There is no life after death (and no hell)

[Canute]

Canute,

Why do Buddhists think Jesus deserves high regard or enlightened? I am curious. It does not comfort me at all however; Jesus only deserves to be acknowledged as the son of God and the ruler of the universe.

The teachings of Jesus are consistent with those of the Buddha, and those found in the Gnostic gospels are the same underneath the details.

"A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: "Have you ever read the Christian Bible?" "No read it to me," said Gasan. The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. . . . Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself." Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."

The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened." Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood."

Zen Flesh, Zen Bones

Luke 18:18,19 "A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 19 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."

Not sure why you've quoted this but elsewhere Jesus also says "Sin as such does not exist" (Thomas Gospel). On this point Jesus, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc all seem to agree.

I'm not basing my opinion on Buddhism only on this story, I base it on my understanding by reading about it. But the story does reside in my consciousness. It is a factual account, and it is not just about one monk doing this, but a whole country of them. (snip) ...What happens when you are a representative of someone looking for enlightenment but act opposite to the eightfold path? Where is the explanation for people's wrong actions? All life may be suffering, but how do you explain the people who impose suffering?

I don't know enough about this to comment really. I find it odd. If it's true then I would say the best way to look at it is that Cambodia is giving up Buddhism with the monks leading the way.

I also disagree with Buddhism because it posits the solution to problems as ultimate suicide.

Another misunderstanding I'm afraid, but a common one. Buddhism is not nihilistic. Every Buddhist whoever became enlightened has been happy with the truth and nobody on record has ever complained. Buddhism is characterised by Buddhists as the serious pursuit of happiness, not suicide.

Life is suffering, and if you don’t work to improve your spiritual standing you will come back again and suffer more. The only solution is to attempt to be enlightened so you will stop being reborn and no longer have consciousness as you enter into nirvana. I don’t want to be eternally dead. I want to be eternally alive with the living God.

'Suffering' does not necessarily mean pain and anguish. It just means that for living beings all things are unsatisfactory, transient, ultimately unfullfulling. Buddhist are after something permanent. In your terms you might say they seek to become one with God, although this more like the God of Spinoza than of the Bible.

As you have pointed out, and I hope I have shown through this post, I am fully aware that people are often bad representatives of the people they say they are following. However, I would argue that Buddhism does not have consistent idea to show why good things should be done when good and evil are a part of everything = a part of God. Why is God bad? Why should I follow a bad God?

This is a misunderstanding. Buddhist moral precepts are more stringent and more closely practiced than those of most doctrines. It is not easy to disentagle Buddhist morality if you're used to basing your morality on some external yardstick like God. But in Buddhism the yardstick is internal. Spinoza arrived at the same view. His God was also not good or bad, for he realized that something that is absolute cannot have intrinsic attributes, only relative ones.

I think the really compelling thing about Christianity is you CAN have this surety about your relationship with God,

Ok - but in Christianity this relationship is based on belief. In Buddhism beliefs are discouraged. (Not arguing for it but just noting the differences).

 

[olde drunk]

Gee, do you think they had an agenda?

i particularly liked where jesus says to live life and not read scriptures. the scriptures are dead; they were written by dead people.

why would they leave out such information??

peace,

 

[to_son]

Ok - but in Christianity this relationship is based on belief. In Buddhism beliefs are discouraged. (Not arguing for it but just noting the differences).

But I will =)
Well, the Buddha explicitly told his followers not to believe his teachings, but to try and realize them themselves. Kinda like a challenge to prove or disprove (although, not quite).

The interesting point is that everybody has the potential/ability to realize the truth, ppl just need to go about it the right way to be able to do so.

The ONLY thing that faith is required on, is the ultimate goal of Buddhism - nibbana... ie, that by doing such and such, it will be gained. Note also, that that goal is achievable in this lifetime itself...(and has been achieved by many ppl since Buddhism appeared)

 

[ProtractedSilence]

I already mentioned that I do not accept Apocrypha or Gnostic texts. THey have obvious inaccuracies and were not verifiable in terms of authorship. There is no place in the "official" Bible that says "sin does not exist"

Buddhists may be pursuing happiness as you say, but what they look to for their ultimate goal is the recombination with everything, where consciousness ceses to exist. I say this is what the athiests say happens when you die...your atoms recombine with the universe and you cease to exist as a person. Since Buddhists hope for this state, and work towards it, I call it suicide.

