There is no life after death (and no hell)

[Laser Eyes]

This issue came up in the letter to Dr Laura thread and rather than letting that thread deviate from its topic I thought I would deal with the issue here.

I made a comment where I said:

There is no eternal suffering and there is no hell. That is a fiction created by Satan's empire of false religion to control and intimidate people. When you die that is the end of your life, period.

Phobos then said:

Can you elaborate? Where is this viewpoint from? Doesn't seem to match the common Judeo-Christian or even Islamic beliefs.

Various scriptures in the Bible tell us that our life ends when we die. It is a complete and final end. There is no life after death. There is no immortal soul. And there is no eternal suffering or hell. I know this is not what Judaism or most so-called Christian churches teach but it is what the Bible says. Most supposedly Christian churches just do not teach what the Bible says. They create their own doctrines and over time these doctrines become entrenched teachings.

Let us look first of all at what God told Adam. After commanding Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God said: "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Note the consequence of disobedience. Adam would die. God did not say: "If you disobey me your physical body will die but you have an immortal soul that will go on living forever and you will suffer eternal punishment".

Let's move forward now to after Adam has eaten the forbidden fruit. God pronounces sentence on Adam and Eve and finishes with the statement: "For dust you are, and to dust you shall return." Here is a statement from God clearly explaining what death means. Adam would simply cease to exist. There is no mention of an immortal soul or eternal punishment in a fiery place of torment.

Some scriptures expressly deal with the condition of the dead and indicate that far from being a place of suffering, the common grave of mankind is a place of inactivity:

"For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 9:5-6

"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going." - Ecclesiastes 9:10

Another scripture equates the condition of dead humans with dead animals. In life man is superior to animals but in death we are all alike: "For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; ... as one dies, so dies the other ... All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust." - Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

Jesus described death like being asleep. When Jesus learned of Lazarus' death he traveled with his disciples to Lazarus' grave intending to resurrect him. On the way Jesus said to his disciples: "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up." If Lazarus had already passed on to a life in heaven it would hardly have been kind of Jesus to resurrect him back to an imperfect life on earth.

Let us consider one more argument based on logic and common sense, not scripture. Assume for the sake of this argument that God is indeed the loving God that he tells us he is. Even we imperfect humans would not do what some churches accuse God of doing. I'm reminded of many western movies I've seen where the cowboy's horse goes lame and rather than let the horse die of thirst in the desert the cowboy shoots the horse to spare it the torture of a painful death. Even the worst kind of evil gunslinger in these movies will not walk away and let his horse suffer. Yet most supposedly Christian churches teach (and many people swallow) a story about what would have to be the cruelest act that God could do - create a place of eternal torment and suffering, a place where God would put anyone who rejected him, and this God would look forever on this place and watch humans endure pain and agony. That is not the God of the Bible and it is not the God of this universe.

 

[Phobos]

Interesting. I certainly don't recall any mention of an afterlife in my reading of the Bible so far (granted, I'm only up to Joshua so far). I'm interested to see the debate on this topic.

IIRC (and this was the subject of a past topic of mine), the Jewish belief system does not include a Hell...just distance/closeness to God in the afterlife.

Yet most supposedly Christian churches teach (and many people swallow) a story about what would have to be the cruelest act that God could do - create a place of eternal torment and suffering, a place where God would put anyone who rejected him, and this God would look forever on this place and watch humans endure pain and agony. That is not the God of the Bible and it is not the God of this universe.

This is one of the first things, if not THE first thing, I questioned about religion when I was a child. It did not seem right (and still doesn't) that anything done within a mere 70 year lifetime could deserve such a horrible eternal punishment. The distance/closeness fate I mentioned above seems to make more sense.

 

[Iacchus32]

Ruling Love

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/editpost.php?s=&action=editpost&postid=19825" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by megashawn
If god does truly care, then there is not a heaven or hell, merely afterlife. For any decent person would never inflict life long suffering upon another decent being. If god is not atleast this good, I'll have no part.

The thing of it is is that you have to separate people according to what they believe, otherwise there would be nothing but constant antagonism in the afterlife, in which case it's necessary for hell to exist if only for this reason. Whereas everyone comes into what's called their "ruling love" (that which they love most), which is what guides them and detemines their state of existence in the afterlife.

While it's for this reason that both heaven and hell are very diversified (more than you can imagine), in order to accommodate the myriad of distinctions to be made here. So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.

Excerpt from http://www.swedenborg.com/" , Heaven and Hell ...

Man after death is his own love or his own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold experience. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his like, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves.

This is a very good book by the way, and it's highly recommended..

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes

Various scriptures in the Bible tell us that our life ends when we die. It is a complete and final end. There is no life after death. There is no immortal soul. And there is no eternal suffering or hell. I know this is not what Judaism or most so-called Christian churches teach but it is what the Bible says. Most supposedly Christian churches just do not teach what the Bible says. They create their own doctrines and over time these doctrines become entrenched teachings.

All of your quotes are from the old testament which is before Jesus allowed man an option to eternal death. I don't think any of them can be used the way you are using them. They must be read into context. There are countless passages in in the new testament which speak of eternal life.

As for the common sense piece of your thread... I can certainly relate. But you're going to judge god based on what a human considers good? This is flawed logic.

 

[Messiah]

?

You were obviously DEAD before you were conceived in the womb.
You are (presumably) ALIVE now.
Life after death...c'mon, get real...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Messiah
You were obviously DEAD before you were conceived in the womb.
You are (presumably) ALIVE now.
Life after death...c'mon, get real...

And yet "I" did not exist, in order to "Die to the Lie" ... that there is no afterlife.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet "I" did not exist, in order to "Die to the Lie" ... that there is no afterlife.

Do you REALLY believe you were 'created' at conception?
Why?
Every particle of your body existed prior to your birth.
Why would you - the entity wearing the 'mud' - be any different?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Messiah
Do you REALLY believe you were 'created' at conception?
Why?
Every particle of your body existed prior to your birth.
Why would you - the entity wearing the 'mud' - be any different?

All I know is I wasn't conscious until after I was born. And yet there's something about consciousness that suggests I've always been here and, that I'm not supposed to die. Do you know why? Because my soul is conscious and, that consciousness -- i.e., "via the moment" -- is tied to Eternity.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
All I know is I wasn't conscious until after I was born. And yet there's something about consciousness that suggests I've always been here and, that I'm not supposed to die. Do you know why? Because my soul is conscious and, that consciousness -- i.e., "via the moment" -- is tied to Eternity.

Consciousness (like body odor) is a state of being. It comes and goes and is highly dependent on the condition of your body. When you are unconscious (don't smell), it doesn't mean you have ceased to exist.

Think of death as changing clothes. You wouldn't wear the same sox for eighty years. Without death, there would be no evolution and we would all be micro-organisms chasing each other for breakfast.

Eternity is a two way street. Forward and backward.

Existence is eternal. Change is eternal. Life - a state of being - comes and goes.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Messiah
Consciousness (like body odor) is a state of being. It comes and goes and is highly dependent on the condition of your body. When you are unconscious (don't smell), it doesn't mean you have ceased to exist.

And yet people are conscious even when they sleep -- "in their dreams."

Think of death as changing clothes. You wouldn't wear the same sox for eighty years. Without death, there would be no evolution and we would all be micro-organisms chasing each other for breakfast.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust ... but the "soul" lives on.

Eternity is a two way street. Forward and backward.

Eternity is Ever-Present.

Existence is eternal. Change is eternal. Life - a state of being - comes and goes.

On a temporal earthly plane that is.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet people are conscious even when they sleep -- "in their dreams."


Ashes to ashes, dust to dust ... but the "soul" lives on.


Eternity is Ever-Present.


On a temporal earthly plane that is.

Yes, I guess that means Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa are still around...somewhere...

 

[Laser Eyes]

All of your quotes are from the old testament which is before Jesus allowed man an option to eternal death. I don't think any of them can be used the way you are using them. They must be read into context. There are countless passages in in the new testament which speak of eternal life.

