Think [the box] ing discussion

So part of my Christian faith includes the belief that in the end we spend eternity with our creator. But personally, I don't understand why eternity is supposed to be a prize. All we know in this world has a beginning and an end and this is comforting on a certain level because pain, childhood, school, etc. will end.
I suppose it's the idea of everlasting happiness. Yet, I fear that eventually I will get bored. Just the thought of everyday being the same FOREVER does not appeal to me. But I suppose since there is no day and night there, there is no everyday either. I must not have a correct concept of heaven.
Now hell, definitely unappealing. I most certainly do not want to suffer FOREVER but I'm pretty certain I'll be also dissatisfied with being happy FOREVER. Just the idea of anything being never-ending is daunting, scary, and semi-repulsive.
What are your thoughts on eternity?

Consequently, I've always thought that it would have been better if I simply never existed. To never have known the angst and worry of existence....bliss. Or to exist and not be aware of it like a chair or the sun (of course I'm assuming they are not aware of their existence since there is no way to know for certain of anything's existence but my own) or to be a beautiful sunset (hmm sunset requires someone else to exist to see it since the sun is always around) but maybe you get my point.

Ah, to have been a waterfall...or a wave upon a beach

Carlie,

Thank you for your honest look at how you feel about existing but here on earth and in the eternities. Two years ago I was in the other extreme of this paradox. I was looking forward to dying so that I could make an eternal difference.

Looking at that believe now I realize I was so fixed with the believe that since life was wonderful here, how much more wonderful would it be in the eternities.

Now, I believe that both views fail to see the beauty of each and every moment. When I look at life as a collective of moments, it is overwhelming. Yet when I simply BE in the moment life flows. It doesn't really matter to me what eternity looks like if I fail to simply enjoy life right now.

I could waste my whole life wishing for a wonderful future and regreting what could have been, or I could waste it in nostalgia and regret of my past. The only true moment were there is joy is right now.

I love water also and the energy that it has. When I am asked to give a world picture of my life before my "awakening" and after I always see myself as a dry useless river that now has clean, pure water flowing in it.

The biggest joy in life is making a difference in people's lives. When I forget myself long enough to do that life is wonderful to me.

With my whole heart,
Colleen

I have, too, wondered if I would grow bored in eternity, with nothing ever changing. I have also wondered how Heaven could be perfect because perfection is a human perception; what one person thinks is perfect, another thinks is ugly or useless. So, heaven for one person could be hell for another.

As far as eternity being boring though... I do not believe that we spend eternity with God. I think of heaven as a temporary resting place before we are reincarnated.
However, before this became my belief, I considered that maybe heaven is timeless. A second could be a decade, a century could be a week. Perhaps there is no perception of time.

Hmmmm . . . very abstract thoughts, but I'm finding myself agreeing with you Roni. Perfection is a human opinion, and that brings me to my theory.

Remember that 80% of your brain that remains unused throughout your life? I think that in death that part of brain awakes. We live in our version of paradise. There is no time, it's like living in an endless dream. What would seem like eternity could only be a few seconds, or vise versa. A christian man would envision himself in Heaven, by God, in a blissful afterlife. An atheist might just shut down, or maybe after death they still envision themselves among their loved ones on Earth.
I must say I find the concept of Heaven rather boring. What is the point in an afterlife if there is nothing wrong with it?

I've never seen the afterlife as the "city of gold" people think of. I think the afterlife is when the soul is reunited with the creator, and we become a part of something so much more. Just as our earthly bodies recycle through the earth, our souls, a form of God's creative energy, return to the source. At least, that's the way I think of it. I could be totally wrong, but it comforts me to know God has it all planned out - after all, he has done great things so far.

My believe about the eternities is like the universe...ever expanding Riley. I believe I will be a co-creator with God, just as I am now, but with more conscious awareness. Nothing boring about that as far as I can see.

I'm different....anything that I have to do for a long time bores me so doing it forever just is not appealing. I'm comfortable that God has an answer for that also. Heaven can not be heaven if there's the possibility that I'll b bored there.

I don't believe in eternity. Once I die, that is it. Then my body will decompose and I'll eventually be billions of atoms that are everywhere. And I quite like the sound of that.

So you believe time and space as we know it stops somewhere? I understand not believing that you have a soul, but eternity? Forever ever?