I disagree with your comment about absolutes and relatives. Only an absolutes can have intrinsic values. As a non-absolute being, everything I seek to define myself by is by my relationship or comparison to it. My only hope is to compare myself to an absolute with intrinsic attributes, so that I really know where I am in the cosmos.

to olde drunk: Where does Jesus say to not read the scripture? I'd like to see it. The Bible says that the law is dead, and to live by the spirit, but also to study the Apostles teaching.

 

[olde drunk]

to olde drunk: Where does Jesus say to not read the scripture? I'd like to see it. The Bible says that the law is dead, and to live by the spirit, but also to study the Apostles teaching.

http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/

about half way through the gospel of peace, in fact i believe he said it several times.

very serious question: who will you believe - the official bible -- or --- alternate sources that have no reason to claim they are special.

peace,

 

[ProtractedSilence]

o.k. I will be very plain. There are good reasons why the books that were chosen to be in the Bible were. Here is a webpage describing them:

http://www.xenos.org/essays/canon.htm

The other Gospels do not fit these criteria.

I can write a Gospel that makes Jesus say whatever I want Him to, but that doesn't make it God's word.

 

[olde drunk]

o.k. I will be very plain. There are good reasons why the books that were chosen to be in the Bible were. Here is a webpage describing them:

http://www.xenos.org/essays/canon.htm

The other Gospels do not fit these criteria.

I can write a Gospel that makes Jesus say whatever I want Him to, but that doesn't make it God's word.

you miss the point. even the different sects can't agree on which book has the real words of christ.

better to accept no authority except yourself.

in time we will probably find that the christ used in these books is a compilation of 2-3-or 4 different holy men.

who can say?

peace,

 

[to_son]

Buddhists may be pursuing happiness as you say, but what they look to for their ultimate goal is the recombination with everything, where consciousness ceses to exist. I say this is what the athiests say happens when you die...your atoms recombine with the universe and you cease to exist as a person. Since Buddhists hope for this state, and work towards it, I call it suicide.

Buddhists seek to see and understand things as they truly are. The ultimate goal is not recombination with everything, but release from rebirth. They're two different things.

What you're referring to sounds much more like Hinduism (i think... correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[to_son]

better to accept no authority except yourself.

Interesting point...
Cos I stand by the idea that whatever truth exists, only one can realize it for himself/herself. ie... You can't prove anything to anybody but yourself.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm joining this discussion late in the game, and the posts are all so lengthy with so many differing points being made. I admit that I haven't read all of them thoroughly, so I may be redundant or addressing something already discussed and refuted. I found the following comment interesting:

God says, “the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.” This is coupled with the earlier, “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” So on the day they eat of the fruit, they will suffer death. Does this mean that this terrible fruit causes the knowledge of good and evil? No. But when Adam and Eve choose to reject God’s wisdom, and eat the fruit despite his warning, they have chosen to determine good and bad for themselves. It is the action of choosing against God that institutes evil. They had always followed God’s wisdom before, so they didn’t know evil. But one day they decided to reject God’s say in their lives, and decide that what the serpent told them sounded better. Then they knew evil, because they chose against God.

If eating from the tree of knowledge gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil, and disobedience of God's will was evil, then doesn't their choice to eat from the tree indicate they already knew the difference between good and evil? Doesn't this also indicate they chose evil prior to eating the fruit and not that the fruit of the tree gave them this knowledge? It's all very contradictory.

I'm also enjoying the debate regarding whether or not there is a such thing as eternal life, the role of morals, etc. I never gave so many of these topics all that much thought, but it puts it in a different perspective for me than previously. If one thinks of everything from the perspective of genetics rather than the body or soul, this all becomes easily explained (not that I know if it's the right explanation or one that anyone is going to jump up and believe along with me, but it makes sense to me anyway). Our body dies, dust to dust and all that, but biologically, the most important thing is that we reproduce (and based on all that "begatting", that's important in the Bible too), and that's so we can pass on our genes. Our genes continue to live on in the next generation...eternal life if you will. So, what about morals? Think of them as rules for passing on your genes to the next generation. Through social behaviors that lead to cooperation, we have a greater success of raising our own offspring to reproductive age so they can in turn have offspring of their own. If instead we all throw morals out the window and do whatever we want, kill each other left and right, we're not going to survive long as a species, and the risk to anyone individual increases as well...the more fights you get into, the more likely you are to lose a fight and get wiped out of the gene pool.