There is no difference between the old testament and the new testament on fundamental things like the nature of our existence. Basic things like what happens to us when we die do not change between the old and the new testament. The whole Bible was written by God and is consistent throughout. There are indeed many passages in both the old and the new testament that speak of everlasting life but that raises further questions. What kind of everlasting life is it talking about and how do we get it?

The everlasting life that God intended for Adam and Eve was an everlasting life on earth, not in the spiritual realm. Remember what God told Adam and Eve to do: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the Earth and subdue it". God gave them satisfying work to perform here on Earth in their home. They were given everlasting life by design. It was God's gift to them. If they remained faithful they would never die. But they lost their perfect condition when they sinned and cut off from God's energy their bodies slowly deteriorated and they died. In the meantime they were able to pass on an imperfect existence to their offspring.

The everlasting life that is spoken of throughout the Bible that we can gain is an everlasting life here on Earth as physical beings. God's plan was for the Earth to be populated and that plan has not changed, merely the means for bringing it about. Consider Psalms 37:29 - "The righteous shall inherit the land, And dwell in it forever." and Psalms 37:11 - "The meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." This is our hope for our own future and the future of mankind, an everlasting life here in an earthly paradise. You can see this design reflected in our conduct. Throughout history people have been obsessed with finding "the elixir of immortality". Why? Because God made us with an inbuilt desire to want to continue living forever. But note that this desire is usually expressed in terms of wanting to continue living as a physical human. You don't hear people talking about how they would love to be angels and live in heaven, usually it's expressed as a desire to keep living here on earth. (There actually will be a small number of people that will become spirit beings but I don't want to unnecessarily complicate things by going into that here.)

Everything that I have said so far is consistent with the view that death is a state of non-existence, we return to the dust from which we were made. Adam not only lost everlasting life for himself, he lost it for all of us too. God needed a way to reverse the effect of Adam's failure and that's where Jesus comes in. Jesus came to Earth and lived a perfect life, he never sinned, he showed perfect obedience to God's law and he died. His death is something of great value. Just as one man lost everlasting life for all, so too the death of one perfect man can recover it for all: "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 Here again is further proof that there is no life after death. The hope of resurrection is a theme throughout the Bible. The meaning of resurrection is to bring the dead back to life. If we lived on after we died then why do we need a resurrection? It is only because when we die we cease to exist in the way I have explained that we need to be resurrected.

Jesus did not teach that everlasting life was something that we enjoyed automatically or that we had an immortal soul that lived on after we died. He taught that everlasting life was something that had to be earnt and that there were requirements to be fulfilled: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life'" - John 11:25

As for the common sense piece of your thread... I can certainly relate. But you're going to judge god based on what a human considers good? This is flawed logic.

It's not so unrealistic as all that. Remember that we were made in God's image. Man has reasoning power, he has attributes like those of God such as love and a sense of justice. We can certainly form a view on the justice of punishing someone forever for the errors of this short life.

 

[megashawn]

I had always understood that (according to christian beliefs) when a person died, he/she remained in the grave until judgement day. At this time, he was either cast into hell, or welcomed to heaven. I've heard countless storys of heaven being paved with gold (seems like bad traction surface to me).

It seems that everything you say negates the point in going to church, believing in a god. What purpose is it to spend your life worshipping a god that is just going to watch you fade away? People go to church because they are afraid to die, and this #1 fear that we must all face is what churches prey on. If churches preached what you claim, people would not come, as it does not remove one's fear of death anymore so then atheism.

So, according to your beliefs/claims we will never meet our loved ones in heaven, or get chased around hell by the devil and his pitchfork?

What is your reason again?

 

[FZ+]

I read a really disturbing letter in my newspaper today.

It said something in the effect of:

" Mr. X urges Christians to move towards a tolerant society. But Christianity is not about tolerance. Rather, true christians believe that truth is contained in the bible, that things like tolerance are worldly things. This does not mean that we should not love God, but appreciate the bible as truth without manipulation and avoid such worldly elements. "

I'll see if I can find the quote...

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
On a temporal earthly plane that is.

sounds a little crack-pottish to me. what other plane is there than the "temporal earthly plane".

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
sounds a little crack-pottish to me. what other plane is there than the "temporal earthly plane".

If this is all there is, then what do we even need morals for? Why should we give a crap, if there were no "long-lasting" repercussions?

If in fact there were a "sense of purpose" in life, then where does it come from? There must be more to it than this "fleeting existence?"

This is actually a good point, and probably should be explored in depth. You know, why should we be concerned about our actions, if there is no accountability for them? Then hey, you can pretty much do as you damn well please, and when you're dead you're dead, and who gives a crap?

 

[FZ+]

Because you give a crap. Your moral conscience, engrained by society and partially genes care. Because your life today directly suffers. Because it's up to you to give meaning to your own life so you matter to yourself, and is satisfied.

A feeling of purpose does not mean there is in fact a purpose, outside of what you give or others give.

If life goes on after death, and what we do can negatively influence it, why do we live at all? Why don't we just shoot ourselves here and move on?

Because we believe that our life here is worth living outside of whatever happens afterwards, that's why. Because the point of morality and doing what you feel is right has in fact nothing to do with a reward at the end of it.

In fact, that is supposedly true even if you do believe in God and an afterlife. Unless if you infer the whole goodness and rewards etc process is an exercise in personal hypocrisy...

Hence I support what Laser Eyes is saying.

 

[Kagmi]

Could the Law of Conservation of Energy influence this discussion in any way?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Because you give a crap. Your moral conscience, engrained by society and partially genes care. Because your life today directly suffers. Because it's up to you to give meaning to your own life so you matter to yourself, and is satisfied.

A feeling of purpose does not mean there is in fact a purpose, outside of what you give or others give.

If life goes on after death, and what we do can negatively influence it, why do we live at all? Why don't we just shoot ourselves here and move on?

Because we believe that our life here is worth living outside of whatever happens afterwards, that's why. Because the point of morality and doing what you feel is right has in fact nothing to do with a reward at the end of it.

In fact, that is supposedly true even if you do believe in God and an afterlife. Unless if you infer the whole goodness and rewards etc process is an exercise in personal hypocrisy...

Hence I support what Laser Eyes is saying.

Nice try! But hey there's no need to get all sentimental about it, because when you're dead you're dead, and it will be as if you were never here ... i.e., so long as you "remain dead."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Kagmi
Could the Law of Conservation of Energy influence this discussion in any way?

Am not sure what you mean?

Hey, did Einstein actually say that about imagination and knowledge? Better not let anybody else know about that around here!

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If this is all there is, then what do we even need morals for? Why should we give a crap, if there were no "long-lasting" repercussions?

we don't necesarily need to give a crap.

If in fact there were a "sense of purpose" in life, then where does it come from? There must be more to it than this "fleeting existence?"

the sense of purpose is what drives us to be succesful. evolution supports success (obviously). if we have a sense of moral and goodness in this society of humans we do better. now, you must understand me: morals are important in this society. they have no consiquence in the universe beyond humans. can you deny that this makes sence?

You know, why should we be concerned about our actions, if there is no accountability for them? Then hey, you can pretty much do as you damn well please, and when you're dead you're dead, and who gives a crap?

are you being sarcastic? becuase you've pretty much got it. nothing really matters. people who have gone through their whole life not breaking a single law, and always being moral and good will die just the same as a man who has not. the difference is that our society does not accept the man who does not obey, and therefore he does less well in life. leaving his "rebel" gene to be canceled by the evolutionary process. goodness is an illusion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
we don't necesarily need to give a crap.

If we don't give a crap then why are we here?

the sense of purpose is what drives us to be succesful. evolution supports success (obviously). if we have a sense of moral and goodness in this society of humans we do better. now, you must understand me: morals are important in this society. they have no consiquence in the universe beyond humans. can you deny that this makes sence?

Hmm ... It sounds like everybody pretty much agrees that we need a sense of morality in order to co-exist. But what does that mean, if it's only arbitrary? Nature creates a sense of purpose, but only temporarily, before it cancels itself out? But where does this "energy field" that we associate with our consciousness go when we die? It just fizzles out right?

are you being sarcastic? becuase you've pretty much got it. nothing really matters. people who have gone through their whole life not breaking a single law, and always being moral and good will die just the same as a man who has not. the difference is that our society does not accept the man who does not obey, and therefore he does less well in life. leaving his "rebel" gene to be canceled by the evolutionary process. goodness is an illusion.

