Dead For 23hours, Taken To Heaven & Hell, Sent Back With A Message

reply to post by Praetorius

When I look at the world around me, I see a multitude of reasons to believe in a loving god.

And you seriously think that the diatribe of that supposed event and the gross cruelty, even if supposedly in the past, of the three Abrahamic religions is an indication of a loving God? They are founded on the premise of a being who is cruel and on the suggestion that because a soul has not been introduced to 'God' that it will perish through no fault of it's own.

I could have written that story - it was copybook theatrical religious dogma.

Curious too that the authorities were not called when the child died so there is no corroborative evidence at all. How very convenient!

reply to post by snowen20


... Church propaganda much?

reply to post by PuterMan


Ho, Puterman. I like your input on the seismic threads.

And you seriously think that the diatribe of that supposed event and the gross cruelty, even if supposedly in the past, of the three Abrahamic religions is an indication of a loving God? They are founded on the premise of a being who is cruel and on the suggestion that because a soul has not been introduced to 'God' that it will perish through no fault of it's own.

I won't speak as to the article, honestly. I have my own qualms with it and don't agree with some of the theology presented - which actually addresses your last bit there. I've posted my view on this later in the thread:

"I'm fuzzy on this one, personally. I think there is likely mitigation for those who have either never heard the message, or never been given it properly to understand & accept. The bible says 'The wages of sin is death', but also says 'sin is not imputed where there is no law'.

Coupled with Revelation saying the rest of the dead would be resurrected and 'judged according to their works', I think the process doesn't operate entirely on technicalites."

Very rough phrasing of it, but no, I don't think a soul that hasn't been introduced to god even actually exists - I believe the new covenant in Jeremiah where god promised to write his law on the hearts of the people was not limited to christians, jews, etc. Whether this is something as simple as conscience or deeper/other than that, I'll not worry too much about, but I believe this is where the judgement based on a person's works/deeds comes into play.

As far as the more unpleasant aspects of the bible, I have to believe that they are mitigated by the plan that required them to come to fulfillment - protection of redemptive knowledge, bloodlines, etc. for the benefit of all, as well as expression of divine justice in some cases. We might not be able to completely understand it or justify it, but I'd imagine that's akin to asking the organisms humans experiment on for a broad variety of reasons to comprehend the event.

Thanks friend, be well.

reply to post by Praetorius

Very rough phrasing of it, but no, I don't think a soul that hasn't been introduced to god even actually exists - I believe the new covenant in Jeremiah where god promised to write his law on the hearts of the people was not limited to christians, jews, etc. Whether this is something as simple as conscience or deeper/other than that, I'll not worry too much about, but I believe this is where the judgement based on a person's works/deeds comes into play.

I guess that is one point of view, but if all souls have been 'introduced' to God then why are a large number of people not aware of this?

To illustrate this one must look at the case of a soul that has not been tainted with modern life. Horrible word but take a 'savage', generally depicted as an unrefined uncivilised native.

Not so. This native may be well versed in many different practices that we have forgotten. The rules of his society may be very different from ours. He may have Gods or a God, but not the God of Abraham. Given his circumstances why should he be judged on the terms of our religions? If as you say he was introduced to God it is obvious he has no concept of it.

In my experience some of the best and most 'Christian' people I have known have been non-believers and some of the most vicious and vindictive people have been the most religious.

As far as the more unpleasant aspects of the bible, I have to believe that they are mitigated by the plan that required them to come to fulfillment - protection of redemptive knowledge, bloodlines, etc. for the benefit of all, as well as expression of divine justice in some cases. We might not be able to completely understand it or justify it, but I'd imagine that's akin to asking the organisms humans experiment on for a broad variety of reasons to comprehend the event.

Personally I believe the more unpleasant aspects are placed there as a control. Do this or else type of thing. This is control by man. If this is the case then the concept of a loving God has been hijacked by the controllers and God in all the three Abrahamic religions is portrayed as a vicious vindictive unforgiving unloving character - rather like his staunchest followers in many cases.

The concept of two armies fighting each other both believing God is on their side is mind boggling!

reply to post by Praetorius


You wrote:

["When I look at the world around me, I see a multitude of reasons to believe in a loving god."]

You don't get much out, do you?

Quote: ["Amazing complexity."]

ANYTHING starting from even simple combinations of asymmetric polarities will grow into complexity, if there's a dynamic possibility in the system.