From this perspective, there actually is a great deal of wisdom contained in the Bible. I don't personally believe it is the writing of some divine being, but more likely written by leaders of civilization and/or based on observations of the natural world...at least the Old Testament. It has plenty of biases of old cultures, but also sets up rules for a long, healthy life in a time when the specific laws in the Bible were necessary for that. Most of the rules help set up a cooperative civilization. Others are health codes. All the discussion of clean and unclean animals, for example, are based on animals notorious for spreading disease in the days before modern medicine and refrigeration, and making it taboo to handle them would do much for improving food safety. No matter the source of the writing, much as other laws of ancient civilizations have been passed down through generations to be included in the foundation of modern legal codes, there are plenty of things within the Bible that still make sense, and shouldn't be dismissed just because we disagree over who wrote them down. On the other hand, there are things in the Bible that are just plain outdated. Even if you wish to assume these things were indeed the word of God, we have no reason to believe he meant for these rules to be passed on and adhered to forever...they may have just been relevant for that particular time and no longer have importance because we know things now we didn't know then (whether by scientific progress or through God's revelation...again, whatever you prefer, the point is the same).

 

[ProtractedSilence]

Moonbear,

As to your first comment, maybe I wasn't clear enough before? What you suggest is exactly what I was trying to show, it was the choice that brought out evil, not the fruit; here is the wording of the relevant passages:

Gen 2:17 "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (God speaking)

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Satan speaking)

Gen 3:22a "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;"

In the day they ate from the tree they would die, and in the day they ate from the tree they would know good from evil. The evil was to reject God's truth. They finalized the choice by biting into the fruit that God had commanded them not to.

I think there are three problems with trying to explain morals from genetics (using the evolutionary viewpoint here). 1) After we are dead personally, it really doesn't matter what the human race does to us...we no longer exist or care. 2) If we are just chemical reactions and genes being passed on, brought on by the random collision of molecules...then it doesn't matter if humans exist or not. There can be no good or bad actions, just actions. If they further man...who cares? The universe does not care in the slightest. If man is snuffed out, there is similarly little consequence. 3) It is very hard to argue that some actions like killing are not beneficial to the species if you compare with animal examples. Alpha male lions kill the cubs of other males in their pride so that they can spread their own genes instead. Wolves eat their wn young in times of hardship. Elephant seals fight to the death over mates. Why isn't it ok for me to kill as many people as I can to protect my own genes being passed on, as well as rape many women to further my genes?

I don't think the Bible is outdated if you look at the plan that is woven throughout it to redeem men to God. God promises Eve that through her seed he will reconcile humanity to himself. God promises Abraham that he will make a nation from his descendents, and bless the whole world through his seed. God promises David that he will establish an eternal king from one of his descendents.

What is this redemption of all people supposed to look like? The OT prophet Jeremiah was given a picture:

Jer 31:31-34 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Jesus is the person that fulfills all of these promises, by the fact that he lived a perfect life, and that he died to pay for all of our sins that God has a right to judge (as the creator of everything).

What outdated passages were you thinking of? I think many of them are outdated, not because culture has changed, but because the agreement between man and God (the covenant) has changed from one based in following laws, to the one God talks about in Jeremiah.

 

[ProtractedSilence]

to son,

I am not exactly clear, but as far as I understand Buddhism seeks a release from rebirth (as you have said) because all life is suffering, and whatever happens when you are enlightened must be better than suffering (with little description of what that is, because Buddha didn't know). Hinduism believes in Moksha, which is recombination with everything. But the two are entangled with each other, as Hinduism swallowed Buddhism back up and incorporated it.

 

[ProtractedSilence]

There are absolute truths. How do I know there are? Because if I declare there are no absolute truths, I have made an absolute truth claim myself. Are these truths knowable? They have to be, otherwise again I could not make the claim that they are not (because I would know an absolute truth).

There are objective truths. No matter what people say, you can tell because they define their lives by them. I can say to someone, "I don't believe in gravity," but this does not make gravity cease to exist. If I walk off the edge of a cliff, I will fall. I can do experiments in the lab to prove there is gravity.

God is like this. Whatever the truth about God is, it does not depend on our conception of it. We may not have the right idea about Him, but his existence (r lack there of) is a fact that does not depend on our conception.

The God of the Bible is a God of facts and proofs. He choose to validate His deity by authentication with predictive prophecy:

Isaiah 41:21,22 “Is 41:21,22 "Present your case," the LORD says. "Bring forward your strong arguments," The King of Jacob says. 22 Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them, and know their outcome; Or announce to us what is coming.

Isaiah 43:9 “All the nations have gathered together In order that the peoples may be assembled. Who among them can declare this And proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified, Or let them hear and say, "It is true."”

He wants people to use their minds and see if it makes sense for Him to exist.