Hey don't mind me, I was never here!

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If this is all there is, then what do we even need morals for? Why should we give a crap, if there were no "long-lasting" repercussions?

you need moral because it makes your life pleasant. Suppose you don't give a crap and start kicking everyone's a**. How long do you think you can do that? In a short time some people wil start kicking your a** and you couldn't do anything to stop them.
If you want a civilised society you've got to have rules, that stops people to behave like animals. Laws and moral evolved with the evolution of human society and without them we probably woudn't pass the tribal organization.
If you choose to folow them for fear of hell, God, lack of "life after death" or some other reason, that doesn't prove some divine purpose. IMO.

I'm sorry to say, but until now I have heard this kind of "why should we care for others if there's no eternal punishment..."argument only from religious people.

 

[HazZy]

lasereyes I'm very interested on your take on john 3:16-21.

the difference is that our society does not accept the man who does not obey, and therefore he does less well in life. leaving his "rebel" gene to be canceled by the evolutionary process. goodness is an illusion.

i don't know which newspaper your reading, but the "rebels" are winning. we're not gaining morals, were losing them. not that any of this has anything to do with the discussion... okay I am done.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
you need moral because it makes your life pleasant. Suppose you don't give a crap and start kicking everyone's a**. How long do you think you can do that? In a short time some people wil start kicking your a** and you couldn't do anything to stop them.

Yes, but everybody would begin to do it to everybody else, until there was nobody left to do it to, and then what?

If you want a civilised society you've got to have rules, that stops people to behave like animals. Laws and moral evolved with the evolution of human society and without them we probably woudn't pass the tribal organization.

But what makes us any better than the animals in the first place?

If you choose to folow them for fear of hell, God, lack of "life after death" or some other reason, that doesn't prove some divine purpose. IMO.

Or, if you follow them because it "seems right," then that proves you're "sincere." And therein lies the reward perhaps?

I'm sorry to say, but until now I have heard this kind of "why should we care for others if there's no eternal punishment..."argument only from religious people.

An arbitrary post from an arbitrary person, in response to which for all intents and purposes is but a "fleeting illusion."

Actually it's kind of nice to know that people believe in the need for morals, that means there's still hope.

P.S. If there were a heaven and a hell, we need not look at it in terms of punishment versus reward (as one cannot "insinuate" oneself into heaven), but rather as a "means to an end." In which case we can still observe its cause and effect, so long as we don't "contrive" to be the effect of the cause which is sincere. Does that make any sense?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Yes, but everybody would begin to do it to everybody else, until there was nobody left to do it to, and then what?

then there would probably be no more posts on any forum in this world. That was my point either. The lack of morality and rules of behaviour from a group of people would lead to the extinction of that particular group. Therefore we need morals to assure the continuity of our civilization. All I said is that there is no reason for "eternal punishment" to promote them.

Or, if you follow them because it "seems right," then that proves you're "sincere." And therein lies the reward perhaps?

If you follow them it means you choose to interact in a peaceful way with other people. And maybe make a friend or two along the way...

An arbitrary post from an arbitrary person...

Is this your way of saying that you like me?

In which case we can still observe its cause and effect, so long as we don't "contrive" to be the effect of the cause which is sincere.

I'm afraid you lost me with this... can you make it a bit clearer

 

[Laser Eyes]

I had always understood that (according to christian beliefs) when a person died, he/she remained in the grave until judgement day. At this time, he was either cast into hell, or welcomed to heaven.

I wouldn't put too much faith in what the empire of Christendom says. Many beliefs taught by the mainstream Christian churches are not based on the Bible and are contradicted by the Bible. You can always test what people tell you by asking them to prove it to you. God does not ask for blind faith. The God of this universe is a reasonable God and he shows respect for the intellectual ability he gave us. If someone tells you that what they say is from the Bible then ask them to show you scriptural proof.
At judgment day those who have died have the hope of a resurrection. The Bible says there will be a resurrection and it will not be limited to those who have lived righteous lives: "I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." - Acts 24:15 As I explained above it will be a resurrection to an Earth that has been transformed into a paradise, not this corrupt and screwed up world.

So, according to your beliefs/claims we will never meet our loved ones in heaven, or get chased around hell by the devil and his pitchfork?

You won't meet them in heaven but you can meet them on earth. What a happy occasion that will be. To see your dead husband or wife or son or daughter again. To tell them the things you wanted to but never got around to. To see the love of your life again and know that you will never lose them again. The time of resurrection will be a most joyous time

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but everybody would begin to do it to everybody else, until there was nobody left to do it to, and then what?

i don't quite know what you mean. do you mean that if everyone abandoned their morals, our society would kick the sh** out of itself? basically yes. but that doesn't happen becuase our biological evolution and the evolution of our society have drilled that gene out of us, for the most part.

But what makes us any better than the animals in the first place?

nothing makes us better than them. we are one! we control them because we've has more successful evolutions that have produced us. an intelligent, moral people. without morals society couldn't hold out. and without society we'de be back on square one, righting the sabertooth tigers. (joking!)

Or, if you follow them because it "seems right," then that proves you're "sincere." And therein lies the reward perhaps?

on the contrary, its very insicere! most people only obey the law because they realize the consiquences to theirselves, not others.

Actually it's kind of nice to know that people believe in the need for morals, that means there's still hope.

morals in society, yes. morals in the universe? no. it's a cold, impersonal world out there.

 

[crystalbreeze32]

Dead man from Birmingham makes contact with the living

Birmingham dead man claims to be a spirit

------------------------------------------------------

This a strange one. A guy called Michael Pennington claims to be a spirit and having died in 1971 he is now involved in a global quest to unite all those in the spirit world. If that wasnt bad enought he involves alien spirits and all sorts of plots. This person touches on religion quite a lot and claims many Christians are narrow minded by accepting God but then blanking out all possibility of spirits and aliens. He points to actual things in the Bible that back up some of what he says.

Its actually well written and believable and it has quite a following. Page after page of writings and messages the longest forum thread I have ever seen for certain. This mans writings delve into every aspect of the supernatural, paranormal and religion and its happening live too.

Its at

http://www.birminghamuk.com/forum

Id love to know what other peoples thoughts are on ghosts and alien collaboration and other dimensions of spiritualism.

 

[Canute]

There is no third-person evidence for what happens to us (our soul, being, consciousness, spirit, whatever) after our death. It is immaterial what the Bible says on this, the Bible is not certain evidence of anything.

However all people who claim to know to know something about it, Gnostics, mystics, Buddhists, Tao-ists, etc., claim that we do not simply cease to exist on our phsyical death, the usual conclusion is that our 'self' ceases to exist but that we are more than our 'self'.

It seems then that what evidence there is, albeit that it's unprovable, suggests we do not simply evaporate on the death of our bodies. These same people assert that we (all) can know this, given the right appraoch to knowing.

Until there is some third-person evidence there is therefore no justification for assuming that we cease to exist completely when we die. It is just an arbitrary opinion.

As for morality, it may be that morality is relative and that there is no 'right' behaviour. However many people claim to know (as opposed to believe) the truth about reality and these people, however insane they may be, invariably choose the same moral standards and lifestyles as each other. This is quite a coincidence.

Until we can prove them wrong we have no idea whether morality is relative or entailed by the nature of our true selves. We don't know these things.

As for Bible's words on death it is worth reading the Gospel of Mary, which in many people's opinion gives a far more sophisticated and true version of Jesus's teaching than were given by the disciples. It is only a fragment but it is very obviously more Gnostic (and Buddhist) in its flavour and suggests pretty much the same as Buddhists and other non-dual doctrines do about death.

The Gospel of Mary suggests that the disciples, and thus the Church misunderstood Jesus's message on these issues, with unfortunate consequences. All IMVHO of course.

