Since I was a kid, I have always had these ideas about what the afterlife was like. Recently, I saw Deepak Chopra on the Colbert Report, in which he described my exact thoughts about the afterlife. Basically, what you think happens when you die, DOES happen. Say, if you wanted a heaven with a god, if you truly wanted that to happen, then you could create the illusion of that after you die. Same thing if you wanted a chocalate covered cloud to be heaven, or a field full of :m: .
So, my question is, what do I call myself if I beleive this? When people ask me what my religion is, I dont want to have to stammer out all that, I would rather have a name, like 'Athiesm' or 'Christianity' or something.....

Thanks.

Tell them it is a personal form of Vedic belief.
Much of what Deepak Chopra says is based on the Vedas.

(it was a good show, by the way:))

Thanks alot.

I may not believe in any version of the afterlife, heaven and hell, included, but I think it's interesting that Deepak Chopra primarily stated that, "Heaven is boring", which is something I've been saying for years!

That video was quite amazing, actually... we need Hell for life to be interesting, for creativity. Well done Deepak.

That video was quite amazing, actually...

I wouldn't go that far, but he was pretty good.
Better than I expected.

Since I was a kid, I have always had these ideas about what the afterlife was like. Recently, I saw Deepak Chopra on the Colbert Report, in which he described my exact thoughts about the afterlife. Basically, what you think happens when you die, DOES happen. Say, if you wanted a heaven with a god, if you truly wanted that to happen, then you could create the illusion of that after you die. Same thing if you wanted a chocalate covered cloud to be heaven, or a field full of :m: .
So, my question is, what do I call myself if I beleive this? When people ask me what my religion is, I dont want to have to stammer out all that, I would rather have a name, like 'Athiesm' or 'Christianity' or something.....

Thanks.

its just part of the knowledge presented in the vedas

BG 8.6: Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kuntī, that state he will attain without fail.

The vedas has greatly influenced chopra ... butof course there is more - namely that the ability to control one's mind at the time of death is thwarted by having one's life flash before one's eyes - in other words rather than thinking of chocolate covered clouds one will be thinking about the nature of one's life, ie pious and impious activities, hence the predictable indication on what is a suitable occupation for a person serious about the notion of the time of death and its results

When I die, I want to go to Valhalla. That place is the best.

When I die, I want to go to Valhalla. That place is the best.

Women and beer?

Isn't that the Flying Spaghetti heaven too?

i think the way buddhism works with the our cycles of life and dimensions, tahtha
is pretty awesome.
like the afterlife of this one is another life with another.
cycles through dimensions?
i think?
based on your spirit/soul's karma

i think there's a dimension of hell and heaven as well

i think i have to reread buddhist stuff. :/

This is surely a post modernist version of pantheism.

It's a very nice easy concept in that absolutely nothing is required of you.

Whilst I am sure you are not, you can be as selfish or nasty as you like and in the end you will get the version of everlasting life you choose. Does this not smack a little of self delusion?

This may be a nice cosy belief if all is going well, but of what help will it be when the going gets tough?

If God exists (and I truly beieve He does) He would have been the creator with power and knowledge making us as He wanted. To try and make Him as we want defies logic and is a most cruel self deception that can lead to great disappointment and disillusionment.

I ask you to think more deeply and seriously about the matter. It is of great importance!


Regards,


Gordon.

If God exists (and I truly beieve He does) He would have been the creator with power and knowledge making us as He wanted. To try and make Him as we want defies logic and is a most cruel self deception that can lead to great disappointment and disillusionment.
Unless you have met and personally know God (literally) then aren't you doing the same thing - making "Him" as you want "Him" to be?

Whether or not God exists, to definitively claim he is anything, is nothing more than self-deception, in claiming knowledge you do not have first hand.

How is your own fanstasy regarding what God may or not may be any more valid, real, qualified or correct than the idea pyroxic, Deepak Chopra, Anton LaVey or anyone else has?

Call your religion Delusion.

Unless you have met and personally know God (literally) then aren't you doing the same thing - making "Him" as you want "Him" to be?

Whether or not God exists, to definitively claim he is anything, is nothing more than self-deception, in claiming knowledge you do not have first hand.

How is your own fanstasy regarding what God may or not may be any more valid, real, qualified or correct than the idea pyroxic, Deepak Chopra, Anton LaVey or anyone else has?

