I think this is what drives people to be Christian in the first place. It is a hell of a question to answer, and I'd like to see others' opinions.

Well, I think it ("it would be really nice if, when we die, we weren't really gone forever, but just went to a better place") is what drives people to religion. Christianity is just one example.

My thoughts about the question itself? Our mind is gone, so we're gone. That's not as scary as it sounds; it happens to every single animal on this planet. Does that make our lives "meaningless", like most theists will now counter (they find meaning in God, while we, in their opinion, have none)? I don't think so. Does something have to be everlasting for it to have meaning?

In fact, I'd say that the theists' (especially Christians, in this case) obsession with "the next life" is indicative of cowardice. They're afraid of living life here, so they convince themselves that this life isn't really "it", that it doesn't actually matter, except to decide whether you go to a place of eternal bliss or to a place of eternal suffering (and I believe the former would be eventually get boring, anyway). They're scared of life, of having to deal with the world.

In this life, you can grow up, play, learn, fall in love, have children, meet interesting people, travel, learn about the past, speculate about the future, read books, listen to music, discover the works of thousands of years of artists, immerse yourself in different cultures, and actually make a difference - to your family, your descendants, and possibly even mankind as a whole. You can feel joys that range from the intellectual pleasure of solving a difficult problem, to the feeling of seeing your baby child's first smile. No matter what you do with your life, there's still something more in the world to learn, to know, to find out, to experience.

And yet those guys tell me that none of this matters?!? That, if life really ends when you die, it's all a waste, it's all meaningless?

Hmm, sorry, I diverted a little from the original topic...

This post was last modified: 12-06-2006 11:59 AM by Pedro Timóteo.

a (jewish) friend said something to this effect:

every time i go to christian funeral, i feel shaken around. if they are all at a better place, why don't we commit mass suicide?

people other than christians are connchristians, for the most part, are concerned strictly with getting into heaven. others are trying to make the best of the world we already have.

and hell yes i agree with you.

Suicides a sin, a fail-safe put in by early church members to prevent the above situation.
My questions to christians is Why do you grieve? He/She is in a better place, and you'll join them soon enough, why not rejoice?

Again, I have to point you to Ebon Musings' Rats in a Maze. An excerpt:

As a Buddhist I guess I could go on about reincarnation.

However, my personal feeling mirrors my comment in the Nature's Plan post.

What happens when we die?

Does it matter? Even if (and that is a pretty DAMN big IF) we do somehow move into another state of being, why do I care right now?

I refuse to spend the rest of this life hoping/praying/begging that the next one is better. I would much rather spend time making this the best life it can be.

'nuff said.

Jim: couldn't agree more.

Diminishing your life in any way because you're "saving yourself for the next one" is cowardly... not to say, stupid.

Personally getting over the fact that once I die that's frigging it was one of the hardest things about becoming a full atheist, and it's one point I try and drive home on alot of people on "the crossway" as I think I've heard Pedro call it. It's one of the biggest things that's always annoyed me about church missions to Africa etc, there is always this big deal about erecting churches and making people Christian as the FIRST thing to be done.
WHY? A church serves no purpose for survival, use the money and resources to build a school, a farm but not a church. If people think that we only get one shot at life, no ifs or buts, then, once they get over the usual shock, they're much more likely to live their life to the full.

Furthermore it angers me further when I see good people working as priests or dedicating their lives to a god, it serves no purpose, go out and live your life. (FFS!)

Timmy, I see no reason why a good person working as a priest would actually anger you. In this time, a priest is at still, for the most part, looked up to by the community, and has peoples attention. Any good person in that position, is in a good position to help other people with thier problems. Being a priest does not negate someones ability to help.

Maybe you're just angry at religion because of wars or other bullshit involved with it. This is not the priests fault.

Back to the matter at hand. What happens when we die.

I've never died before.
Basically either nothing or something.
To me, this is kind of like the question of God itself. We have no physical evidence to go by either way. So basically the only "evidence" we have is other peoples accounts.
Of course those accounts are thrown through the "chemical reaction in the brain" gammit, and then thrown aside as myth.
Almost like the theory that the planet is round, but at least that theory had scientific evidence to support it, not just what one person said...?