 

[Polly]

Originally posted by Canute

As for Bible's words on death it is worth reading the Gospel of Mary, which in many people's opinion gives a far more sophisticated and true version of Jesus's teaching than were given by the disciples. It is only a fragment but it is very obviously more Gnostic (and Buddhist) in its flavour and suggests pretty much the same as Buddhists and other non-dual doctrines do about death.

Thank you Canute, for the information. I read the Gospel of Mary on-line and must say it, for lack of a better word and no offence intended whatsoever, "redeemed" the image of Jesus in my mind. As a former covent school girl, I have always regarded him as a man who knew all about love but a bit dumbing-down in his teaching, "Certainly we are capable of understanding something deeper." would be my reaction every time after reading the Bible. The Gospel of Mary adds considerable sophistication to his teaching and depth to his character. I can believe now a man knowing what he knew as described in the Gospel would go about preaching the way he did and a tremendous sense of respect, warmth and gratitude is kindled in my heart. It is very unfortunate indeed that his teaching should not have been understood to the fullest extent. But that perhaps was inevitable given the historical context, the short span of time he stayed with the disciples and their aptitude. Buddha on the other hand had had nearly 6 decades (?) to expound his teaching to a large congregation of relatively accomplished monks and thinkers and therefore was better understood. Thank you again.

 

[Canute]

Polly

You might like to look at the Gospel of Thomas as well, another Gnostic version of events. Thanks for the thanks. Like you I found it an eye opener. IMO Mary's views should have been used to found the Church, not the dumbed down version of Peter et al.

As it is Mary's Gospel served as foundation for a number of Gnostic sects. However these were eventually harried out of existence by the church as being heretical, and we got stuck with a naive Sunday school interpretation of Jesus's words.

Good point about how much longer the Buddha taught than Jesus.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
However all people who claim to know to know something about it, Gnostics, mystics, Buddhists, Tao-ists, etc., claim that we do not simply cease to exist on our phsyical death, the usual conclusion is that our 'self' ceases to exist but that we are more than our 'self'.
[/B]

Depends on the Buddhists. Some don't believe in anything after death. [Buddhism w/o Beliefs - Stephen Batchelor]

 

[Polly]

To do Mr Batchelor justice, I paste below what I perceive to be the main thrust of his argument given in an interview in the USA on 18 April, 2000


Bammes: What, then, is essential to Buddhism as you explain it in Buddhism Without Beliefs, and what is cultural baggage that need not be included?

Batchelor: I think there is a danger in the very [term] "essential." Buddhism is in many ways an anti-essentialist tradition; in other words, it is very suspicious in much of its thinking of the idea that anything can be reduced to any sort of core or essence. I think it's more useful to look at this question in terms of what we can recognize as cultural rather than, let's say, Dharmic features.
I think here we have to go back to recognize that the Buddha himself, in 5th Century BC India, was, of course, speaking to a particular culture at a particular time, and it seems that he, necessarily was a product of that culture. He took on board, for example, the idea of reincarnation and so forth, without really questioning it. He never actually had to stand up in front of an audience and persuade people that there are many lifetimes from which you pass through from force of karma.

Bammes: This was the context . . .

Batchelor: This was the context of his time. It's very difficult for us to put ourselves back into another epoch so remote in time from our own. I think it's much the same as if, for example, someone were teaching today and simply spoke about the sense of the universe as having arisen from the Big Bang and the universe as being an expanding thing and so forth and so on. No one would actually stand up and say, "Wait a minute, I don't think that's true."

Bammes: Or the idea that humans evolved . . .

Batchelor: Or the idea that humans evolved from other forms of life. We simply take that for granted. Now it could be that in 500 years' time we could have a very different view of things. But that is the world that we collectively assent to, much in the same way that a view of life as consisting of many different rebirths and so on was the collective consensus in India at the time of the Buddha. Now the question, of course, and this is a very debatable one, is to what extent is that idea true and to what extent is it simply a feature of that world view. I don't have really any interest in declaring that rebirth is true or false. I cannot, from my own experience or from my own reflection, decide one way or the other. I have a hunch that it's probably a cultural idea.

Bammes: But your view is essentially an agnostic one, as opposed to an atheist, again using terms that listeners are going to understand, an agnostic view, saying, "I don't know and I don't need to know."

Batchelor: Yeah. I would actually describe my position as agnostic, but perhaps to be more exact, I would describe it as a deep agnosticism. In other words, I think one can take the Western notion of agnosticism one step further through the Buddhist tradition and recognize at the very heart of Buddhist practice lies an ongoing inquiry, and any kind of inquiry or questioning requires an openness to the fact that there is something about our lives, who we are, what the world is, that we do not know. Buddhism pursues that kind of inquiry and not-knowing through its various contemplative disciplines. The practice of awareness, of Vipassana, of Zen and so on are all ways of, as it were, penetrating into the very depths of our experience, and that, I think, always requires an openness to the fact that perhaps reality is not pin-down-able in neat, clear-cut assertions or beliefs, but there is something fundamentally mysterious about it, and it's in that sense, I think, that we can move from a superficial agnosticism in which, as you said, it's simply a statement of "I don't know and I'm actually not terribly interested," into taking the principle of agnosticism, of not knowing, as a kind of principle of spiritual and meditative inquiry.
So I would suspend judgement about many of the metaphysical beliefs of Buddhism, but at the same time, I would seek to elevate the critical thread that runs through Buddhist tradition to a somewhat higher level than it is often presented in the traditional schools. I think Buddhism has within itself its own tradition of skepticism, its own tradition of inquiry, that have many strong resonances with the kind of inquiry we would associate with Western philosophy and science.

What do I think? I think Mr. Batchelor is very misguided and removed from true buddhist teachings. He should have titled his book "An Agnostic Atheist's Uninformed View on Buddhism", but then that probably won't sell as well as "Buddhism without Beliefs".

 

[Canute]

Mr Batchelor should not be allowed near a microphone or a typewriter. He obviously knows as much about Buddhism as I do about flying a spaceship, and quite possibly less.

 

[radagast]

Canute,
Yes, you have made the point before about myself, despite the prospect that I hope to be ordained within a year. I get the feeling you believe you have a corner on all Buddhist concepts, and those that disagree with you are not True Buddhists. Or was that Scotsman...

Your beliefs may harmonize strongly with certain schools of Buddhism, but it is highly parochial to assume that other schools, such as Zen, share these concepts or "are not True Buddhists" because they don't.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast Canute,
Yes, you have made the point before about myself, despite the prospect that I hope to be ordained within a year. I get the feeling you believe you have a corner on all Buddhist concepts, and those that disagree with you are not True Buddhists. Or was that Scotsman..

Are you agreeing with Batchelor rather than the Buddha?

Your beliefs may harmonize strongly with certain schools of Buddhism, but it is highly parochial to assume that other schools, such as Zen, share these concepts or "are not True Buddhists" because they don't. [/B]

[/quote]
I'm not interested in 'schools' and I'm not a Buddhist. However I know the Sutras and the world well enough to dismiss the sort of nonsense Batchelor talks in the quoted interview.

If you want to support what he says you'll have to be specific.

 

[mhernan]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
.

Let us look first of all at what God told Adam. After commanding Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God said: "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Note the consequence of disobedience. Adam would die. God did not say: "If you disobey me your physical body will die but you have an immortal soul that will go on living forever and you will suffer eternal punishment".

Let's move forward now to after Adam has eaten the forbidden fruit. God pronounces sentence on Adam and Eve and finishes with the statement: "For dust you are, and to dust you shall return." Here is a statement from God clearly explaining what death means. Adam would simply cease to exist. There is no mention of an immortal soul or eternal punishment in a fiery place of torment.

Let us look again at the bible and maintain a posture that the bible speaks the literal truth. Of course there is gross patterns of editing, but the truth does shine through.

I cannot read genesis to infer that god forbade Adam not eat the forbidden fruit a pure test of obedience. There was much more. Remember, the fruit was more than "tasting good". When the serpent confronted Eve who stated that god said they, Eve and Adam, would surely die on the day they ate the fruit. The serpent then told Eve that god knew they wouldn't die and that eating the fruit their eyes would open and they would know what is good and evil and hence become as god.

