Do you have any thoughts about the negative sides of an afterlife?

Well Apostle Paul shared and others were converted. Care to address that? Jesus preached and gained followers.....care to address that? Does it offend you?

 

Why terrifying? Was the eternity that passed before you became conscious terrifying? Want to know what comes, look at what came before.
Oblivion is only terrifying when you try to imagine what the human mind is incapable of imagining; nothing.

 

There are lots of people who have touted new religions.

Some of them have good ideas concerning life on earth.

I'm not interested in criticizing your religion. For one thing, attacking someone's religion is pointless and destructive. For another, it is far better to look for the good that, hopefully, exists.

I'd rather we work together toward objectives such as those in the parable of the sheep and goats, the treatment by Jesus of foreigners, etc. - objectives that, at least in theory, Christians are fully committed to.

 

So is it entirely fair to say, you like "some" of what Jesus preached but you reject the rest? I am asking not to criticize you.....but rather just to know your position. I know a lot of folks call themselves Christian and "pick and choose". If you answer yes to my question.....I'd say you are in a far better position than they!

By the way, Jesus did want us to have respect for "foreigners", but he also wanted them to "respect" the laws of the land. I accept everything He says.

 

In the past I am sure there have been missionaries that try to force religion. I know many missionaries. Mainly they help with human resources and share the Gospel.......is that sharing and is there a problem with that?

 

You see that as much to look forward to?

 

I wasn't talking about oblivion. That doesn't really fit into the thread topic of an afterlife.

 

You can't be saying that nobody has ever presented what THEY consider to be evidence?

Maybe we got a language semantics problem here. Please understand that I'm not talking about "proof" that's conclusive and air tight. I'm talking about "evidence" as in a courtroom where adversary attorneys present arguments based on physical circumstances.

 

Yes. The same is true for reading and understanding Gandhi's philosophy.

There are large numbers of secular philosophers.

I think many have something to offer, but I don't necessarily accept everything they've said. And, I do like how Jesus is claimed to have comported himself, as well as what he said concerning how to live life here on Earth.

I'm not sure what you meant to say about foreigners.

 

I'm pretty sure it is understood that what is missing is evidence.

 

I believe I'm going to a good place.. I think it's the transition that worries me most. And with early unnatural death....I believe there is the innate fight for life and losing that fight may be an agonizing end. The ultra elderly who are frustrated that they have lived so long....seem to be at peace when they pass. So... I wanna die old and frustrated. ..

 

The bland monotony you have depicted is an oversimplification. According to OOBErs such as Monroe and Campbell, the afterlife entry is a juxtaposition according to one's level of development and beliefs. From there, growth and progression can propel one to higher levels.

 

If you found yourself floating around just below the ceiling and looking down at your physical body, you would consider the lack of evidence to be rather unconvincing.

 

When you spoke earlier of how Jesus wanted us to treat "foreigners" with respect, I took that as an implication to welcome illegal aliens because I have heard that before. That is why I replied that Jesus also expects us to obey and respect the laws of the land. Perhaps you were not implying that. No problem.

 

I'm a Christian. The stereotypical view of what 'heaven' is sounds boring and stagnant. I doubt its really just an eternity of bliss, more likely its a lot more complicated than that but there isn't a better way to explain it in mortal terms.

Personally I would prefer something more along the lines of Valhalla.

 

Explain what you see as an afterlife; what does that mean? If you subscribe to prevailing scientific thought, every physical part of you is as old as the stars, and will be conserved indefinitely unless you meet your anti parts.

 

If I understood the OP correctly, it's consciousness after death. Having an awareness of yourself post death. I wouldn't consider being made of starstuff as an equivalent.

 

No I mean evidence. We all know there is no proof. Personal accounts and beliefs aren't evidence. That someone made an account of an experience they thought was related to an afterlife is not only not proof. It isn't even evidence. It could be evidence of something but only belief or opinion makes it evidence of an afterlife. At best it is an explanation.

Let's get away from afterlife for a moment since it is an emotional issue for you. Let's look at something else without evidence that many people believe. That is the existence of extra terrestrial beings on our planet. Many strange occurrences have been called extra terrestrial intelligence but there is no real evidence that anything extra terrestrial is involved. Science tells us that it is very very very unlikely because of the immense distances involved in inter stellar transportation. So why do people consider it extra terrestrial? Because it is a way of explaining away a mystery without any evidence. Mysteries are normally uncomfortable for people.

