Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I can certainly find verses that clearly supports an afterlife. I think an overall reading far more supports the afterlife belief.What conflicts with the afterlife belief is the denial of self that Jesus teaches. Secondly Jesus says that repentance is resurrection. Paul says that to live is Christ and to die is gain. These are not 'Afterlife' supporting words. In other words when Paul says 'Resurrection' and Jesus says 'Resurrection' they are alluding to the resurrection mentioned by the Jewish prophets, not the mythical Egyptian resurrection of the katra. The conflict with afterlife is in the denial of the self and the baptism.
It's an interesting take, but one which might leave many who are already "on the cusp" grasping for a reason to stay on the straight and narrow. Reason being - if I consider myself mainly my "personality" (as I would argue most people undoubtedly do), and propose that an amorphous, unknowable "soul" or "spirit" is what either goes to heaven or hell, and not what I consider to be "me", then how does one relate to, care for, or empathize with this amorphous, unknowable "soul" or "spirit"? Why care what happens to it? People already have a hard enough time empathizing with BILLIONS of animals that are mistreated for years on end, only to end up slaughtered and eaten by an ungrateful horde of human beings - and those creatures ARE knowable, are known to exist, and their pain and plight is very akin to our own.
Take away that level of familiarity, and it's like asking people to care for rocks that are beaten apart with pick-axes and and taken to be crushed.
How about this one: Can any of you by worrying add a single hour to his life? (Matt 6:27) Its rhetorical. We cannot.I can certainly find verses that clearly supports an afterlife. I think an overall reading far more supports the afterlife belief.
Translation: Worrying doesn't accomplish anything.How about this one: Can any of you by worrying add a single hour to his life? (Matt 6:27) Its rhetorical. We cannot.
That is a good point and true, imo. But, Christianity is what following Jesus Christ is called.Jesus said He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, Christianity isn't.
If Christianity is the way, the truth and the life, which sect is the one to follow?
It is interesting, but I am not a post modernist. I'm The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew of Bible Study. I'm Mr. Bible. I'm The Batman of Bible. Ok? I think postmodernism is for smurfy Day of Aquarius peeple.Brick, you might want to check out the Emerging Church movement (google it)
I am not sure I understand why you don't believe the scriptural promises of eternal life and hope for a new heaven and earth where the pain and suffering of this world will not exist. Where is the contradiction between caring for others in the here and now while also looking forward to the eternal home God has promised? Both realities are clearly in the Bible.I think Jesus does ask for people to care for something besides themselves -- the future and everyone; and I think people respond to this request. I think this is Christianity's edge over pagan religions and is why so many Romans convert so quickly. I think this is what really gets people excited. Let me turn the question around: Why would anyone care about some eternal retirement home that ignores all the suffering that goes on here? Who would even trust such a thing? Christians actually don't unless there are people they know in it, and if you look at how Christians live, Christians care about each other's concerns here. Sure, Christians are constantly bombarded with people claiming that heaven is full of the dead, but still its people here that Christians care about. Its where christian consciences are and where the spirit wants Christians to act. People worry about what's going to happen to the world and the people in it. Its plenty enough, more than enough to inspire faithful devotion.
It is the way Matthew 28:19 was translated and is being understood.People are going to have to figure things out for themselves. Granted I do not understand the Christian "need" to convert others.
Perhaps that view is more....integral to your approach to religion, I do not know.
But that said people are going to interpret things differently that's just how people work.
I was just discussing this with George-ananda. I think that resurrection is a Biblical concept from the prophets and refers to the resurrection of Israel or of a people, nation or movement rather than to the resurrection of individuals. For example consider the prophecy of the bones of Ezekiel 37. In it there is a resurrection but not of individuals, yet the speech is figuratively individual "I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel," yet it is talking about the physical return from Babylon and is not literally about people coming from graves.I am not sure I understand why you don't believe the scriptural promises of eternal life and hope for a new heaven and earth where the pain and suffering of this world will not exist. Where is the contradiction between caring for others in the here and now while also looking forward to the eternal home God has promised? Both realities are clearly in the Bible.
Okay, thanks for your explanation. I agree there are scriptures in the OT referring to the resurrection of the nation of Israel, which I believe has occurred in our lifetime and will continue as God's promises to the nation are completed. Nevertheless, the NT contains many references to personal eternal life which I don't believe can be spiritualized away or applied to Israel or a movement. Just my thoughts.I was just discussing this with George-ananda. I think that resurrection is a Biblical concept from the prophets and refers to the resurrection of Israel or of a people, nation or movement rather than to the resurrection of individuals. For example consider the prophecy of the bones of Ezekiel 37. In it there is a resurrection but not of individuals, yet the speech is figuratively individual "I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel," yet it is talking about the physical return from Babylon and is not literally about people coming from graves.
It says "Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them." However, the dead individuals did not rise. There were no zombies that returned with Zerubbabel from Babylon. The dead remained dead. It was Israel which was resurrected.
Don't get caught up in figures of speech. When you are baptized you become part of Christ.
It seems to me that the heart is willing to be dishonest.You refer to the problem of the heart never being honest? Is this what you mean?