When god caught Adam and Eve and said all the things he is quoted as saying he ultimately clothed them in skins and sent them from the garden. Remember also that Adam and Eve were broughht to the garden, not to kick back and dig the good life, they were brought there to "tend" the garden. Once the couple ate the fruit and "became like god", as god himslef recognized, they were wortheless as "slaves", the position for which they were created in the first place. [God said , "let US make man in our image". Here, god is recognizing others equal to his status and he is talking to them gathered there at the time of the statement. Later in the bible god rants and raves about not ""taking another god before me", or else they die.] God just got someone else to work the garden. Also, remember that god was thankful, relieved is mroe like it, that Edam and Eve didn't eat from the tree of everlasting life. God couldn't have this.

Ask around. Is there any reason why mankind should be denied a quick access to knowledge of "good and evil"? You bet there is. If Laser Eyes and Mhernan knew of good and evil from the simple activity of digesting some substance, then where does that leave god who seems bent on maintaining control of the masses with his monotonous repeitition of the stupidest kind of moral limitations imaginable. If god has no ears that listen, and listen obediently, to his stiffling oratory, then the people are free. It is a reasonable to tell a young person, child etc, not to do drugs because they will "kill you". There is the obedience motivation by the parent, but it isn't obedience for obedience sake. The prohibition from using drugs is for the benefit of the child's health, though somewhat crudely and grossly presented..

I have a friend whjo told me that when she firsts smoked a joint that she spoke "This stuff shouldn't be illegal." The words are prophetic, because a policeman witnessing one smoking a joint will very likely kidnap them off the street and charge them with a crime. The moral of the story here is that my friend, whos's eyes were opened and became like god, saw correctly that she was good and that the policeman was evil.

 

[ProtractedSilence]

reading the Bible carefully

Gen 1:16-17 “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 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."”

Gen 3:4-5 "The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 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."

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

Before Adam ate the fruit, he was warned not to do something by God. Then Eve was persuaded, and Adam agreed with the alternate reality proposed by the serpent that if he ate the fruit he would be like God; knowing good from evil. After the event, we see two things: 1) God agrees that now they know good from evil. 2) They are not dead. What does this mean?

This passage is not talking about physical death, it is talking about spiritual death, i.e. separation from God. Why are they separated from God? They are separated because instead of choosing to use God as a reference for good and evil, the chose to “be like God, knowing good from evil.” What does being like God mean? It means choosing right and wrong for ourselves instead of relying on God’s standard or good and evil. The problem with this is that people weren’t designed to be able to do this, so that left our own, what we choose as good and evil violate God’s moral character, and he cannot relate to us because He is perfection and cannot accept our defects without compromising Himself.


The Bible talks all about life after death. It is everywhere. Here are some examples:

John 3:13-17 (Jesus speaking) “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”

Luke 23: 42-43 “And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."


Gen 1:26-27 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

God did not create people to be servants. What does the all-powerful creator of everything need from us? Absolutely nothing. He made us to be rulers in this world, to have importance from being in charge and taking care of each other and the world. This is not the role of a servant.

 

[mhernan]

ProtractedSilence in response to the following:
Here is the message that has just been posted:

mhernan posted that:

Gen 1:16-17 “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 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."”

Gen 3:4-5 "The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 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."

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

Protracted Silence says:

Before Adam ate the fruit, he was warned not to do something by God. Then Eve was persuaded, and Adam agreed with the alternate reality proposed by the serpent that if he ate the fruit he would be like God; knowing good from evil. After the event, we see two things: 1) God agrees that now they know good from evil. 2) They are not dead.What does this mean?


ProtractedSilence continues:

This passage is not talking about physical death, it is talking about spiritual death, i.e. separation from God.

Mhernan replies thus

This passage does not distinguish between spiritual and physical death. This bifurcation belongs to ProtractedSilence alone. Clearly, Adam and Eve were using the “physical death”, dying, and meaning as we understand the word today. When I say, ”My grandmother died.” no one asks me if it was a spiritual or physical death. The death as presented by ProtractedSilence is modern dogma unsupported by Gospel.

ProtractedSilence continues:

Why are they separated from God? They are separated because instead of choosing to use God as a reference for good and evil, the chose to “be like God, knowing good from evil.”

Mhernan replies thus:

You are missing the point here.

Adam and Eve are completely ignorant of the subject matter of “good and evil”, remember?. My childhood dog was a smart puppy, but he knew nothing of “good and evil” either, at least not as I understood the subject. My short-lived goldfish were even further down the ladder of such silliness. Yet, ignorance is punished as a severe moral lapse? They didn’t know what a choice was.

ProtractedSilence continues:

What does being like God mean. It means choosing right and wrong for ourselves instead of relying on God’s standard of good and evil.

mhernan replies thus:

Is not this not what all our social interactions are supposed to produce? If one of us makes an error in choice the result can be extreme. Adam and Eve hadn’t a clue to what ProtractedSilence says is their “relying on God’s standard of good and evil”.

At least the bible is quoted properly, but ProtractedSilence’s input to the conversation is purely a personal opinion that I am sure jibs with the religious agenda of many Christians.

ProtractedSilence continues:

The problem with this is that people weren’t designed to be able to do this, so that left [on] our own, what we choose as good and evil violate God’s moral character, and he cannot relate to us because He is perfection and cannot accept our defects without compromising Himself.

mhernan replies thus:

I see nothing in the Bible that talks specifically of the design standards of human beings. However, in Gen 2-15 it says: ”And Jehovah God proceeded to take man and settle him in the garden of E’den to cultivate it and to take care of it.” We may rationally infer that God’s plans for the future of Adam and Eve were tending the garden of E’den.

So when “left on our own” violates God’s character! And he is unable to deal with those who show defects of “disobedience” and he is "all powerful"! In the confrontation with Adam and Eve where God discovers the ‘fruitful lunch’, God certainly does not appear as “morally compromised”. After scolding everybody concerned, he dressed Adam and Eve and sent them out of E’den “to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken”(Gen. 3:23).

God provided long garments of skin for Adam and his wife and to clothe them.” (Gen. 3:20)It seems God’s disenchantment has substantially subsided by this time.

Again, the input ProtractedSilence (yours) here is designed to corrupt the clear meaning of the words in the bible, whatever your conscious agenda may be. The phrase, “from which he had been taken” infers, not a God induced birth, but a selection of a pair of humans from a larger herd.

ProtractedSilence continues:

The Bible talks all about life after death. It is everywhere. Here are some examples:

John 3:13-17 (Jesus speaking) “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”

mhernan replies thus:

It seems you have pointed to another essence of Christianity, not discussed in polite circles. Your selected passages do not discuss humans going “into heaven” as only those descended from heaven may ascend to heaven. The acceptance of Jesus as you’ve described only says that humans shall “have eternal life”, not a ticket to heavenly paradise.

Another mal-quoted Christian dogma, for many is the reference that God gave up something special by providing Jesus’ presence on earth, as if Jesus were gone forever from God’s relationship. It is offered as indicating that God gave something spiritually and personally dear to himself. But this cannot be the case as Jesus is reputed to have survived the “crucifixion” with extraordinary ease. And is not “going to Heaven” what its all about for most Christians? The question is, “What did Jesus or God give up for which we benefit?

ProtractedSilence continues:

Luke 23: 42-43 “And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

mhernan replies thus:

I suppose one might equate paradise and Heaven, yet two words are used, both signifying a grand place in the totality of it all, but not necessarily the same grand place.

ProtractedSilence continues:

Gen 1:26-27 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

God did not create people to be servants. What does the all-powerful creator of everything need from us? Absolutely nothing. He made us to be rulers in this world, to have importance from being in charge and taking care of each other and the world. This is not the role of a servant.

mhernan replies thus:

First, at the time the statement, “let us make man in our image . . .” describes a being talking to other beings of a similar stature. God, we conclude is one of many God’s. Certainly, Jehovah’s obsession with his flock taking up with other God’s and discarding Him, Jehovah, was more than anger stemming from a fractured ego.