Back to religion. Every society has had religions. Why? Same reason. It helps people deal with mysteries. Why do we exist? What caused us to exist? What is nature and how did it begin? These are mysteries even to the sophistication of modern science. Nobody can answer these questions. Religion provides an explanation. The explanation is that there is a powerful god or gods running things. It is an explanation. Not proof. Not evidence. Science doesn't even pretend to explain it.

For example, science likes the idea of a big bang because it can see that the universe is expanding. It is an explanation for the evidence of an expanding universe. Is it fact? No, it is a theory. Actually the reason for an expanding universe is a mystery. To go further what caused the big bang? What was there before? Nobody knows. Nobody has even an explanation. There is no evidence to help explain it. It is a mystery. It is uncomfortable. Dealing with that discomfort is the major purpose of all religions.

Understand that I am a supporter of religion. I don't practice religion. I don't accept explanations and opinions as fact. I'm comfortable with the some understanding of nature without knowing why it even exists. I view mysteries as fascinating, not uncomfortable. I realize that religion has serious benefits for society, not the least of which is social control. Religion is the basic definer of morality and no society can exist for long without morality. I wouldn't want to live in a society without any religion. It would be amoral in my opinion. I just view mysteries differently than you do. Sorry for subjecting you to a philosophical rant.

 

I didn't use the term force. I called it aggressive conversion. It is proseletyzing. I prefer the way the Jews handle it. Not only do Jews never proselytize they even resist the desire of outsiders to convert. Yet they have a strong religion that works well for them. Religion is a collection of beliefs. Why is it necessary for people to recruit people to the same beliefs? How does it make their lives or society in general any better? What is the motivation? I view it as intolerance of views that differ from theirs. I'm simply not a fan of intolerance. I think it is fine to defend one's religion as it is to defend any beliefs. Being intolerant of the beliefs of others makes no sense to me. To be intolerant of actions makes sense. But beliefs?

 

You're very kind to go to all that trouble to complete such a dissertation. My thinking is that you and I diverge over a couple things but imho the most important is the manner we approach the question of an afterlife.

What I'm getting from your posts is that you are convinced that there is no afterlife and it's my guess that it's most likely you will dismiss anything I share. Of course, we both know that things are not always what they appear to be so I may be misreading this whole interchange, but please understand that this is what I'm working with.

My approach involves firstly understanding that we don't know everything and after that the only way we can approach this question is by being willing to examine all new information as it comes in before we make up our minds. Perhaps we can agree that not everyone espouses this approach.

 

I would consider myself not completely dead.

 

I'm not convinced of anything about an afterlife. I'm skeptical because there is no evidence of it. You haven't provided any either. The reason you can't is that there is none. There explanations, beliefs, stories, experiences, all kinds of things that are not evidentiary. For you what happens after death involves a soul which lives on. For me death involves the end. Period. All I believe for sure is that the body is destroyed or decomposes. Dust unto dust as they say.

Have you ever undergone surgery? During the time you are under anesthesia there is no sensation, no thoughts, no memories, no time. There is nothing. It is about as close to death as one can come without dying. I think of death as a permanent anesthesia. I see no evidence of a soul. There isn't any. Sorry, I don't share your beliefs. The only way my mind will change would be the presence of evidence.

 

Sorry, I meant to edit a post, not to reply to one.

 

In Christianity and even Judaism, God instructs his Prophets and servants to call either some or all people to repentance and teach the gospel of salvation. But as to who are truly Gods representatives, and which ones are those who take it upon themselves without proper authority, is another matter. Either way, I don't find any of them intolerable. In my experience, they are quite pleasant. The greatest difficulty for me is finding it within myself to politely decline their invitations. I just tell them that my heart is already spoken for.

 

Or more accurately, those who write about religion call for these things. Haven't seen any instructions from god, only from our ancestors. Truthfully I'm not bothered that much by proselytizing. It is the intolerance that bothers me and intolerance is the only logical explanation for the activity. Sounds like you are a tolerant person.