Oh,sorry, I should have clarified. I do not believe I have a soul. When I die, that is it. I don't believe in heaven/hell/purgatory/an afterlife. I don't know a whole lot about physics, but yeah, I believe this universe is infinite, so I guess I don't believe that time and space as we know it stops somewhere.

k thanks

I agree with Carlie that "All we know in this world has a beginning and an end". There is plenty of evidence in the history of the world of species, climates, and environments evolving and then disappearing. Humanity and the world as we know it now will not last forever either. Individually, there have been billions who have already died and are, I believe, no more. I am not afraid of death and its inevitability, as well as the beauty of moments we experience and that which we see, hear and feel is more poignant and endearing for being ephemeral. This was particularly clear to me when I thought I would soon die of cancer. Every flower in bloom, bird song and summer day was so precious that it could make me weep. I do not believe in a literal Hell,or Heaven in the Christian mythology nor in any of the other various lands of afterlife humans have created and described in poems,stories or whatever. If "I" or some essence of me should exist after death, it will not be in a physical body I would recognize nor would it have a human mind to think and ponder this...Obviously, I have no memory of any life before my birth. Likewise, neither pre-birth nor post-death seems to promise any pain or suffering either so is nothing to be feared.

Yeah, I've often thought that if I was not Christian (or a believer), then I wouln't have to worry about eternity or many of the other things I worry about like "evil". That would make life rather easy, I would just have to go through it and enjoy the experience, then it would be over. Since I am Christian, there's no escaping the worry and the thoughts. But, since I trust God explicitly, there's no real worry anyway.

I touched on the subject of immortality in my second nonfiction book Existential Meditation: On The Meaning of Existence. I'd like to add the following (an excerpt from the section Immortality as a state) as part of this discussion.


Taking into consideration the religious beliefs, let’s envision the state of immortal existence. Obviously, there is no sickness, no death, no end, and no birth. Souls will simply be, and there will be no time in which they will cease to exist. Additionally, each belief system hints to the possibility of the soul to experience emotions and whenever there are emotions, there will most certainly be disappointment. Consequently, this immortality suggests an eternal state of flux and reinvention, rather than permanence.
Let’s consider this for a moment. All major religions (except for Shinto) accept the fact that the main essence is preserved after death. This means that memories of the past are retained after death.

If this is the case, then in the final state of immortality, ones emotions will cause him to contemplate and reminisce about the differences between the past and the present. And because emotions lay the foundation of behavior, one will allow emotions to stir a sense of longing.

The emotions of anger, disgust, fear, joy, sorrow and surprise are often supported as being basic from evolutionary, developmental, and cross-cultural studies. Each basic emotion is posited to serve a particular function (often biological or social), arising in particular contexts, to prepare and motivate a creature to respond in adaptive ways. They serve as important reinforcers for learning new behavior.


I already pointed out that essence encompasses memories and cognitive understanding of existence. As one proceeds to experience the state of immortality, the sum of new emotions will modify his behavior and his essence will experience a new birth. The emergence of the question ‘why’ will cause reasoning to occur, which will leads to the beginning of a new quest for meaning leaving the essence little chance to retain its pre-mortal qualities.

When a new immortal essence begins to emerge, the old essence formed as a result of the physical existence will diminish and be replaced by a new understanding of immortal existence. As a result there will be an end, or simply said death, to one’s pre-mortal (original) essence, and with this death, one will begin to question the length of immortality.
Some believe that in immortality beings will possess knowledge of everything and therefore will not seek meaning. But aren’t new emotions always bringing new experiences and the formation of new knowledge? If so, this suggests an infinite cycle of acquiring new understanding. However, if this is the case, immortality suddenly looks a lot like reincarnation, since in reincarnation the rebirth is primarily geared toward gaining knowledge and understanding.
The more one considers immortality, the more it looks like physical existence without the death. This should not come as a surprise since this concept is uprooted in the internal desire to prolong the existential essence beyond its possible means.

Thanks for your assessment Simon. It's always a pleasure to find those who have also contemplated such things.

I wanted to add though about your comment "As a result there will be an end, or simply said death, to one’s pre-mortal (original) essence, and with this death, one will begin to question the length of immortality."