Exactly. When I disprove people's gods, they like to whine that "You can't possibly know anything about any gods, they are unknowable and too big for us", etc. And my reply is always just what you pointed out above. If that applies to me, then it applies to everyone else. In which case, Christians can't even tell me if their god is good or evil. If he created this universe, or if he inherited it from a dead uncle. If he had himself as a child with a virgin lass, etc.

As soon as you start making claims about your god, you open yourself to logical criticism. Likewise, if you say that nothing can be known, don't ever speak of gods again.

Which is why I am a huge fan of threads like this, and the original post in particular. If you are going to believe in things, believe whatever you want. Let your imagination go wild. Just don't be surprised when those of us with no supernatural beliefs poke fun at your delusion, and holes in your logic.

To try and make Him as we want defies logic and is a most cruel self deception that can lead to great disappointment and disillusionment.



As was the case when the bronze age hebrews decided to invent a narrow minded version of God.

As was the case when the bronze age hebrews decided to invent a narrow minded version of God.

A narrow minded view of God gave them the Roman Empire.
A decent trade, wouldn't you say?

Hi Gordon, what do you think of this:

….…
If God exists (and I truly beieve He does) He would have been the creator with power and knowledge making us as He wanted. To try and make Him as we want defies logic and is a most cruel self deception that can lead to great disappointment and disillusionment.


Or

If God exists (and I truly believe She does) She would have been the creator with power and knowledge making us as She wanted. To try and make Her as we want defies logic and is a most cruel self deception that can lead to great disappointment and disillusionment.

Or

If Gods exist (and I truly believe they do) They would have been the creators with the power and knowledge of making us as they wanted. To try and make them as we want defies logic and is a most cruel self deception that can lead to great disappointment and disillusionment.



I suppose my point is that in your own sentence you were making God one and not just that but one that was a man. Whivch kind of defeats your own argument.



What if you should go to heaven and find it populated with many many Goddesses with little to no concern for you – will that lead to great disappointment and disillusionment?


Michael

I see this belief expressed by new-agers more than anything so...new-agism? :(

I see this belief expressed by new-agers more than anything so...new-agism? :(

New-Age philosophy is based highly on Eastern thought.

And Western Occultism.

Also, you forget Ayodhya:

Women, beer, -and- blood shed.

Me likies sex and violence.

Hi Gordon, what do you think of this:




Or

If God exists (and I truly believe She does) She would have been the creator with power and knowledge making us as She wanted. To try and make Her as we want defies logic and is a most cruel self deception that can lead to great disappointment and disillusionment.

Or

If Gods exist (and I truly believe they do) They would have been the creators with the power and knowledge of making us as they wanted. To try and make them as we want defies logic and is a most cruel self deception that can lead to great disappointment and disillusionment.



I suppose my point is that in your own sentence you were making God one and not just that but one that was a man. Whivch kind of defeats your own argument.



What if you should go to heaven and find it populated with many many Goddesses with little to no concern for you – will that lead to great disappointment and disillusionment?


Michael


I have no problem with people having their own views of God (or Gods or Godesses). But the rationale of my view is based on beliefs built up over many hundreds of years amongst many people and on principles, historical accounts and prophesies in a collection of books of scripture. Much of this is not necessarily what you (or I) might find comfortable about the nature of God and what is required of us by that entity.

It is possible of course that I have got it wrong but I would say that a god(s)devised on any one individual's highly subjective personal preferences as to what he/she/it/they should be like must logically have a very small likelihood of being correct.

As a logician I do not believe that two mutually exclusive versions of the nature of the same entity can both be simultaneously true so this implies that only the one option of the three: no god, one God or many gods can actually be true.

Of course I would be disappointed if I had got it completely wrong (although if there were no god, I should probably not know!). If you have created a god(s) as everything you would personally like him (or her or them) to be, then the possibility of disappointment must logically be much greater however!

On more important topics, there is no scriptural support for a masculine sexually orientated god. To quote Wikipedia:

'In Christianity, God is generally believed to be a Trinity, consisting of three persons in one God. The three persons of the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father has traditionally been described with male imagery, and God the Son is believed literally to have become incarnate as a human male. God the Holy Spirit has been referred to using male, female or neutral grammatical gender depending on the language (the Hebrew word רוח ruaḥ is grammatically feminine, the Greek word πνευμα pneuma is grammatically neuter, and the Latin word spiritus is grammatically masculine). But Christianity does not regard the omnipotent God as being male, God the Father is genderless, and is only given the name, "Father" because Jesus wanted to emphasis the special relationship that his followers share with God through him. In reality only one out of the holy trinity is masculine, Jesus Christ who was born male, although his actual incarnation was to stress his "humanity" and not that he was male.'