 

[to_son]

to son,

I am not exactly clear, but as far as I understand Buddhism seeks a release from rebirth (as you have said) because all life is suffering, and whatever happens when you are enlightened must be better than suffering (with little description of what that is, because Buddha didn't know). Hinduism believes in Moksha, which is recombination with everything. But the two are entangled with each other, as Hinduism swallowed Buddhism back up and incorporated it.

It's the bit on the recombination with everything that's probably the fundamental difference between Buddhism and Hinduism. The reason is; it suggests there being a permanent soul - Buddhism denies the existence of any permanent, unchanging entity.

 

[Canute]

I feel that most of the problems with understanding the Buddhist view comes from the difficulty of dropping our usual notions of 'exist' and 'not-exist'. When Buddhists talk of 'annihilation' of self it is not quite the same as saying that consciousness ceases to exist.

For instance in the Threefold Lotus Sutra the Buddha talks of three forms of consciousness, one that exists, one that does not exist, and one that neither exists nor not-exists. My guess is that 'Buddha-nature' belongs in the last category.

He also says that the Buddha (any person who has achieved Buddhahood) is eternal (or timeless, or both).

IMHO (!) it is understanding this apparently self-contradictory 'non-dual' view of reality that is the key to making sense of Buddhism (and the Gnostic gospels). Unfortunately while its possible to talk about the epistemology of Buddhism and make some sense of this it is only through direct experience (of Being in a non-dual state) that the pieces can finally fall into place.

On the likely fundamental necessity of understanding Being before understanding anything much Garth Kemmerling writes -

"Writing allegorically in "The Way Back into the Ground of Metaphysics," Heidegger notes that although metaphysics is undeniably the root of all human knowledge, we may yet wonder from what soil it springs. Since the study of beings qua beings can only be rooted in the ground of Being itself, there is a sense in which we must overcome metaphysics in order to appreciate its basis. Looking at beings of particular sorts—especially through the distorted lens of representational thinking—blocks every effort at profound understanding. We cannot grasp Being by looking at beings. "

 

[olde drunk]

There are absolute truths. How do I know there are? Because if I declare there are no absolute truths, I have made an absolute truth claim myself. Are these truths knowable? They have to be, otherwise again I could not make the claim that they are not (because I would know an absolute truth).

There are objective truths. No matter what people say, you can tell because they define their lives by them. I can say to someone, "I don't believe in gravity," but this does not make gravity cease to exist. If I walk off the edge of a cliff, I will fall. I can do experiments in the lab to prove there is gravity.

God is like this. Whatever the truth about God is, it does not depend on our conception of it. We may not have the right idea about Him, but his existence (r lack there of) is a fact that does not depend on our conception.

The God of the Bible is a God of facts and proofs. He choose to validate His deity by authentication with predictive prophecy:

Isaiah 41:21,22 “Is 41:21,22 "Present your case," the LORD says. "Bring forward your strong arguments," The King of Jacob says. 22 Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them, and know their outcome; Or announce to us what is coming.

Isaiah 43:9 “All the nations have gathered together In order that the peoples may be assembled. Who among them can declare this And proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified, Or let them hear and say, "It is true."”

He wants people to use their minds and see if it makes sense for Him to exist.

the only truth there is, is "THERE AIN'T NO TRUTH" !

you can quote me on that. you can only experience truth. if it must be experienced it is subjective. once subjective, it can not be absolute.

my understanding of buddhism is being one with god, recognizing the god within.

why care how you get out of a world of suffering, as long as you get out?

this reality is as much heaven as any other dimension. all the wise men of history have been trying to get that simple message to us. why must we complicate it with laws, rituals and dogma?

if we love ourselves, god and our fellow man all else falls into place. we don't need no stinking formal process. how can you harm another if you truly love him?

peace.


peace,

 

[Scott Sieger]

The question that begs an answer is:
Do buddhist's want to be eternally dead or eternally alive?

Now you may say that death and life are not considered in this context as in the normal common use of these two words.

But the fact is The Buddha Died,,,he no longer exists as alive or living in the flesh...surely to attain the eternal or timelessness in the flesh would be an even greater challenge...

 

[to_son]

the only truth there is, is "THERE AIN'T NO TRUTH" !

you can quote me on that. you can only experience truth. if it must be experienced it is subjective. once subjective, it can not be absolute.

my understanding of buddhism is being one with god, recognizing the god within.

why care how you get out of a world of suffering, as long as you get out?

if we love ourselves, god and our fellow man all else falls into place. we don't need no stinking formal process. how can you harm another if you truly love him?

This whole Universe and everything else that's not part of it... are subject to certain rules; Truths, which do not change. I can't prove this to you. You can't disprove it to me. Full stop. (so much for a discussion )

And..
No.. that's definitely not what Buddhism is about; "being one with god". Mainly, we do not believe there is a "God" (ie eternal creator of Universe)... there are gods (devas), but they too are subject to death and rebirth.