I don't see change as death. I am different from the 10 year old Carlie because of my additional experiences. But I don't equate that to the 10 year old having died. I am still that 10 year old, plus 22 more years of adaptations, reexaminations, etc. Along those lines then, my preimmortal essence will always be united to my immortal essence and will, I think, look forward to further education and experience that eternity will hopefully provide. This is why I cannot look forward to the conventional ideation that we'll be happy forever in heaven and just be around.

i also wanted to commend you on your categorization of "the immortal essence". WHen I read it, I knew exactly what you were talking about. It is so difficult for me to find words to encapsulate exactly what it is I am saying when talking about things not of this world with the words of this world. SO Kudos!

Hi Carlie,

Thank you for the kind words. What I wanted to convey with the emergence of a new essence in the state of immortality was the idea that pre-immortal state will be swept away by the sheer quantity of time, everlasting and infinite time that will be present in immortality. Therefore, the current 60, 70, 80, 90 years of existence will be drowned in the oceans of foreverness. And since this new infinite state will bring abundance of knowledge to such an extent that it will dwarf our the current lives, the pre-immortal state will be buried, curtained, lost, or dead if you wish soon after.

Ah, but with all that foreverness, what if you have the capacity to comprehend the previous state as part of it, and are able to integrate it with the knowledge of everything that came before and after - then the previous state is not lost, merely part of the whole experience.

Hi Rebecca,

Agree with you, but then let's look at an example. Recall the first time you experienced and then learned about the taste of onions. Now try to integrate the pre and post states of your onion awareness and with your entire knowledge and experience of life to date...
I know, I know the comparison isn't perfect, but what I'm getting to is the totality of time spend in the physical shape (pre-onion awareness) versus foreverness (post-onion awareness). Of course, I am only trying to crystallize human perception of immortality. My believe is actually in the presence of an all encompassing nothingness that succeeds existence.

Whereas, my belief is in an all encompassing awareness that exceeds existence.

Is existence really existence if there's a creator who can will anything into existence or will it out?
Can nothingness really exist if existence ever existed, since for nothingness to exist, existence would have to be nullified?

Hi Carlie,
I address the concept of Nothingness and Existence in my book . It'll take a while to answer your question directly as various factors need to be considered (i.e. How did we, humans, develop our understanding of what is to exist? What is the concept of Time or Beginning of self (escape out of Nothingness) and Death of self (return to Nothingness)).

I'll add a small excerpt here from chapter one where I touch on the concepts of Beginning, Time and our cognition of the two.

"The concept of beginning is intertwined with time. Past and future are both parts of the linear progression of this constant. As a result, the cognition of the present eludes the need for certainty and stability. Pascal wrote of this uncertainty:

We sail within a vast sphere, ever drifting in uncertainty, driven from end to end. When we think to attach ourselves to any point and to fasten to it, it weavers and leaves us; and if we follow it, it eludes our grasp, slips past us, and vanishes for ever. Nothing stays for us. This is our natural condition, and yet most contrary to our inclination, we burn with desire to find solid ground and an ultimate sure foundation whereon to build a tower reaching to the Infinite…Let us therefore not look for certainty and stability. Our reason is always deceived by fickle shadows; nothing can fix the finite between the two Infinites, which both enclose and fly from it.

The problem of the finite lies in its natural characteristics. If one postulates that infinity is not comprised of finite occurrences linked by time, but is a component of the cognition of the finite, then infinity is now. As such, infinity exists in the comprehension and recognition of it. Lapsing into this philosophical interpretation, however, will codify cognition, or consciousness as the object that defines nature. If one subscribes to the school of thought, which holds the idea that mind is an empty box at birth, then he must concede that infinity does not exist until cognition is developed as precedent to the definition of infinity. This all comes back to the question of recognizing and understanding ones existence as a path to self-development."

I'm not trying to promote my book here, but it'll certainly help our discussion if you go through it. It'll level the playing field so to speak.

Simon
"It'll level the plain field so to speak"

I assume you mean the "playing field">

due knot tryst you're spell chequer

No, I make my own mistakes!