God doesn’t need servants as he is all-powerful? Well, why then did God go trudging through the garden looking for Adam and Eve, and even call out “where are you?”. It is interesting that you deny God’s need of any of man’s services as he is all powerful, yet is unable to deal with a simple act of disobedience because of moral conflict. God made imperfect human beings and he punishes the humans for their imperfection, for God’s incompetence.

In Deuteronomy 3:3, Moses is quoting Jehovah as “Accordingly Jehovah our God gave into our hand also Og the King of Ba’shan and all his people, and we kept striking him until he had no survivor remaining. 3:4 and we went capturing all his cities at that particular time. There proved to be no town that we did not take from them, sixty cities, all the region of Ar’gob, the Kingdom of Og in Ba’shan. 3:5 All these were cities fortified with a high wall, doors and bar, aside from many rural towns.3:6 However, we devoted them to destruction, just as we had done to Si’hon the King of Hesh’bon, in devoting every city to destruction, men, women and little children. 3:7 And all the domestic animals and the spoil of the cities we took as plunder for ourselves.


Is this the spiritual entity that you present to us as a standard of morality?

 

[ProtractedSilence]

I thought this was an opinion forum? Am I alone in my viewpoint among Christiniaty? No. Are there Christinians who will desagree with me? Most likely. Are there people who disagree with you? Yes, I am one., I’m sure there are more. Does that fact that any person agrees or disagrees with me impact the validity of my statements, not all.

If I really want to pull out all the stops, which among the two of us is an expert on the God of the Bible? I’m guessing its not you. I don’t think I’m an expert, but I have studied the Bible a lot, as well as other religions, and other philosophies. I have weighed and measured them, and I have chosen Christianity as the one that I want to pursue with my life, because it is the most consistent, and best supported of all of them. I have a relationship with the personal, all-powerful God of the universe, and you, whom I’m guessing has none of these qualifications, is going to scold my scholarship because it disagrees with some Christians and I might dare to express things in my own words so that they are concise?

The passage distinguishes spiritual death and physical death for itself. The wording is “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” The Hebrew word for day here refers to a literal, 24 hour, day. So if God was telling the truth that they would die, they ate the fruit, but they did not perish after 24 hours, then it certainly didn’t mean physical death. But what did happen is that they were separated from God. They use to talk with Him and walk with Him in the garden, but they were cast out to never have that kind of relationship again (in their lifetime).

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.

I don’t understand this section of your comment:

“I see nothing in the Bible that talks specifically of the design standards of human beings. However, in Gen 2-15 it says: ”And Jehovah God proceeded to take man and settle him in the garden of E’den to cultivate it and to take care of it.” We may rationally infer that God’s plans for the future of Adam and Eve were tending the garden of E’den.

So when “left on our own” violates God’s character! And he is unable to deal with those who show defects of “disobedience” and he is "all powerful"! In the confrontation with Adam and Eve where God discovers the ‘fruitful lunch’, God certainly does not appear as “morally compromised”. After scolding everybody concerned, he dressed Adam and Eve and sent them out of E’den “to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken”(Gen. 3:23).

God provided long garments of skin for Adam and his wife and to clothe them.” (Gen. 3:20)It seems God’s disenchantment has substantially subsided by this time.

Again, the input ProtractedSilence (yours) here is designed to corrupt the clear meaning of the words in the bible, whatever your conscious agenda may be. The phrase, “from which he had been taken” infers, not a God induced birth, but a selection of a pair of humans from a larger herd.”

Will you please try rephrasing? Thanks


I think God gave them clothes because the ones they had made for themselves were pitiful. No one had taught them how to sew, and they used vines and fig leaves (about the size of a half dollar or smaller each) to try and make underwear. Adam and Eve were so embarrassed by them they were hiding behind a bush.


About the passage in John 3; You may want to look at the phrasing one more time, “No one has ascended (past tense) into heaven, but He who descended (past tense) from heaven: the Son of Man.” What is this saying? Nobody has gone there yet, except Jesus, who came from their already.

What are humans expecting out of this deal? The New Heavens and the New Earth. Check out Revelations 20 for what it will be like. God is going to remake the world, make a new Jerusalem, and God is going to live their among all the people who chose to believe in Him. It will be heaven on earth, because God will be living among us (formerly only happened in heaven). We will live eternally there, because that is how humans were intended to be from the start – only sidetracked by the fall of man.

What did Jesus give up? Well, quite a few things. He gave up 1) His powers as a supreme being, 2) He took on the fallen form of a humans and had to suffer here on Earth like we do, including the death of his father Joseph 3) He gave up his right to be worshipped as God, because when He was killed almost everyone there was actively hating Him. 4) He took on extreme physical punishment and torture. 5) He suffered the sins of the world. Only an infinite being can suffer for the infinite past, present, and future sins of all humans. He took on the full brunt of Gods wrath. 6) It says in 2 Cor 5:21 “He made Him knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” So Jesus knew sin personally for the first time. 7) For jesus to be sin, God had to sever their connection that had existed since before creation. They had always been with each other, but when Jesus was suffering the worst thing possible in the world, he was also alone for the first time, unable to depend on God. This is why Jesus cries out in Matthew 27:46 “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” Interestingly, aside from describing his spiritual state, this is also a quote from Psalm 22:1. All of the Jews there would have recognized this immediately because these were their popular songs. In this Psalm of David, he describes being crucified; a practice which would not be invented for a few hundred years after David’s writing! All of the people standing there probably would have started to think, “huh, that’s crazy, that Psalm sure looks a lot like what’s happening here.”


Since when does the “image’ of something mean it is equal with the thing itself. Is my photograph of the Atlantic ocean the same as standing on the beach? The photograph represents the ocean, but it is not the same as the ocean, or of the same stature as the ocean. I think properly the deconstruction of this verse would be that: The other cultures surrounding the Israelites would eventually become obsessed with making idols of the God’s they worshipped. Yet the Israelites were prohibited of making idols of God. But God says when he creates people that He is making them in His own image. People were intended to be the representation, i.e. idol of God on earth. The way we are and interact was supposed to be representative of God. But we chose to stray from that path and instead we see only glimpses of God’s character in people.

Why did God call out “where are you?” It certainly wasn’t because he didn’t know where they were. He had just finished creating all the world and everything in it. But he did want to give Adam a chance to come and repent for what he had done. He could choose to face up to God for the wrong he had committed. God is a relational being, and the Bible is a record of His character and relationship with humans.


Why does God condone killing? It certainly wasn’t what he had intended for people, but because of the fallen nature of the world he will use destruction to accomplish his plans. God knows peoples hearts, and if he knows they will never accept Him, then if they die today compared to dying in 50 years doesn’t matter if they won’t ever choose Him. The point of our lives here is so that we each can come to have the opportunity to accept God into our hearts. It is a free choice, but God wants the relationship. If we choose against it, then we face an eternity (humans are eternal beings) without God. This eternity will also be devoid of what is good. So it will be an eternity without friendship, without joy, without love, but filled with pain sorrow, disappointment, etc. Basically, take all the crappy things from your life, and that is what hell will be like forever. But you will also know that you chose against God for certain.

 

[mhernan]

life after death

God says, “the man has become like one of Us, wing 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.

Yes, it does mean that the fruit, that wasn’t terrible, it was particularly tasty. Take a scholarly look at Gen. 3:22, and Jehovah god went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,- “ Unless there is some scholarly interpretation that corrupts these words, I have to concluded that indeed it was the fruit that gave Adam and Eve godliness.

QUOTE=ProtractedSilence
I think God gave them clothes because the ones they had made for themselves were pitiful. No one had taught them how to sew, and they used vines and fig leaves (about the size of a half dollar or smaller each) to try and make underwear. Adam and Eve were so embarrassed by them they were hiding behind a bush.

QUOTE=mhernan] in response:
I see you’ve taken God’s side and condemned Adam and Eve with a smug sense of condescension.

.

About the passage in John 3; You may want to look at the phrasing one more time, “No one has ascended (past tense) into heaven, but He who descended (past tense) from heaven: the Son of Man.” What is this saying? Nobody has gone there yet, except Jesus, who came from their already.