To get out of suffering, you have to understand its nature to some degree. It's like, "know thine enemy" (or however it goes). You can't simply try to escape it (suffereing) if you don't know WHAT you're trying to escape from. Kinda like, trying to find youor way out of a forest blindfolded.

On the loving ourselves... I personally don't think that that's such a good thing. It leeds to selfishness and desire => bad (some ppl will argue that these are good virtues, But i will disagree).

Son

 

[to_son]

The question that begs an answer is:
Do buddhist's want to be eternally dead or eternally alive?

Now you may say that death and life are not considered in this context as in the normal common use of these two words.

But the fact is The Buddha Died,,,he no longer exists as alive or living in the flesh...surely to attain the eternal or timelessness in the flesh would be an even greater challenge...

Buddhism is neither nihilistic or eternalistic.

An interesting point, one of the "forbidden questions" (ie the Buddha did not answer as it was irrelevant) is what happens to a Buddha (note, "a") after death (parinibbana)

 

[cowboy_mortician]

Well the way i see it the origional poster was very correct in the fact that when we die, that's it. Were dead and councious of nothing. And the idea of hell is explained in the bible as being separated from God, God would never torment and cause anyone suffering. If you look in the later books of the bible, it talk about where jesus comes down and judges us and ressurects us, that's one showing of the "Afterlife", secondly in revelations it talks about 144,0000 ascening to heaven to rule with jesus and god. So if your going by the "bible" it does talk about the afterlife.

 

[Scott Sieger]

existence is suffering with the occassional pleasure...no matter what form you take or become...Life or nirvana as you call it can only be the balance of suffering and pleasure.

One without the other is a state of Hell...to end suffering is to end any reason to exist at all ( in any form or state)

Float around in some nebulous catatonic non existent state for eternity is tantamount being in a state of perpetual nightmare.

 

[to_son]

existence is suffering with the occassional pleasure...no matter what form you take or become...Life or nirvana as you call it can only be the balance of suffering and pleasure.

One without the other is a state of Hell...to end suffering is to end any reason to exist at all ( in any form or state)

Float around in some nebulous catatonic non existent state for eternity is tantamount being in a state of perpetual nightmare.

THere are plenty of references in Buddhist texts concerning Nibbana (nirvana)... It is undescribable. You simply can't use words to explain it to someone else... And there is a parable attached that the Buddha used to express this point... it goes something like...

One day the turtle left the pond to spend a few hours on the shore. When he returned to the water, he told the fish of his experiences on dry land, but the fish would not believe him. The fish could not accept that dry land existed because it was totally unlike the reality with which he was familiar. How could there be a place where creatures walked about rather than swam, breathed air and not water, and so on?

(http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dsantina/tree/part1.txt )

Nibbana is similar. You can't explain it to others the way it truly is, even if you've experienced it yourself. The following extract was written by Walpola Rahula:

"It is incorrect to say that Nirvana is negative or positive. THe ideas of negative and positive are relative, and are within the realm of duality. These terms cannot be applied to Nirvana, Absolute Truth, which is beyond duality and relativity."

It is also often described as "Unconditioned", "Extinction", "The cessation of Continuity and becoming"...

Again, a lot of this boils down to the idea of existence and self. The Buddhist point of view maintains that the illusion of self is actually a combination of these things called the Five Aggregates. It is this illusion that results in volitional activities, the generation of karma, and hence, rebirth.

 

[olde drunk]

sorry for my misunderstanding of buddhism. i do feel however that they have a better handle on how we should live than the western religions.

the 'laws' of nature are only a truth when you are dealing with the physical. within QM and other dimensions they are not absolute. ergo, all truths are relative.

there is no suffering. we get what we choose; including our birth enviornment, if you accept reincarnation and freewill. we create a challenge and experience life based on the awareness to be gained.

obviously, our physical body does not continue. it is here for a few years against 8 billion years of the physical universe. our spirit, soul, consciousness or whatever you wish to call it, is as infinite as the universe.

i suspect that 144,000 reaching heaven is as funny as meeting 67 virgins if i die for a cause. who cares about virgins? i want to meet an experienced woman that can teach me something.

when you distill all the words and directions of the wise men - love yourself and others. you first must love self in order to be able to love others.

being nihilistic is not an abomination. just because a cult elder wants to deny himself, why should I? if i choose to fast, abstain, it is my choice and that's being nihilistic. i would only do it if it brought me enjoyment.

egotism is not love. being kind to yourself and accepting self, is self love. even the egotist will enjoy the consequences of his belief.

if it ain't fun, don't do it! love yourself.

peace,

 

[ProtractedSilence]

Several items:

olde drunk: you have missed the point of my first argument. When you say "the only truth is, "there ain't no truth" " --- you have made a truth claim that either refutes your statement, or is meaningless because of it. How do you know this is the one tru truth?