Carlie wrote: "So part of my Christian faith includes the belief that in the end we spend eternity with our creator. But personally, I don't understand why eternity is supposed to be a prize. All we know in thi..."

since you too were candid so i will just ask candidly why then are you a Christian? if only to be dissuaded from suffering why then go through the process of life? not to be rude for i too am dissuaded by the mere thought of everlasting happiness for at best happiness has been fleeting for me, between draughts of boredom. a day in itself seemed a lifetime of boredom, so i wanted more. christianity answered nothing for me, i thought of itself as a childhood story at best and objective at worst. also, i believe the bible has never stated eternity as living everyday as the same, but even if it were many different days, eternity would be boredom a million times over.

but to have a correct concept of heaven is subjective, belief at best is that on an objective level of self-satisfaction; through a medium that says it provides man with all. your concept may not be the correct concept of heaven but it is your own. and one may suffer from these thoughts, but the overcoming of suffering is palpable, one must however ask oneself if life is simply the overcoming of suffering would it not be easier to simply align oneself with something that is eternally truth and eternally forgiving and gentle.

i myself am not burdened by forever, i am only troubled by my past, thinking in the now, and reaching for the future, in essence living in the 'Real', or that is what i am trying to do, but eventually i do suffer, so i try to overcome it, just to fall back into an eternal recurrence.

I am a Christian because I find that Jesus speaks the truth. Please note that I said that part of my Christian faith is the belief in eternity with God. I am sorry that I didn't sufficiently separate "the" faith from "my" faith. The only things I truly believe are the words of Christ. Everything else is someone else's opinions or interpretations to me and do not affect my belief in Christ at all. This is why I can question the prize-ness of eternity without questioning my own faith.
I don't understand the second question.

And Simon, that was more of a rhetorical question. If my understanding of rhetorical is correct.
And, you don't seriously spellcheck your posts do you?

thanks for clarifying, but there has never been a testament written by jesus so are you referring to his parables in the bible as the truth he speaks? also, my second question was referring to your disdain from hell, or eternal suffering, because if you dislike suffering so much, i simply ask, why then go through life?

Of course, knowing for sure what Jesus (assuming he existed) actually said and properly interpreted in the context of the culture and time of course, one would have to believe what people wrote about it who did so 50-70 years or up to hundreds of years after his death ...and that the translations from aramaic to greek to english (possibly via a latin translation to english) were accurate and that the scribes who copied the manuscripts thruout did not amend, add or subtract, or change any of the text..(which we know they occasionally did) and that they were writing about historical events not spinning a story. No one yet has come up with anything that a historical Jesus actually wrote himself as Dana said. What is attributed to him by others is sometimes in conflict with what others have said he said and there are some other inconsistencies in "his" story. So, one has to choose between canonical gospels (in the NT)on occasion.....and those gospels are not the only ones extant...Some were NOT included in the NT we know but were contemporary and considered valid by some early Christian groups. So you are taking "on faith" the selection of gospels and the hearsay (even inconsistent) in them and the versions presented as interpreted. People choose to believe their particular religious story and not believe the religious stories in other religions which are just as strongly believed by the adherents of other religions...

I did not know my great grandmother personally but I know things about her that my grandmother told me. So if I were to tell you that my great grandmother had very fine hair, because I did not know her, you would automatically assume that I am lying? And what would be the purpose of my lie?
And let's say Jesus did write his own story, would you still believe it? David Koresh told his own story, yet I doubt you believe him. I do not. Joseph Smith also wrote his own story.
The written word does not personify truth simply because it is written. Just as oral tradition can be manipulated, so can the written word.
But let's say, you're right, these people who wrote about Jesus were swindlers. What would they have to gain exactly by promoting peace, forgiveness, and truth in an untruthful way?
If you find things attributed to Jesus that are untrue, that is your understanding. For me, I find the gospel of forgiving others that have done you wrong not only beautiful, but true. Blessing your enemies instead of cursing or fighting them? Embracing sinners instead of shunning or condemning them? Treating others as you would like to be treated? All of these teachings just ring true to me. And I don't even practice this stuff everyday! When I don't forgive others, I am aware that I'm doing the wrong thing and wish to do the right thing.
I don't know of anyone else's sayings or any sayings attributed to anyone else that my actions are sometimes in opposition to yet I recognize as unadulterated truth.
You're right that I choose to believe in Jesus. I cannot choose to believe in an eye for an eye, nor in man. I cannot choose to model my life after anyone else I've heard of nor seen because I can see where they are wrong. Jesus, or what is attributed to him, I find nothing false about. I am not going to turn away from his teachings simply because they were reported by imperfect people because imperfect people cannot report perfection with no element of truth in it.
Not everyone sees the truth in what Jesus says, and I understand that. In fact, I did not see the truth in turning the other cheek until a singificant event happened in my life which I will not go into. But, it is the truth for me and I choose to live by that truth. I choose to have faith in the Jesus reported in the Bible.