Hebrew only has two genders, masculine and feminine. There is no gender so god could not be 'it' in Hebrew. Therefore (in accordance with normal grammatical principles) god became 'he' by default. The problem with using 'mother' rather than 'father' is that in the ancient world it would immediately conjure up images of pagan fertility godesses. This has of course happened over the years to an extent with the 'christianisation' of more ancient beliefs in such places as Latin America where in the syncretic version of Roman Catholicism there, Mary (the incorrectly described 'Mother of God') has become an object of veneration and a straight replacement for previous pagan fertility godesses. 'Father' is a much safer concept.

The relationship between fathers and their children does also tend to be different in that fathers much more readily accept that their offspring may have done things wrong (they may still of course forgive them). Mothers often do not accept that their offspring could have done that which they clearly did. A classic extreme UK example would be the mother of the notorious murderous gangsters the Kray twins, who always claimed that her sons were 'good boys'. 'Father' therefore better fits a christian concept of the relationship between God and people.

Whilst christianity encompasses an intellectual belief in the characteristics of God, this is not the most important aspect of the religion. The religion emphasises a personal ongoing relationship with God. This is very difficult to explain but does not necessarily involve voices in your head, although I should like MW to prove her statement that no rational person hears voices in their head. What is her evidence for this statement? Prejudice against the existence of the supernatural is not a proof of its non existence!

I am perhaps getting a little off topic but would happily discuss this on a different thread.


Regards,


Gordon.

Gordon,

Christianity is simply one individual's highly subjective personal preferences as to what he/she/it/they should be like, compunded upon another individual's highly... ad infinitum.

Without first-hand experience with God, Christianity is no or more less likely true, accurate or valid than this one individual's idea.

Besides, as was pointed out, this individual's ideals align with that of Deepak Chopra (recall the opening post?).
Deepak Chopra's ideas are based, as was also pointed out, on the Vedas.
The Vedas, as you may be aware, predate the New Testament by quite some time (they arguably predate the Old Testament as well).
Deepak Chopra did not simply wake up from a dream, and decide, "This is the way it is!"
His knowledge was based upon millenia of individuals building upon each other's ideas with roots in a series of ancient books... That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

So, based on the "logic" you unfurled above, this idea, since is it older than Christianity and has been through many, many more people, is more likely to be correct.
No?

Antiquity does not equate with accuracy. Or this your point, one_raven?

Part of it, yes.

Gordon,

Christianity is simply one individual's highly subjective personal preferences as to what he/she/it/they should be like, compunded upon another individual's highly... ad infinitum.

Without first-hand experience with God, Christianity is no or more less likely true, accurate or valid than this one individual's idea.

Besides, as was pointed out, this individual's ideals align with that of Deepak Chopra (recall the opening post?).
Deepak Chopra's ideas are based, as was also pointed out, on the Vedas.
The Vedas, as you may be aware, predate the New Testament by quite some time (they arguably predate the Old Testament as well).
Deepak Chopra did not simply wake up from a dream, and decide, "This is the way it is!"
His knowledge was based upon millenia of individuals building upon each other's ideas with roots in a series of ancient books... That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

So, based on the "logic" you unfurled above, this idea, since is it older than Christianity and has been through many, many more people, is more likely to be correct.
No?

But there still remains some similar issues - for instance in the vedas god (bhagavan) is referred to in the masculine (purusa) and his energy (which includes not only the phenomenal world, but also the living entities subject to illusion/enlightenment are called prakrti (feminine).
The distinction on gender is based on what is the energetic and what is the energy or what is the enjoyer and what is the enjoyed- interesting to note is that the living entity in the material world, regardless of whether they have the body of a male or female, is referred to also as purusa - the principle is that illusory life is composed of the notion of imitating god's activities (being the center of enjoyment as opposed to a co-operator in god's enjoyment).

Therefore in the vedas, god is referred to as a "he", but the material standards of gender and their inter-relationship doesn't necessarily tally

Recently, I saw Deepak Chopra on the Colbert Report, in which he described my exact thoughts about the afterlife. Basically, what you think happens when you die, DOES happen.
Reminds me of a Dilbert TV Episode where he dies, and the afterlife turns out to be an office cubicle. He is revived, and later finds a group of people who (due toi a bizarre accident) believe that when you die you spend eternity with Wally. He then gets bashed over the head and ends up in altenate afterlife, where there are two cubicles and Wally is in the other one.