What are humans expecting out of this deal? The New Heavens and the New Earth. Check out Revelations 20 for what it will be like. God is going to remake the world, make a new Jerusalem, and God is going to live their among all the people who chose to believe in Him. It will be heaven on earth, because God will be living among us (formerly only happened in heaven). We will live eternally there, because that is how humans were intended to be from the start – only sidetracked by the fall of man.

What did Jesus give up? Well, quite a few things. He gave up 1) His powers as a supreme being, 2) He took on the fallen form of a humans and had to suffer here on Earth like we do, including the death of his father Joseph 3) He gave up his right to be worshipped as God, because when He was killed almost everyone there was actively hating Him. 4) He took on extreme physical punishment and torture. 5) He suffered the sins of the world. Only an infinite being can suffer for the infinite past, present, and future sins of all humans. He took on the full brunt of Gods wrath. 6) It says in 2 Cor 5:21 “He made Him knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” So Jesus knew sin personally for the first time. 7) For Jesus to be sin, God had to sever their connection that had existed since before creation. They had always been with each other, but when Jesus was suffering the worst thing possible in the world, he was also alone for the first time, unable to depend on God. This is why Jesus cries out in Matthew 27:46 “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?”

in response:
The item of most interest in the above is your reference to Jesus’ statement Matthew 27:46 “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” Why didn’t you quote the other books and what Jesus was supposed to have said? They are all different. In any event we are so far apart on this issue there cannot be closure.
I read the story of the crucifixion as a propaganda scam. Pilate in all four books judges Jesus innocent of any criminal activity, then abruptly changes his mind. Other than in John, there were no witnesses to the actual crucifixion, and friends of Jesus were watching from “afar’. Joseph of Aramaeus a rich and “secret’ supporter of Jesus probably bribed Pile to carry out a sham killing. The event took place in or near, Joseph’s garden and new unused tomb. Jesus was drugged in three of the stories just before “dying”.

Since when does the “image’ of something mean it is equal with the thing itself. Is my photograph of the Atlantic ocean the same as standing on the beach? The photograph represents the ocean, but it is not the same as the ocean, or of the same stature as the ocean. I think properly the deconstruction of this verse would be that: The other cultures surrounding the Israelites would eventually become obsessed with making idols of the God’s they worshipped. Yet the Israelites were prohibited of making idols of God. But God says when he creates people that He is making them in His own image. People were intended to be the representation, i.e. idol of God on earth. The way we are and interact was supposed to be representative of God. But we chose to stray from that path and instead we see only glimpses of God’s character in people.

The ideas in the passage above aren’t yours. You adopted them. All the references to what God wants us to be or not to be is pure propaganda control freak crap Yes, we were made in the physical likeness of God. And from the history of God we have developed some of his peculiarities, one of which is the endless and repetitious engaging in warfare of the most hideous and brutal kind imaginable. And this is the entity in which you choose to spend eternity? You can have my seat on the spaceship in the sky.

A “holier than thou” attitude leaks through your writings and arguments. You should really do something about that.

Why did God call out “where are you?” It certainly wasn’t because he didn’t know where they were. He had just finished creating all the world and everything in it. But he did want to give Adam a chance to come and repent for what he had done. He could choose to face up to God for the wrong he had committed. God is a relational being, and the Bible is a record of His character and relationship with humans.


Why does God condone killing? It certainly wasn’t what he had intended for people, but because of the fallen nature of the world he will use destruction to accomplish his plans. God knows peoples hearts, and if he knows they will never accept Him, then if they die today compared to dying in 50 years doesn’t matter if they won’t ever choose Him. The point of our lives here is so that we each can come to have the opportunity to accept God into our hearts. It is a free choice, but God wants the relationship. If we choose against it, then we face an eternity (humans are eternal beings) without God. This eternity will also be devoid of what is good. So it will be an eternity without friendship, without joy, without love, but filled with pain sorrow, disappointment, etc. Basically, take all the crappy things from your life, and that is what hell will be like forever. But you will also know that you chose against God for certain.

in response.
Actually, my life is rich and fulfilled and I do not have to wait for some space alien to come down from up there and make me whole. I really can do this by myself.

It is a striking moment in paradox and ambiguity when you are forced to defend the violence and brutality of your chosen God. of which you seem so fond. I think that you are terrified of going against such speculated and awesome terror. You would have made the perfect obedient German SS doing the nasty for the Nazi’s.

Morality from a book written, edited, rewritten and reedited dozens of times from who knows how many editors, will there ever be an end to such drab stupidity? Everybody having a finger in the writing of the bible has been dead for thousands of years. The book is a childish fairy tale that has not attracted all that many people when you count h number of Christians, most of which who go to church and have someone else tell them about their spiritual future. Enjoy your stay with the devil, ProtractedSilence. You sure picked a winner. I hope didn’t pay a lot of money for your scholarly endeavors.

 

[olde drunk]

guys, c'mon. the old texts were written in a dead language (aramaic) which can't even be acurately translated today. over the centuries, they have been translated into greek, latin, arabic, etc etc BY HUMANS for POLITICAL purposes.

now any church elder would be honestly motivated, but there would be a bias to slant and translation, rewite toward his particular discipline. this happened over and over again. we are NOT reading the word of any god. we are reading what someone wrote down of what someone else said, that was later translated and, yes, corrupted!

all with good intentions. unfortunately, we have reached a point in our human evolution where we don't need to follow the old text, literally. they are words of wisdom to be used however we find them useful in daily life.

it is time to grow up and think for ourselves. if we got the guts to try. being 100% responsible for my reality and my future is a scary idea that i embrace with enthusiasm.

some might think that i blaspheme(sp), who cares? i am not affraid of my god. whoever or whatever s/he/it is. I've been walking and talking this idea for over 30 years and no lightning bolt. now, don't say 'yet'. that's part of the immature foolishness of olde time religion.

peace,

 

[Canute]

I can't follow this argument in the details but it feels like the Biblical metaphor of the tree of knowledge and the appearance of right and wrong is being taken too literally.

Lau Tsu wrote "Because right and wrong appeared the way was injured". This seems more accurate. Right and wrong are human inventions, invented the moment we started eating from the tree. That is, human beings created the (traditional western concept of) right and wrong. As Hamlet said "There's nought good or bad but man doth make it so".

I'd suggest that the eating if the fruit from the tree of knowledge was not a one off event in the past, and that the metaphor is warning for the present as well, a teaching rather than a story.

"Sin as such does not exist". Jesus -Gospel of Thomas.

 

[ProtractedSilence]

Almost none of the Bible was written in Aramaic. The old testament was written in Hebrew, and we have both people who speak it today, as well as theological "dissertations" about it from 2000 or more years ago as to the meaning - so we knw what it meant to the culture then.

The New Testament was written in Greek, the language of the Roman empire. Jesus spoke both languages (Aramaic and Greek), so some of his quotes are translated from aramaic into Greek at the time of writing.

The NT that you see in a modern bible, NASB, NRSV, NIV, etc. are taken from manuscripts dating from as earlier as 120 A.D. to 300 A.D. written in Greek and translated once into English. There are more than 1000 complete manuscripts from this time period that are compared and checked against one another to make sure of accuracy.

The O.T. is taken from texts written in Hebrew from 980 A.D. But since the finding of the Dead Seas Scrolls (1959 I believe), the 980 A.D. texts were checked and compared with the 175-200 B.C. text portions found there. They were found to be 95% identical, and the other 5% was from spelling changes and slips of the pen that made no difference to the connotation of the verses (spelling changes of place names etc, not spelling changes of verbs mostly).

The honest truth is that what each of us believes doesn't really have bearing on changing what the truth is. We don't get to just make up God's that bend to our will. Quite the contrary, the all-powerful and merciful creator God of the universe came first, and we do not alter his reality. Why would God lightning bolt you? He is trying to give you as many opportunities as possible to know Him...but if you do not ask for His forgiveness (take the first step, ask God to show Himself to you with honesty...he will answer) then you will get to the end of your life and know for certain that you lived for a lie, and that you have nothing...and that it is too late to ask for forgiveness.