As for your second question Dana, I go through life because I want to. WHo likes suffering? Everyone living right now dislikes suffering yet go through life. Life is not eternal suffering. I dislike the concept of eternal suffering.

If-you-like-the-guidance-you-quoted,it-does-not-matter-who-said-it.....jc-allegedly-said-other-things-which-did-not-happen-or-were-based-on-superstitions-of-the-day-but-one-can-ignore-those-and-take-the-useful-things.

(sorry,my-space-bar-no-longer-works!)

A-point-though;your-analogy-is-not-a-good-one.you-believe-your-mother's-description-of-your-grandmother's-hair-because-you-know-and-trust-your-mother,she-is-who-she-says-she-is,and-you-assume-she-knew-her-own-mother's-hair.
you-do-not-know-the-people-who-wrote-the-gospels-and-you-do-notknow-even-if-they-bore-the-names-ascribed-to-their-gospels-nor-if-they-wrote-of-things-they-themselves-observed-decades-before-or-were-telling-a-story-they-heard...or....
etc.

But let's say, you're right, these people who wrote about Jesus were swindlers. You asked, ' What would they have to gain exactly by promoting peace, forgiveness, and truth in an untruthful way?', the answer is simple, when one does not know an answer it would be necessary to create one. What did the church have to gain by burning heretics if their way was the truth, how could untruths blatantly fool the masses. By presenting a simple model towards life and morality one can be at peace. I believe the writers of the testaments wanted desperately to have faith in these stories no matter how much they struggled with it.

You also said, 'When I don't forgive others, I am aware that I'm doing the wrong thing and wish to do the right thing', but who can say that this isn't the right thing to do, who is to say that forgiveness and resentment are not in human nature. yes, there are moments when we choose which actions we live by, for me i wish to abandon all sense of self-preservation, all notions of living comfortably in an unknown dream, i.e. eternity, heaven, for then i abandon reality.

Lastly you said, 'I go through life because I want to. WHo likes suffering? Everyone living right now dislikes suffering yet go through life. Life is not eternal suffering. I dislike the concept of eternal suffering,' and i just wanted to say that i want to live life, even though it bores me at time, because i have goal to write, but even that i time i feel i am indifferent towards life. we all have our reasons for living, but we do go through life in search of an overcoming of suffering, or for others the avoidance of suffering. i should of said that life isn't eternal suffering but i do think the concept of eternal recurrence has some reflections we all must go through.

Sorry about your space bar Wendy. What exactly did jc allegedly say which did not happen?

"when one does not know an answer it would be necessary to create one" I disagree. I don't make up stuff just to create an answer to what i do not know. Therefore, I can only project this to the alleged swindlers and this doesn't explain what they had to gain by making up what they attribute to Jesus. I can completely understand what the catholic church had to gain by burning heretics. That does not extrapolate to those who recorded what Jesus taught.

sorry carlie, i was not talking about you when i said it would be necessary to make up an answer, i was referring to those swindlers. but i could also say when one doesn't know the answer it is convenient to find that answer in another's work or teachings, i.e. if someone fears death they are relieved to know they will live on, or even one has a basis in which to live a morally 'good' life in which others already believe in. i could be wrong but the only thing i think these people could gain in what they attribute to Jesus is a model for that which they aren't and what to become, they could also desperately want to believe in a god or in a messiah, but those are just my thoughts.

as to the catholic church and the burning of heretics i referred to them only as a basis of a religion's need to protect a universal, undeniable 'truth'.

Hey - this is an awesome discussion which I only just now saw, as I haven't been on any GoodReads discussion boards in months at the very least. It seems this thread has died, but I hope you don't mind if I resurrect it (SEE THE JOKE THERE? HAHAHA! OK, moving on...)

On the original question, my views have changed greatly over time. When I was younger, I used to view Heaven as a vast library! At various stages of my life, I've been concerned by different aspects of the concept of Heaven. For a while, it upset me greatly that, quite obviously, if one believes in individualized Heavens, then "one person's Heaven is another's Hell." For a long time, the question that bothered me was if my partner died and I remarried, with whom would I be reunited in Heaven? Most recently, I've been experiencing the stifling claustrophobia of the idea of a place populated by everyone who has ever lived.