We think we're careful with our choices, but our hearts drive us like bumper cars.It seems to me that the heart is willing to be dishonest.
That's your interpretationIt is the way Matthew 28:19 was translated and is being understood.
People are working their own works and not God's works.
Curious, how is Brickjectivity denying the Resurrection?You deny the resurrection..that's very Un-Christian. You're a humanist not a Christian...
If you have been following the forums long, you may have noticed that I'm whiny about Christianity but am still a Christian. There are a lot of practices that I don't like in Christianity today. I'm concerned about these practices damaging my relatives and which anger me. Specifically: the modern concept they call 'Worship', the Church Industry of Franchised Churches, the fake Bible seminaries that church out 'Ministers', and above all the practice of teaching children that death is not real. People often go to church, sit, listen, donate, leave and forget. I hate these things. One person in a thousand spends time working with the homeless or visits rest homes or prisons or orphanages.
At the same time, all of the people involved from the ministers to the church members to the organist who's just payed to be there -- they all have brains and all contribute good things to the world. They matter, and I have seen the damage that this kind of life can do to them. At the same time their views of church are integrated with their lives, and you can't just go changing people's lives. They really believe that their loved ones that have died are safe somewhere up in another dimension or in another place or that they will be brought back from death. This is a huge comfort for many. Taking it away is like taking candy away.
Also if everybody listened to one person (me) that would not be healthy for any concerned I think. Every time a persuasive religious leader pops up I think it does not really change much. It tends to justify their tendency to search for people to tell them things that they want to hear.
There is also a contradiction in my effort. I'm someone who believes in a very Biblical approach to Christianity, something that does not involve a personal afterlife. I think Christianity is supposed to be a community that grimly accepts personal death in order to contribute to life for all. It is a life of labor and selflessness, but you know what I am not actually living that way. I'm just observing what I think the Bible says about it. In that case I really do not have a personal stake in it. There's not much that I contribute at the moment. How would I ever get other people to commit to it?
If you have been following the forums long, you may have noticed that I'm whiny about Christianity but am still a Christian. There are a lot of practices that I don't like in Christianity today. I'm concerned about these practices damaging my relatives and which anger me. Specifically: the modern concept they call 'Worship', the Church Industry of Franchised Churches, the fake Bible seminaries that church out 'Ministers', and above all the practice of teaching children that death is not real. People often go to church, sit, listen, donate, leave and forget. I hate these things. One person in a thousand spends time working with the homeless or visits rest homes or prisons or orphanages.
At the same time, all of the people involved from the ministers to the church members to the organist who's just payed to be there -- they all have brains and all contribute good things to the world. They matter, and I have seen the damage that this kind of life can do to them. At the same time their views of church are integrated with their lives, and you can't just go changing people's lives. They really believe that their loved ones that have died are safe somewhere up in another dimension or in another place or that they will be brought back from death. This is a huge comfort for many. Taking it away is like taking candy away.
Also if everybody listened to one person (me) that would not be healthy for any concerned I think. Every time a persuasive religious leader pops up I think it does not really change much. It tends to justify their tendency to search for people to tell them things that they want to hear.
There is also a contradiction in my effort. I'm someone who believes in a very Biblical approach to Christianity, something that does not involve a personal afterlife. I think Christianity is supposed to be a community that grimly accepts personal death in order to contribute to life for all. It is a life of labor and selflessness, but you know what I am not actually living that way. I'm just observing what I think the Bible says about it. In that case I really do not have a personal stake in it. There's not much that I contribute at the moment. How would I ever get other people to commit to it?
But you raise to mind an interesting point. If everyone cares so much for the people down here, and are always trying to help everyone, then why would you ever want to go to heaven?
My sincere bet on this is that this is because they secretly worry/accept/fear that this life is all there is. That death is a definitive end. I know this is almost tantamount to the old Christian sling that "non-believers secretly believe in God and reject Him in order to continue on in their wicked ways" - except that we have every possible piece of proof and evidence for the existence of death and the brand of finality that comes with it, and not one shred of evidence that is nearly as compelling for the existence of God.
That death is a definitive end.
Curious, how is Brickjectivity denying the Resurrection?
An immediate afterlife (after death) is not promised in the Scriptures. The Resurrection comes at a later time. See John 5:28-29..."the hour is coming (when they) will hear his voice..."[note future tense]; John 6:44; Acts of the Apostles 24:15...."there is going to be a Resurrection...."; Revelation 20:5, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended."
Until then, the dead are "aware of nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5); 'their thoughts perish' -- Psalms 146:3-4. See also John 11:11-14
Yes, unfortunately, many Christians are taught this, but the Scriptures teach otherwise, as posted. In fact, that statement by Jesus at John 5:28-29, mentions that the dead will be resurrected -- from where? -- from their "memorial tombs"!Where Brickjevity says "or they will be brought back from death" he denies the resurrection.
They really believe that their loved ones that have died are safe somewhere up in another dimension or in another place or that they will be brought back from death. This is a huge comfort for many. Taking it away is like taking candy away.