the Bible then, so that it won't be sexist anymore. Oh yes -- what will you do with that verse that forbids women to speak in church?

2. Christians have, in the past, done a lot of harm to non-Christians. They still do. Not all Christians -- but it is not my problem that all Christians call themselves that way.
If it would be my way, Christians would keep very quiet, and never grumble again.

3. And yes, this is some 1500 years of pagan rage speaking. Rage against Christian pride, vanity and cowardice.
Beware of those who call themselves good people.


using the experience of suffering as an example.

So you think my explanation of suffering is wrong?


How many people continue to smoke even after they develop lung cancer? It's not because they're stupid, but because they have made peace with the consequences.

No, this may go only for some. There is a lot of smokers who think "It won't get me."
And yes, I dare say, that smokers are stupid.

If you jump off a bridge into a river, and hope you won't get wet, you are stupid.


That's often why people resent my faith: I make things uncomfortable if I tell them that they shouldn't just accept life at face value, because it's not "all there is".

I don't think this is the case. What some people think "all there is" is most likely something totally different from what you think that "all there is". You're speaking different languages, and so are we.


That's a very fatalistic and abstract "could". Sometimes the truth is that if people had acted differently, things really could have turned out differently.

If they could act differently, they would. They didn't because they couldn't.


It will drive you mad to dwell on those "what if's", but that's because they are actually plausible alternatives.

Dwelling on what-if's means that you are not accepting reality.

You have a walk there before you, if you wish to understand how "If it could be otherwise, it would be otherwise." and "Whatever you do, you do the maximum in the given circumstances." work.


"It is all about learning, and realizing that we cannot change the past."

And why shouldn't that apply to religion?

Who said that it doesn't apply?


If people didn't need coping mechanisms they wouldn't have created them... If things could have been otherwise it would have But we do, and not all of them are valid -- once again, most are temporary solutions, like taking an aspirin for pain, or Prozac for depression. They're temporary solutions that we repeat endlessly. That's because they address the symptoms and not the cause.

And you know what the cause is? The activity of our brain.
Keep your brain busy, and it won't go astray, and so you will not need coping mechanisms.

Ahhhh, but work is so teeeeeedious.
It suits us right -- we are punished for not accepting the reality of our brain.


Celebrities flock to Kabbalah and Scientology centres because they find comfort in the spirituality they represent -- and they're fads for exactly the reason you mention: they're a cop-out for facing the reality. However, you don't allow for the possibility that the reality is that they have no relationship with God, and no way of facing fears and emotions that are simply beyond their frame of reference. You can become a Buddhist monk and expand that frame of reference until you're blue in the face, but it will never restore your relationship with God. It will be a temporary addiction -- as paradoxical as that sounds.

Maybe now you can begin to understand what I meant by "it is a business-like decision to consciously rationally convert to a certain religion".


"Why would I need salvation? You see, this is where you'd first have to convince me into the truth of the Christian characterization of God and humanity."

Because you are either looking for salvation or think you already found it one way or the other. It's that nebulous reality called "fulfilment" -- that quest for reaching your full potential and being exactly who you mean to be.

You'll need to re-conceptualize this "salvation" for me then. As it is, it means nothing specific to me.
I am exactly who I mean to be. But it takes some Zen to understand that.
If I am not different, this is due to me not thinking differently.

I may strongly believe that getting up at 6 is a good thing, and I would like to get up at 6 every day. But I don't. This is because my belief that getting up at 6 is not meant strong enough. When I will mean it strong enough, I'll also get up at 6.


"If I would seriously have to accept Christianity, I know that now, I would have to FORCE myself into it. Forced beliefs may be real, with real output, but they are never honest."

You'll only have to force it if it differs drastically from what you're already doing, and it doesn't sound as if it is.

Oh, it doesn't differ?! Do I believe in Jesus? Do I believe in the