Quote: ["Implausibility balanced on the point of needle."]

This pseudo-argument is pure bosh. Any complexity can arrive at a point, where 'implausibility' can emerge. It's just another version than ours.

Quote: ["A beatiful world - that we have not taken care of."]

If estetics is your measure-tape of the value of creation, you can be right. If you include ethics and funtionality, stay away from nature, concentration-camps and politics and religion.

Quote: [" For those who appeal to the unfairness of life - most of that comes from the willful selfishness and cruelty of man, so that can't be aimed at him."]

What blatant non-sense. Unfairness existed long time before man.

Quote: ["As the bible says, the heavens declare his handiwork."]

The bible says something about a lot of things. Often contradicting itself, so there's something for every taste.

Originally posted by snowen20
Well, in my opinion which counts for nothing, Talking trash about an all powerful God is like being an internet tough guy. It only works when you are not physically dealing with each other. It's that one day that the internet tough guy meets his opponent in a gas station parking lot and realizes only too late that he is a 350 pound world renown martial arts champion known for beating ass that you have an OH SH** moment.
But of course by then it's too late right?

Oh well, such is life, moving on.

Sure, that's the usual outmost outcome of extremist religion: Violence.

Your own position on this is unclear though.

Originally posted by alfa1
After having read that page, sorry, but I'm not guying it.
Dead for 23 hours? This simply by itself would be world class front page news headlines.
Instead, the only witnesses were her mum, a church sister and her dad. All people who are clearly fanatical religious fundamental nutters who hear voices in their heads.
If the event actually happened (and there is no evidence that it actually did), it would be more of a kind of hypnosis than death.

Always nice to meet a fellow non-brainwashed, who can spot the essential instead of going ooooh and aaaah about clouds looking like angels etc.

reply to post by AOA2012


You wrote:

["Anyway, point is, the whole showing you heaven/hell thing is so over-rated because remember, Lucifer used to live in Heaven, and now he rules Hell, "]

Strange, I believed it was Satan who rules in hell. Or rather is going to, as he won't be send there before the second coming.

reply to post by PuterMan

I guess that is one point of view, but if all souls have been 'introduced' to God then why are a large number of people not aware of this?

To illustrate this one must look at the case of a soul that has not been tainted with modern life. Horrible word but take a 'savage', generally depicted as an unrefined uncivilised native.

Not so. This native may be well versed in many different practices that we have forgotten. The rules of his society may be very different from ours. He may have Gods or a God, but not the God of Abraham. Given his circumstances why should he be judged on the terms of our religions? If as you say he was introduced to God it is obvious he has no concept of it.

In my experience some of the best and most 'Christian' people I have known have been non-believers and some of the most vicious and vindictive people have been the most religious.

And this illustrates my point exactly - I'm not referring to a conscious awareness of god as presented historically in the bible, but to one's conscience, knowledge of and will to act according to moral values, etc. This is why I think typical christian judgementalism...well, I should say the ease with which most christians determine salvation, probably...is not as cut and dried as most like to think. It's possible that even people who consciously reject the faith as it's been presented to them or based on other things they've experienced in life might still be found righteous according to how they respond to this law of god as written on their hearts. My opinion, of course, but the scriptures hint for me to lean this way.

And 'christians' as a whole by no means have a monopoly on any of this. Christ says as much in the bible:

Matthew 7 21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Basically, if I christian doesn't walk humbly in peace and love, they aren't meeting the test given in their own scriptures - to walk as Christ walked.

Personally I believe the more unpleasant aspects are placed there as a control. Do this or else type of thing. This is control by man. If this is the case then the concept of a loving God has been hijacked by the controllers and God in all the three Abrahamic religions is portrayed as a vicious vindictive unforgiving unloving character - rather like his staunchest followers in many cases.

I can understand viewing it this way, although I feel it's mistaken based on the other factors and reasons I mentioned earlier. There are also more complexities to take into account as well - even in the human world, we've seen at time that justice is sometimes harsh and demanding - how much more so justice of the absolute? I won't even pretend that we can fully understand something so far outside our experience of reality. It's typically assumed in various media that an alien (read foreign, not ET) intelligence could be so far beyond our familiarity that it stands outside the boundaries of good or evil - some of Lovecraft's entities would be a good example.