What I've been thinking in reading these comments, though, is that the idea of "eternal bliss" has most in common with Vonnegut's concept of being "trapped in the amber of this moment." It isn't a consecutive series of blissful moments, but rather eternity wrapped in an instant. You know that timeless feeling you get when you experience true joy?

When you're immersed in a great book and you shake yourself upon finishing it, as though waking from a deep sleep.

When you're engaged in a stimulating conversation and you look at the clock eventually and think, "Where did the time go?"

When you fall into someone's eyes and forget even to breathe.

When you stare at a single feature of a great painting until the loudspeakers suddenly announce that the museum is about to close.

THAT is the timeless joy that we will experience as eternal bliss. It's impossible to become bored when you are unaware that time is passing. These are the moments that will trap us in their amber.



As for the sub-discussion, about the veracity of the Bible's claims about Jesus... well, it seems to me that at the heart of the conflict is the debate between "truth" and "fact." A lot of people seem to conflate the two, when reality shows that they are often quite different. Rob Bell says that "all truth is God's truth," and that is a philosophy that I buy into wholeheartedly. It really doesn't matter whether the Gospel writers had shoddy memories, or were even spreading intentional lies. The *facts* of the situation pale in comparison to the *truths* - and if the persona of Christ Jesus is charismatic and compelling enough to get centuries of people to rally behind those truths, then God bless the imperfect chroniclers!

So, it does not matter if the gospel writers were not giving historical fact or whether JC existed or anything told actually represents facts but that the "truth" or the manufactured or composite myth got enough people to believe in the story (minus any factual basis).....that was great? Lets not confuse folks by introducing facts! Lets just applaud what "sells" and spreads faith in that particular religion?
Mohammed rose to Heaven on a White Horse after getting the Qu'ran (written by Allah in Arabic) is another such inspiring story. It worked too. Islam is growing faster than Christianity.

Truth can be found from many disparate sources. It's truth, also (in my opinion), that "Be excellent to each other, and, party on, dudes!" is a worthwhile philosophy to live one's life by. If it were to catch on, and people were to start adhering to it, would it matter two thousand years from now that Bill & Ted were fictional characters, if people were still treating each other in positive ways?

What if people *could* be convinced that Jesus never existed? What if that led to great masses of folks eschewing all that he stood for? Would getting the facts out really be worthwhile to humanity?

Christianity is faltering today precisely *because* so many believers are becoming trapped by facts - the folks who think they can prove that the Earth is only howevermany thousands of years old, for example. The Bible fails as a book of facts. That's why dogma is so inane! It is filled, however, with Truth - about how we should treat each other, about how we should treat ourselves. Jesus, or his speech writers, spoke truth. THAT is the core of the Christian faith.

It's no accident that the story of Jesus - factual, or not - is presented more as a fairy tale than as a myth. His history teaches us about ourselves, and fulfills a longing for meaning and understanding that most people don't realize they even have... just as fairy tales do for young children. Truth is always more important than fact, when discussing human behavior or philosophy!

How does "his history" teach us about ourselves?
How does the idea that a Father God had his son sacrificed to forgive the sins of those HE created who believe in the son fulfill a longing for meaning among people who think. If you are saying its a fairy tale for "the masses" who need such to feel good about their lives despite say, poverty, illness, suffering and injustice......I say that helps people settle for those lives instead of actively doing what they need to supplant that reality with a better more just one with less suffering, etc.

These New Yorker cartoons sum it up nicely: http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_de...

Eschatology through humor.

and http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_de...

Wendy, I'm confused by your interpretation of Jesus' life. Bettelheim tells us that the difference between a fairy tale and a myth (which of course most religious stories fall under) is that a myth is about the unique, while a fairy tale is about the mundane. Myths speak about one person, who is extraordinary and thus interacts with the world in extraordinary ways. Fairy tales do the opposite - they tell of people who interact with extraordinary circumstances in ways that we feel we can emulate. Fairy tales are designed to teach children that they, too, can best giants and outwit witches. They speak to fears and insecurities that children don't even know they have.