On love: The Bible says that we all do love ourselves, but we should be loving others at the same level of love we give to ourselves:

Eph 5:28-30 "28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,
30 because we are members of His body. "

The other issue is that sometimes the actions we take to love ourselves and others are misdirected. This is why you see people who will say, “I beat my wife because I love her, and I want her to act right.” Or something along those lines. We need to have a guide about what healthy expressions of love are like. The example we are given is the sacrifice Christ made for us of His life, that we should be sacrificing for others:

Ephesians 5:1,2 “1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.”

From a couple of pages back: I disagree with your conclusion from the webpage about canonicity. How does it make you come to the conclusion all the sects disagree? It shows me that the texts themselves, as well as the people at the time of writing, agreed on which texts were inspired by God. It was not a later choice to pick and choose and leave out undesirable comments.

Finally, the 144,000 question is very easy. If you follow the chronology of events at Christ’s return,

First: Things get really bad in the world, lots of pain, suffering and death.
Second: A world leader arises that builds unity among everyone and people are talking about peace and safety, then this leader puts himself up in the temple at Jerusalem to be worshipped as a false God.
Third: Some people are swayed by this, but Jesus comes out of the sky and there is the rapture or taking up of all Christians on Earth to him.
Fourth: During the tribulation, because of the rapture….many people accept Christ. But because of the situation, many are persecuted and killed by this world leader. Christ returns after 7 years and calls up 144,000 people. This number of people is either one of two things; 1) The number of Christians left alive after 7 years. 2) The number of faithful Jew in the world at that time. It is not that only 144,000 get to go to rule with Jesus in heaven, but that 144,000 are called up together at the end.

 

[olde drunk]

why?

that's too much to worry about and pay attention to. i rather accept that i create my own reality and enjoy the consequences of my beliefs and actions. see, within my system of belief, there is no right or wrong. i do not need a savior or say special prayers or do certain things, to gain heaven.

this is as much heaven as any other reality. once i learn to love and enjoy all that is here i shall experience a heavenly high. after that i'll move on to other dimensions and other experiences. maybe there is a QM heaven filled with older experienced women??

as a poker player, i don't like the odds of me being 1 out of 144,000. hell there had to be at least 1 billion souls during the existence of this world. within my game my odds are 50-50. either i am right and i experince the greater reality as i explained. or it is different and i will be disappointed that i didn't get it exactly right.

as a betting man, i prefer to see life as a game. a game to be enjoyed and played, RESPECTFULLY. what's really neat is that i make up the rules as i go along. i got no one to blame when things go wrong, except myself. the beauty is, by accepting that i created the unwanted experience, i also have the power to change it. i don't ask 'why me'? i created my problem, therefore i can create the solution.

i do send out many requests for assistance to the universal energy. over the past 30-40 year of practicing this idea, i am amazed at how often this works. in fact, the more i do it, the easier it gets and the more frequently it happens.

i like the idea of imitating god. we are of a fashion; we co-create this reality. trust me, god has a sense of humor. if you tell him to go fly a kite, he will smile. he is with us 24/7. if we doubt his unconditional love, then we have problems. i have no doubts that he enjoys my little excursions into the unknown. it is a blast!

the truth thingy is a problem, so let's leave it at 'everything is relative'. i don't think s/he/it (god) with infinite wisdom wanted to put limitations on anything, including truth.

yeah we do have truths about the way this physical world operates. unfortunately, as time and science progress we keep changing them. perhaps, in time, we will suspend our belief in gravity and actually levitate. if we only knew how to harness our personal electromagnetic energy. hmmm, maybe the zen masters know how already.

ProtractedSilence, enjoy yourself, have fun. even if we do go round more than once.

peace,

 

[ProtractedSilence]

olde drunk,

I'm not sure you read anything I write carefully, but I do appreciate your jovial attitude.

I tried living as you say, making up my own right and wrong. But the problem was...I made it up - - and it didn't mean anything

Every single person has the opportunity to enter a relationship with God through Christ. It is not a game of odds at all. The 144,000 is just a prediction about the future that at the end of the world, there will be 144,000 people who are left alive and turn to God. Everyone else alive at the time rejects Him. I don't know how many billions of people there will be in heaven, but probably quite a few.