Personally I think that science will eventually prove one way or the other. But there's a lot of research to do, and not only does anybody think it's a viable thing to spend time and money on, but it's a possibility that they are correct.

You misunderstand me, priests (alone) don't annoy me, people who devote their lives to god alone annoy me, it's a big waste in my eyes.

As far as we know however, the brain is everything behind our personality, existence beyond a vegetable state, we also know that the brain STOPS when we die, so, in a way we do have some evidence behind he atheistic death-belief.

XTimmy...

Why should any of them annoy you? As long as they don't bother you, then it should not annoy you. By letting it bother you, you give those people power over your reactions.

Now, if you want to see what they do as a waste of time, so be it. It is also your prerogative to be annoyed (but let it be your choice, not something forced up on you). Of course, IMO if you let yourself be annoyed by what someone else chooses to do with their life I would say you are wasting your time as well.

Peace!

Huh, it's hard to convey what I want to say outside of personal terms. Perhaps using emotions to convey the idea was a bad idea.
It's less the individual and more the ideology.

Preach to the young before they can understand.

Say that you're acting in a good way because of god, this leads onto the hijacking of good morals by religion.

Kren's point that the community often looks up to priests is a good point, but that assumes the priest actually knows how to handle, say, a schizophrenic, priests are NOT psychologists and they're certainly not Psychiatrists, if someone has a issue in their life they should go and see a REAL counselor.
In a nutshell. It's a bad Idea to trust someone with no training with your children, your mental health, it's also a bad idea to look up to them simply because they've devoted their lives to an 'unknown' (to say the least) cause
I understand that this sounds like a personal rant, but what I'm trying to convey here is the danger's of what Kren said, the community DOES look up to priests, this is very true, but they have no reason TO look up to priests.

Hmmm... I think I see what you mean, and I don't disagree. However, I would say this - I would not trust a priest because he is a priest, but I would trust a priest because he has shown himself to be a good man through his actions (and I am not counting his belief in god as one of them).

When I was Catholic I knew several priests who were very good men, and that judgment in no way relies on their faith in god. At the same time, I knew several 'good' priests who I wouldn't trust around my children or my wife... and again - it had nothing to do with their faith.

The bottom line is that I would not dismiss an entire group based on a belief they have. I will make judgments about their character based on what I see them (as individuals) do.

That being said, the community does look up to them because of their role as a priest - but that is not necessarily the fault of the priest (although I do believe their religion and power structure have contributed to it).

Does that make any sense?[/i]

BTW, it might be time for this to spring into a new post since it definitely has digressed from 'what happens when we die?'

jim,

When the espoused belief is inherently evil or harmful, there is no negative with judging those who embrace those beliefs based upon those aspects of those beliefs. This is akin to judging a figure to be a square because it has four equal sides and four right angles.. those beliefs are inherent to priesthood, and are inherently evil. We are not talking about tangential beliefs, or something trivial, but what these individuals chose to dedicate their lives to promoting.

Imagine those who dedicated their lives to another christian organization, the Ku Klux Klan.. would you ignore the beliefs and practices of the Klan in the same way that you suggest you would for priests?

I am not trying to criticize your own choices with regard to attitudes towards individuals, and normally I would agree with you in that you ought not judge the whole by a TRIVIAL or tangential belief, but in this case the difference is that this is not a belief about which they have not thought much, or a belief that they may have just inherited, but rather a conscious choice to choose to not merely follow evil but to promote it actively. The belief is inherent to who they have chosen to be, or to put it another way it is inseparable from who and what they are as long as they continue to practice, preach, and promote those evils.

Agreed. I've started a new thread: Should we trust priests?.

Christianity is about transforming our lives here and now, living out the presence of God in the world. The afterlife is overplayed, and is not a big subject in the bible.

What happens when we die? People naturally turn into dust, and disappear. "For dust you are, and to dust you shall return".

People who, by living lives focused on love and relationships, reach out for "life", are granted exactly what they lived for: life.