 

[ProtractedSilence]

I do not accept Gospels other than what are in a modern Bible (NASB, NRSV, NIV, etc) for the same reason they were orignally discluded. They were not written by people who had seen Christ resurrected, and this is shown by the way they are self-inconsisten as well as inconsistent with the other Gospels and non-biblical historical records, as well as not fitting the OT prophecy about Christ.

 

[Canute]

I do not accept Gospels other than what are in a modern Bible (NASB, NRSV, NIV, etc) for the same reason they were orignally discluded. They were not written by people who had seen Christ resurrected, and this is shown by the way they are self-inconsisten as well as inconsistent with the other Gospels and non-biblical historical records, as well as not fitting the OT prophecy about Christ.

I think this is a mistake, although I know I can't prove it. I'm not sure either if seeing Christ resurrected is a necessary qualification for telling the truth. It seems a rather arbitrary way of deciding whose story to believe.

Most modern scholars, a number of the disciples at the time, and many would say Jesus himself saw Mary as the person who understood his teachings best.

There's more to the story of Mary then meets the eye, and the authenticity of the records of her later teachings are no more doubtful than for other writings of the time. Although she gives a more Gnostic interpretation of Jesus's words than Peter's this does not help us decide whether his or her understanding was the better one. Gnostic records or interpretations of those teachings were weeded out as the Church developed, and in the process Mary was demoted to reformed prostitute. Her teachings, on which a number of early Gnostic sects were founded, were declared heretical, as eventually was Gnosticism of any kind. However all this does not help us decide whether the Gnostic teachings of Jesus should be ignored, or whether the Gnostic records and interpretation of Jesus's teachings are wrong.

Of course it's hard to know exactly what really happened and what is true about all these things, and I certainly can't prove anything. However the Gnostic interpretation of Jesus's teachings makes him a far greater teacher than he is in Peter's interpretation, on which the Church was later built. As he is presented in the Gospels of Mary and Thomas what he taught is what Chuang Tsu, the Buddha and other great teachers taught, not a belief in a metaphysically implausible anthropomorphic God outside of oneself.

You may not agree with this, but I think it's worth looking into this before completely making your mind up. What Jesus says in Thomas and Mary does not contradict what Jesus says in the Bible, it's just deeper, it's what lies behind what he says in the Bible, the technical reasons for why the stuff about morality and love is true.

This is only my opinion and I am well aware of that. All I'm saying is that it's worth considering. The non-Biblical Gospels do not contradict the Biblical ones and there doesn't seem to be any reason to ignore them. (There's loads of stuff online).

 

[ProtractedSilence]

Canute,

I should look into the Gospel of Mary more, haven't read anything about it. As far as I am aware, my earlier comments are ture about why specific Gospels were chosen to be put in the cannon. Another reason some were excluded was because their authenticity could not be determined.

I don't think that Mary understood Jesus better than the disciples. He was living and teaching to them, and they are the ones he took along on His ministry. He specifically commisioned them to go and testify about what they had been taught by Him:

John 15:26,27 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, 27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning."

I can see the argument being made that Mary was with Jesus from the beginning, but he is speaking this to the disciples. Additionally, the disciples have not been with Him from the beginning of his life, although they have been with Him from the beginning of His ministry.

The ideas of Jesus are more revolutionary and mind-expanding in the Bible than they are in the Gospel of Thomas. I don't know about the Gospel of Mary. Be careful not to try your hardest to find scripture of Jesus that makes Him sound "eastern," if in fact what we do have does not portray Him that way at all. In my mind "eastern" philosophy has a lot of problems on its own, primarily that if everything is part of the same oneness or God, then this means that bad is part of God as well. Thus there is no inherent preference for good over bad, and evil is not wrong. It is as good to murder babies as to take in orphans, because it all part of the same system.

 

[Canute]

Canute,

I don't think that Mary understood Jesus better than the disciples. He was living and teaching to them, and they are the ones he took along on His ministry. He specifically commisioned them to go and testify about what they had been taught by Him:

From my reading of Mary I don't agree. For the first time Jesus made some sense to me when I read it. Here's some links in case.

http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
http://www.thenazareneway.com/the_gospel_of_mary_magdalene.htm

John 15:26,27 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, 27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning."

It has been conjectured that Mary may be responsible for the Gospel of John. (I wouldn't have a clue, but the argument put forward made sense).

The ideas of Jesus are more revolutionary and mind-expanding in the Bible than they are in the Gospel of Thomas.

Afarid I completely disagree.

I don't know about the Gospel of Mary. Be careful not to try your hardest to find scripture of Jesus that makes Him sound "eastern," if in fact what we do have does not portray Him that way at all.

What he says in Thomas and Mary has a strong 'non-dual' flavour. I'm not reading anything extra into it (I hope).

In my mind "eastern" philosophy has a lot of problems on its own, primarily that if everything is part of the same oneness or God, then this means that bad is part of God as well. Thus there is no inherent preference for good over bad, and evil is not wrong. It is as good to murder babies as to take in orphans, because it all part of the same system.

This is a serious misunderstanding of Buddhism, Taoism etc. Sin has a relative existence, but not an absolute one. Just think for a moment, when did a Buddhist last murder a baby rather than take in an orphan?

In Thomas Jesus says "sin as such does not exist". This is consistent with 'eastern' teachings. However it is a mistake to think that this contradicts his Biblical teachings. In Thomas he gets more 'cosmological' in his approach and things get more subtle.

I suspect the reason that Jesus's gnostic teachings were dumped was because they are easy to misunderstand, as are eastern teachings on the same subject, as your (rather offensive) baby murdering example illustrates.

 

[ProtractedSilence]

What I was trying to illustrate with baby-murdering is that Buddhism (and Hinduism, Taoism) are self inconsistent. They say on one hand, everything is part of the oneness, because there is good there must be bad to balance it out, and that you should stop seeing bad and good and just realize that everything is. The implication of this is that doing bad and doing good is exactly the same. In fact all actions are neutral if they are all part of God.

However, on the other hand those faiths hold out a moral code that says you should act in certain ways. A moral code of any kind contradicts the foundation of those faiths in their deference to everything being God. I know that most Buddhists don't murder babies with a knife, etc, but by their religion, murdering babies should be just as acceptable as helping orphans because it is all part of God.

No for a real example of what Buddhism IS like, I will describe Buddhism in Cambodia. I haven't been yet (Aug. 12!), but several of my roommates have. In Cambodia, being a Buddhist monk is the easiest thing you can do. You get free food, free education, and you don't have to work. For half of each day the monks go out and beg for food to feed themselves. They tend to go to the poorest people and get them to give up the little they have. These people are susceptible because their lives are so bad. They think that a hope at a better reincarnation is the only thing they have going for them, since they sit starving and dying of AIDS in this life.

A few years ago in Phnom Penh (the capital), there was a section of the city occupied by squatters. The government decided that they wanted to use the land and so they told the squatters to leave. But they didn't have any place to go, since they were already living illegally on the property. So one night a fire mysteriously broke out among the shacks and it soon consumed the homes and all of the possessions of 500 families. Government trucks showed up in the middle of the night and loaded all of the people up and took them out to a rural field and dropped them off, giving each family a tarp and a bag of rice. Now there was not even the possibility of them working, because they were so far from any city. They did the best they could setting up homes and trying to feed themselves. My friends visited them one day trying to provide relief supplies (food and first aid), when they saw a Buddhist monk going from hut to hut begging for food. Well-fed, he was taking from people who had absolutely nothing. Many of the men of these families were obviously dying from AIDS and had open sores, especially on their faces and lips. My friends were very angry that a monk would do this to people - killing them by taking their food. They started to take photographs of him so that hopefully they could do something about it (either in Cambodia or U.S.). When the monk saw the camera, he ran away quickly - he knew his exploitation of these people was wrong.

This is the state of Buddhism at least in Cambodia. It is murdering children - through hunger, and hopefully people will start to care that there is right in wrong in the world soon.