Your right about God being humorous and filled with enconditional love. It is out of His love that he provided a way for us to talk to Him, even though we don't deserve it. It is out of His humor that we have humor. I think it is a greta gesture on GOd's part not to force anything on us, but to give us the choice, "Do you want a relationship with Me or not? If you do, ask for forgivceness."

 

[to_son]

why?

that's too much to worry about and pay attention to. i rather accept that i create my own reality and enjoy the consequences of my beliefs and actions. see, within my system of belief, there is no right or wrong. i do not need a savior or say special prayers or do certain things, to gain heaven.

this is as much heaven as any other reality. once i learn to love and enjoy all that is here i shall experience a heavenly high. after that i'll move on to other dimensions and other experiences. maybe there is a QM heaven filled with older experienced women??

as a betting man, i prefer to see life as a game. a game to be enjoyed and played, RESPECTFULLY. what's really neat is that i make up the rules as i go along. i got no one to blame when things go wrong, except myself. the beauty is, by accepting that i created the unwanted experience, i also have the power to change it. i don't ask 'why me'? i created my problem, therefore i can create the solution.

i do send out many requests for assistance to the universal energy. over the past 30-40 year of practicing this idea, i am amazed at how often this works. in fact, the more i do it, the easier it gets and the more frequently it happens.

Sorry, But I'm going to drag in Buddhism again...
This time, I'll start with a historical spin. If we consider other ppl's religious activities, and philosphical ideas during the Buddha's time... we see that there was a range of schools of thoughts back then.

Some saw life as ending completely after death, and sought full enjoyment during their lifetime. What my hassle with this is, it basically also allows for immoral actions without proper consequences to be practiced. ie, You can go on a mass-murdering spree in say, Australia, and the most they can give is life in jail... but is a life-term worth dozens of lives...? (The trouble arguing this is, ppl have different views on the meaning, value of life etc..)

Others sought their salvation in an all-powerful being.
Others still saw life as an eternal, non-ending cycle.

What I'm getting at, is there is a certain "danger" so to speak, in acting without proper thought. It boils down though to, always trying to perform moral actions no matter what school of thought you stick with.

One of my biggest problems is... belief verses truth. It's really easy to believe in something, and convincing yourself that you're right. However, I think, in this particular case of logic (I'm sure there are many other examples apart from logical reasoning), there are many cases where logic turns it upside down.

Take for example, as someone said in another post, eternity is double-sided; if we allow for an eternity to follow now, then surely, there must've been an eternity before now. I don't know about you, for me, the former I can easily grasp, but the latter is mind-boggling. Although logic was used here to suggest a double-sided eternity, logic sure doesn't allow for no beginning.

So, I ask all of you this; What if you yourself had the potential to discover the truth yourself; whatever "fate" lies ahead. Would you make the effort to discover it? I'll repeat myself (From another post); I think that whatever truth exists, one can only realize it oneself - nobody can realize it for another.

</Edit>I personally think that i'd much easier believe in a truth if i could see it myself. </End edit>

Then, what if each and every one of you had the power to govern how your life shall twist and turn. Would you grasp that power with both hands?

Son

 

[mhernan]

Sorry, But I'm going to drag in Buddhism again...
This time, I'll start with a historical spin. If we consider other ppl's religious activities, and philosphical ideas during the Buddha's time... we see that there was a range of schools of thoughts back then.

Some saw life as ending completely after death, and sought full enjoyment during their lifetime. What my hassle with this is, it basically also allows for immoral actions without proper consequences to be practiced. ie, You can go on a mass-murdering spree in say, Australia, and the most they can give is life in jail... but is a life-term worth dozens of lives...? (The trouble arguing this is, ppl have different views on the meaning, value of life etc..)

Others sought their salvation in an all-powerful being.
Others still saw life as an eternal, non-ending cycle.

What I'm getting at, is there is a certain "danger" so to speak, in acting without proper thought. It boils down though to, always trying to perform moral actions no matter what school of thought you stick with.

One of my biggest problems is... belief verses truth. It's really easy to believe in something, and convincing yourself that you're right. However, I think, in this particular case of logic (I'm sure there are many other examples apart from logical reasoning), there are many cases where logic turns it upside down.

Take for example, as someone said in another post, eternity is double-sided; if we allow for an eternity to follow now, then surely, there must've been an eternity before now. I don't know about you, for me, the former I can easily grasp, but the latter is mind-boggling. Although logic was used here to suggest a double-sided eternity, logic sure doesn't allow for no beginning.