-micah
emergency

micah: the problem, again, is that most Christians disagree with you. To them, this life doesn't matter. I've even seen a site that said it was un-Christian to try to make this world a better place, since that's not part of God's plan.

Well, then, who gets to define what Christianity is? If we let anyone off the street define it, then yeah, I reject that too. If we let the majority define it, then I reject that as well.

If we let a contextual, historically-based reading of the biblical scriptures define Christianity, then I totally agree with it.

BTW, the bible does not say that Jesus will come back and destroy the world. So we have a responsibility to make the world as good as we can.

-micah

You wanna bet?
Rev 1.7:Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Also, apparently this was prophecised by Jesus
Rev:1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. "He had in his right hand seven stars."


1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last...


Rev:2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Thats the aforementioned mouth-sword Jesus was carrying.

Oh and
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/sa...t/end.html

Can't say I'm dead yet.

Hmmm...so this is supposed to mean that Jesus will come back in the future to destroy the earth, while holding seven stars in his hand, and riding on the clouds?

Then I guess we should assume that Carol King also intends to destroy the earth with her passionate emotions?

Or maybe both are examples of poetic language, well-understood by the cultures of their time?

And maybe when Revelation was written to the Jewish Christians of the first century, they might have noticed that these were poetic allusions to events and writings in their own Jewish bibles?

And maybe, just maybe, they realized that this was an example of what scholars call "apocalyptic language": a well-documented form of poetry common throughout the Jewish Bible, which describes social and political changes using the figurative language of earth-shaking events?

And maybe this is not commonly acknowledged by the populace, who know NOTHING about the original cultures or languages of the bible, but IS a well known fact among serious biblical scholars?

-micah
Real Christianity

Good notes, BTW, at
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/sa...t/end.html

Jesus and all the disciples and apostles and early Christian writers DID say the end would come within their lifetimes.

And it did.

-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com

Carol king did not appear to a person bearing a sword, with brass feat, a flaming eyes and white hair. Carol King also was not the supposed Messiah of earth.

@ Notes on how bible was written.

If this is so, how can we take ANYTHING the bible says to be true? How can we not assume that Jesus was not a metaphor, that the entire thing was not a work of fiction?
Further more you are more than right in saying that Jewish Christians probably wrote Revelations, in fact, most of the New testament was warped by the writers, several decades after the historical christ's death. Going through the old testament, especially Isaiah (Ludovic Kennedy All in the Mind: A farewell to God)we see prophecy's of a messiah, a messenger for the people etc etc. Well, this prophecy didn't really come true, there was no messiah when Isaiah said there would be, but the early testament writers couldn't have that, oh HO NO!. So, what they needed was a target, someone to pin messiah-dom to, they found Jesus. Jesus was a guru, one of many who romed around despensing crazed wisdom, followed by a few followers, rather like Reverend Moon of the Moonies.
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/1earth4.html
(Not the Unification church)
It just so happens that Jesus was around the right time that the Testament writers (not the Apostles), needed him to be, he was also sprouting a similar kind of idea, and he came to a relatively interesting end. Today it's hard to understand, but back then it was rare for people to travel far, so people rarely left their home towns. So if a book from the priests said something had happened over THERE then it had HAPPENED all right, Jesus had cured the sick, cured the dead and all manner of physical impossibilities.

In reality Jesus was an ego-maniac.

Take this excerpt from John
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/18.html#12

Jesus goes on, in what is portrayed as a rather heroic way, about how his kingdom is not of this world, etc etc. Read by event todays priests Jesus seems calm and in control. More likely he was like any of todays gurus, wildly proclaiming this and that, despite the reality of the situation. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/18.html#33.


In summary

The bible, ESPECIALLY the new testament is warped, really warped. It is certainly not historical fact.

This post was last modified: 01-06-2007 08:23 PM by XTimmy.

But Carol King did choose to use figurative language about the destruction of heaven and earth (sky tumbling down) to describe her emotion. This is a common practice throughout all literature, and it was certainly practiced in Jewish culture.