Likewise, Jesus' story is one of the mundane. Despite the fantastic situations, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is an Everyman. When asked if he is the son of God, Jesus responds, "We are ALL children of God." Before leaving them the final time, he issues the Great Commission to his disciples, an entreaty to "Go and do as I have done."

I won't dispute that some factions of the Christian Church have attempted to use religion to make people complacent about their lot in life. The Christian faith, however, is strictly the opposite. Christians are continuously, throughout the New Testament, called to fight injustice and relieve suffering, to create a better reality not just for themselves but for everyone. Jesus' story teaches that we all can do as he did.

Hi, I'm new to this group. Anyone ever read Spook Science Tackles the Afterlife? It doesn't answer any questions about the afterlife, but it does show how far man has gone in his attempts to ferret it out. Interesting read for me, but Mary Roach's humor really works for me. She manages to lighten the heavy subject.

Personally, I think the afterlife is either going to be the next great adventure or absolutely nothing - no data either way.

Genevieve wrote: "Wendy, I'm confused by your interpretation of Jesus' life. Bettelheim tells us that the difference between a fairy tale and a myth (which of course most religious stories fall under) is that a myt..."

"Likewise, Jesus' story is one of the mundane". Genvieve wrote.
A mundane miracle-worker born of a virgin? ..actually "only begotten" son of a god.? This is the stuff of myth. Many myths involve a god mating in some magical way with a mortal female and the offspring is never mundane. As for dying and being resurrected? That is hardly mundane either.

Jesus's story includes changing water to wine and driving out demons, raising a man from the dead etc etc. I doubt if many of us would suggest we can do as he did.

Myths serve good purposes and evolve in various civilizations and are part of the culture. The Christian mythology is no different. You might enjoy reading Joseph Campbell's book Occidental Mythology for the context in which Christian mythology evolved. Clearly there are many common, borrowed or inflected symbols and stories in Christianity...which are also in Islam etc. Campbell's Primitive Mythology, his Oriental Mythology and the challenging Creative Mythology are also fascinating and recommended.

I would also suggest reading Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament, Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, as well as his other scholarly works including Lost Christianities. I have just finished Herbert Krosney's book, The Lost Gospel.

"The Christian faith"has been defined in various ways during various historical periods and in different geographical areas and even today there are many varieties. Your definition of THE Christian faith is undoubtedly not the only one around. Despite various church condemnation of some as heretics who would define it differently than the dominant church of the time..., there are still many interpretations of what that is.
I find the early history of Christianity interesting and its social context in a time of tumult..and the compromises to bring people into a community. I also find the gnostic gospels interesting...and the scholarly studies of the many strains of early Christianity; they reveal that there was no uniformity in the early centuries CE. The selection of which writings to be called canon and included in what became the New Testament (4 gospels and no more ((Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)) were successfully advocated by an early Bishop as appropriate because there are 4 directions (N,S,W,and E).... and the subsequent banning, burning, etc of those contemporary gospels or writings that were not included did not succeed in establishing uniformity of Christian belief.

There are two possibilities with regard to the "miracles" in the gospels.

Either the stories were intended all along to be fairy tales, or Jesus' actions were indeed typical for that time (I lean towards the second interpretation, personally.) After all, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath, no one said, "HOLY CRAP you just healed that guy!" they said, "No no no, not on the Sabbath!" They weren't impressed, particularly, with his skills, but with his audacity.

It is made very clear, in both the Gospels and in Acts (which is usually accepted to be the book of the standard Bible written closest to when he actually lived), that his followers are absolutely expected to do exactly as he has done. This is entirely in line with the concept of fairy tales. People who don't hold with those notions don't, of course, *literally* think that they would live in a world where genies existed, and be able to out-think them... but they accept that, in the context of the accepted rules of that world, that it would be possible.

I have always been under the impression that the debates and arguments among the early Christian branches were theological and dogmatic. I've seen nothing to indicate that the crux of Jesus' social revolution and call to action and message of community have been disputed. If you can point me to something that discusses that specifically, I'd appreciate it.

There are obviously mythological elements to the Bible and even the Gospels. It is, after all, an offshoot of Judaism, one of the most heavily mythological religions still active. I stated that Jesus' *history* is presented as a fairy tale, however. That doesn't discount or deny any mythological elements in the greater story - it only serves to show that the essence of his message holds up regardless of the factual accuracy of his chroniclers.