So, I ask all of you this; What if you yourself had the potential to discover the truth yourself; whatever "fate" lies ahead. Would you make the effort to discover it? I'll repeat myself (From another post); I think that whatever truth exists, one can only realize it oneself - nobody can realize it for another.

</Edit>I personally think that i'd much easier believe in a truth if i could see it myself. </End edit>

Then, what if each and every one of you had the power to govern how your life shall twist and turn. Would you grasp that power with both hands?

Son

mhernan to the above[B/]

I have to side with the old drunk.
I think he has been peeking in my window and has copied my own ranting and ravings. One does not need a "moral principle" to do good, that is, at a very minimum, not hurting another person, or not being cruel to animals. Someone had to start the morality ball game going at some time so there isn't really a standard, though some will argue. Some Budda men/women practice Buddism to get off the life cycle and to get on with spiritual growth in other dimensions. To me this is silly and arbitrary. As screwed up as thing seem to be life is the onl show in town. AT least there is something to do. We are fortunate tha Mother Nature included time in her creation, otherwise eveything would have happened all at once. I don't want to go to heaven, especially one governed by that idiot maniac described in Deuteronomy, for instance. Where in the old testment from Genesis to Deuteronomy has jehovah done any decent or kind act to any person? He screams, hollers, threatens death, violence and destruction to those straying from his arbitraryily defined path. I think Jehovah was just one of a few thosand space bugs that colonized earth, did a little genetic manipulation and dcreated race of slaves in "gods image'". At least this theory is rational.

I know what fate lies ahead. I don't predict the last days of this body alive, which seems like such a useless enteprise, but the horizon is not that far off, ever. How many good "Christians" want to smother those that compalin about Congressional mandated flag allegience pledging? Hell, anyone can pledge the allegience to the flag anyway they choose and to get political about the matter is not only silly it is socially dangerous. Just don't force anyone to do the politcally mandated facist crap. How many good Christains want to smother people who ingest chemicals that are on the hate list? How many millions of felons are there out there whose lives were trashed when caught up in the drug war insanity? This is the environment our children and grandchildren are growing up in, remember. Anger siommers and turns to violance if provoked.
The postings by ProtractedSilence are naive enough, though apparently they work for him, or her, but rue the day when that smug godly law becmes written in the penal codes. What do mean when? The religious laws are the ones corrupting this country and planet. Prostituion, screwing for money is evil, but hooking into a rich dude for a ride is cool? Gambling in Nevada and the Res all nicely regulated where the money goes to a few well greased palms is cool , but betting on the Raiders with a friend in New York is a RICO violation, that's organized crime for those not into federal acronyms. You have a .05 blood alcohol and you have committed a crime if driving a car. What ever happened to proving the driver was out of it by the facts, not the legislative mandated arrogance of setting a number? A sexually active 15 year old woman has sex (again) with her boyfriensd on his 18th birthday and he automatically becomes a felon, so wise is it not?
People who spend all their precious moments living in some mental state of having "found god" are crippled and need help. I reefer you to some appropriate oragnic materials for unraveling the stress that kills so many millions of persons walking the tight rope of social and governmemental rigidity. 'Don't' is a four letter word, with apostrophe added. 'Do' is love and expression and creating one's own soul and happiness. "And who would deny a man those things that take from the path but a bit of the lonliness?" (quoth Ho Chi Minh, known by the Vietnamese people of his time as the "George Washington" of their country. But then France wanted Vietnam back after WWII, it was theirs wasn't it?
It isn't anyone business but the person, the human being who enjoys the inalienable right to do with her body as she/he sees fit. A person who is unable to care for his owh safety or the safety of others, needs PROTECTION not a kick in the balls.

 

[olde drunk]

olde drunk,

I'm not sure you read anything I write carefully, but I do appreciate your jovial attitude.

I tried living as you say, making up my own right and wrong. But the problem was...I made it up - - and it didn't mean anything
"

it will mean EVERYTHING when you stop buying the idea that you are unworthy. we are all worthy of god's love; not his wrath. you talked of loving parents, how could a perfect loving parent ever 'damn' one of his creations??

i repeat, life is fun - enjoy it! this is NOT a life or death struggle.

my god loves me even when i screw-up. he knows I'm exploring and stretching the envelope. i often tell my god to **** off! just to know that it is OK and i will not be hit by lightening. it's fun playing with god in his sand box; he even let's me make up some of the games and rules. he ain't kicked me outta da box either.

peace & love,

 

[olde drunk]

mhernan

why don't ja tell us how you REALLYREALLY feel.

i love it. have a drink on me. or a ho if you prefer. lol

peace & love,