First-century Jews used even more imaginative language THAT WAS FAMILIAR to their readers, to describe the role they believed Jesus was playing. They clearly indicate that these things ARE NOT LITERAL.

Were first-century Jews really so stupid about nature as to think that a sword could come up out of person's throat, and that a person could ride on clouds? Or were they smart enough to recognize figurative language when they saw it?

There is a difference between LIES and METAPHORS.

Revelation's statements about a "sword" and "riding on clouds" are TRUE, but they are not LITERAL. Carol King's statements about the "sky tumbling down" are TRUE, but they are not LITERAL.

If I say that "an astronaut walked on the moon", that is a literal statement. If I say that "an astronaut spoke words which shook the earth", that is obviously not a literal statement. It is TRUE, but it is not LITERAL. Most of the time humans have no problems understanding this type of language.

If it helps, the bible usually clearly states whether it is being figurative or literal before launching into such descriptions.

-micah
revelation tells you when all of it was to occur

This is true (and literal ), but how do we differentiates in the bible, if we are going to use that kind of writing style as an excuse, then the entire New Testament is so ambiguous as to not have any meaning at all.

I understand full well the use of metaphor, ever studied Shakespeare? "The moon methinks looks with a watery eye". The entire point of writing was not so much the words themselves, but the way they where said. That line is almost ambiguous it can have a number of meanings, but it is how it is said that gives it that meaning. Carol King's metaphors are understandable because they are in context, but what context is the bible in?

Ouch!

This post was last modified: 01-07-2007 10:00 PM by Pedro Timóteo.

This necessitates a creative use of the meaning of the word "true" as well as a creative use of the notion of meaning itself.

True means that it matches reality. Clearly the claims do not match reality therefore are necessarily false. Yet you stipulate that they are true nonetheless.*

How do you do this? You do it through playing fast and loose with the notion of meaning. The words are not supposed to mean what they mean, but rather mean what(ever) you stipulate that they mean. This assumes private and special knowledge unavailable to others (A clear sign of an scheme which cannot stand the light of reason, or the effect of comparison to reality). So "barn" can mean "uses a blender to make margaritas" since the link to reality between the word and that to which it points has been severed. There is no difference in type from the claims that the words mean that the end of the world has come in the form you argume must necessarity be the case, and the claim that the words mean that rocky road ice cream will fall from the sky into the waiting bowls of the faithful. Once the connection to reality, to the very meaning of the words has been severed, literally anything goes in the stipulation of meaning.

Now it should be obvious that when we go to compare those claims to reality, they will not be identical, and therefore not true, but as we saw above truth has already been lost.

* A side note. Whever one's beliefs and reality collide, it is never reality which is in error. That first step of denying reality, including in the form of trying to change the meaning of "true" necessitates that your conclusions will not be supported and will almost certainly be false. This is true regardless of subject matter.

Ah, yes, that's exactly what I meant all along...
"Whenever one's beliefs and reality collide, it is never reality which is in error", can I get that on a t-shirt?

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy came with this disclaimer: "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."

This post was last modified: 01-09-2007 09:18 AM by Pedro Timóteo.

We grieve for ourselves, not the departed. I watched my fathers soul leave his body and rejoiced that he had gone home, but I miss him terribly.

Ah, so death is a justification for a selfish action, how strange.
And what proof, exactly do you have of your father's souls existence? Saying you have "seen" something such as a soul leaving a body is certainly a big claim, one I would, of course be willing to accept given appropriate evidence.

Think, think about what you really saw, if the memory of your father is too painful, then think of someone you do not know. What did you really see? You saw their heart stop beating and their mind stop ticking over, that is the reality of the situation, if you choose to perceive it as some great separation of two previously-conjoined entities then there is nothing I can argue against, because such belief is blind to reason.

But think without the emotion, the grief, the psychological-training you've had since you first heard of heaven and hell, and tell me what you ACTUALLY SAW.

I have the same downfall as MereMortals, I've seen stuff.
I can't defend MereMortal on this, because what he's said he's seen sounds crazy, but I can sympathize with him on "seeing" stuff.
Since I'm not really worried what people think of me at thi