"the crux of Jesus's social revolution", "call to action" and message of community"
"his message"....
Why not define what you mean by each of those?....Its hard to discuss something left undefined for the purpose of discussion...Just as "THE Christian faith" needs to be defined so that a discussion does not fail due to lack of agreement as to terms.
The concept of community defined by a common religion was of course something that needed to be updated since it was not inclusive enough in areas filled with a hetereogenous population new diaspora from various places/cultures/traditions such as were trying to find their bearings after the tumult of war and breakdown of instituions and mingling of refugees, and settled out military and slaves left etc after invasions...One of the issues debated was how it was possible to accept into the Jewish communities, those who were Gentiles.(the whole issue of whether that had to reconcile the requirements of being circumsized with inclusion of new adults not raised as Jews). The Paulist solution.....the crafting of a community in which that was not necessary...was a clever one. It was Paul, not Jesus who focussed on people who were not identified as part of the Jewish people.... much as Mohammed did later... to include all believers in his new religion as part of the Ummah, a community of all who believed in Islam regardless of where they were and who they were).

This conversation has made me realize the truth of something else Jesus said. I will not quote directly but it was something like the sheep know the voice of their shepherd. Clearly some of us hear Jesus and recognize that he is speaking the truth and accept that truth whereas others don't recognize his sayings as truth at all.
I also see another difference. Some of us recognize our own frailties (as far as understanding and knowledge) and accept that there is a being "higher" than us whereas others trust themselves and their own understanding which I think is more like a high level of self-confidence rather than conceit.

And as regards to defining the Christian faith, I would say that since the fundamental root is Christ than it has to do with being (or working towards being) Christ-like. And so faith in Christ would mean acceptance of his teachings which I believe are rooted in what he termed the greatest commandment which is "to love your neighbor as yourself".
I'm sorry but if we've all read the Bible, and I assume if you're participating in the part of this conversation that has to do with Christ you must have, than I don't see why we would need clarification on what Jesus' message was.

Carlie wrote: I'm sorry but if we've all read the Bible, and I assume if you're participating in the part of this conversation that has to do with Christ you must have, than I don't see why we would need clarification on what Jesus' message was."

Could you please explain to me why then there are so many different denominations and differences among Protestant, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, etc, etc. who all profess to have read and understood the Bible but often have very, very different ideas as to what the message is?

The different religions dont have different interpretations of Jesus' message. The main differences, from my point of view and I'm no religious scholar, are in methods of practice such as prayer to saints, priesthood, presence of a hierarchy of believers, and emphasis on particular aspects such as baptism, speaking in tongues, and what not.
The main idea that we are to love one another as Jesus loves us is not, as far as I know, a point of contention.

For another view on Jesus....and what he taught and what to emulate, consider the conservative evangelical Chrisitan Congressmen who share a house on C street in Washington which is not only a house but a place of worship for this flock of Christians...Note "the "totalitarianism of Jesus ": www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/jef...
The book on "The Family" should be interesting...

I'm sorry, I didn't see any views on Jesus there, am I missing something?

It is the wackos in The Family...the folks who talked of the totalitarian Jesus......,These are the same folk who believed that being "among God's chosen" meant that they would be given more leniency when they engaged in adulterous behavior or otherwise committed sinful acts. The same folk pointed to King David's seducing Bathsheba and sending her husband out to die on the battlefield so he could add her as a wife.... I did not say these people are "right" other than "right wing" but to simply point out how both OT and NT are used...including Jesus, as models of bad behavior as they interpret the stories etc...
Just as some emphasize that JC is coming back to Earth again and the world will come to an end with only the true Christians being "saved"...is used by some churches...(like the Jehovah's witnesses)....conveniently leaving out that JC told his disciples, this apocalypic event would be within THEIR lifetime...(obviously over 1,900 years overdue ).....Various interpretations of JC's message, and emphasis on various teachings, prophecies etc are in the Bible and are further emphasized by various churches, sects,denominations, or individual preachers etc..
That is what I am saying.
Each proclaims that their interpretation is correct. I agree that there are some commonalities in some of what he is said to have said (None of it is other than hearsay of course written by anonymous people under various honorary names and of course, amended or changed over time in places and drawing from other sources which precede them.)