The concept of two armies fighting each other both believing God is on their side is mind boggling!

Agreed. Man using religion as a political vehicle frustrates me to no end, regardless of the supposed excuses they make up to do so. When all sides are acting contrary to what the records of their faith actually dictate, nothing is good.

My understanding from reading the bible and looking into the history of the early church pre-rome is that christians should not be involved in military service...no aggression, reciprocation, or retaliation. Not even resistance, honestly. This is probably my biggest sticking point with the faith; how hard is it to accept what comes? If you've ever read Robert Jordan, then you'll be familiar with the Way of the Leaf, and I think this is the right idea.

Be well.

reply to post by Akragon


Not as much as I should..

reply to post by bogomil


My own position is irrelevant.
I merely found story interesting and thought that others might find it interesting as well. Funny how just that simple act can suddenly cause people to think I'm attempting to spew propaganda.

As for your comment,....Notice that violence is on both sides of the coin, not religion alone.
As far as my personal beliefs, well I'm a Christian which means I believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God.
Do I believe this story?.....Honestly I don't know, it sounds straight forward enough from a "Christian" perspective.
It is definitely a stylized vision. My biggest issue is why would god talk in King James version language when speaking to someone in modern age?

Ultimately this message being brought to us by this girl can only be determined individually. A person believing or not believing this story changes nothing.

reply to post by bogomil

You wrote:

["When I look at the world around me, I see a multitude of reasons to believe in a loving god."]

You don't get much out, do you?

A bit - and I've got a wide view on the world as well. I don't think you could call me sheltered, although you might disagree with my opinions - I would just say you're not paying enough attention as well as focusing too closely only on the negative - which really isn't that large a part of things if you can focus on something other than the matrix we're trapped in.

Quote: ["Amazing complexity."]

ANYTHING starting from even simple combinations of asymmetric polarities will grow into complexity, if there's a dynamic possibility in the system.

Quote: ["Implausibility balanced on the point of needle."]

This pseudo-argument is pure bosh. Any complexity can arrive at a point, where 'implausibility' can emerge. It's just another version than ours.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. When I see the very narrow allowances of a wide range of variables required to support our existence on the cosmic scale coupled with the amazing amounts of information we're told to believe spontaneously organized itself through natural processes after somehow making a leap from disparate molecules to a complex structured unit with working form and function, on top of many many other details, I'm forced to ask how far I must strain my credibility.

Quote: ["A beatiful world - that we have not taken care of."]

If estetics is your measure-tape of the value of creation, you can be right. If you include ethics and funtionality, stay away from nature, concentration-camps and politics and religion.

Aesthetics doesn't really figure into it. If you've never noticed the beauty of the natural world and the universe around you, as well as the interplay of life and the whole as an integrated unit, you have my apologies. Is it all happy and fluff? No, life is hard even in nature - but that doesn't make it less beautiful.

Quote: [" For those who appeal to the unfairness of life - most of that comes from the willful selfishness and cruelty of man, so that can't be aimed at him."]

What blatant non-sense. Unfairness existed long time before man.

What unfairness not presented by man are you or yours having to deal with? Many of our physical afflictions can be ascribed to lifestyle choices and external pollutants introduced by man. As far as unpleasantness that occurs naturally, you can't consider it fair or unfair as there is nothing merited or due us from nature, and the natural world works according to its own rules and laws - for it to violate those would be unfair.

Quote: ["As the bible says, the heavens declare his handiwork."]

The bible says something about a lot of things. Often contradicting itself, so there's something for every taste.

I don't agree, but I'd imagine you guessed as much I see an overarching continuance of the saga of reality from the jewish perspective and most of the supposed contradictions I've been introduced to have explanation or resolution.

Regardless, I believe they do declare his handiwork. Thanks and be well.

Originally posted by snowen20
reply to post by bogomil

 

My own position is irrelevant.
I merely found story interesting and thought that others might find it interesting as well. Funny how just that simple act can suddenly cause people to think I'm attempting to spew propaganda.

As for your comment,....Notice that violence is on both sides of the coin, not religion alone.
As far as my personal beliefs, well I'm a Christian which means I believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God.
Do I believe this story?.....Honestly I don't know, it sounds straight forward enough from a "Christian" perspective.
It is definitely a stylized vision. My biggest issue is why would god talk in King James version language when speaking to someone in modern age?

Ultimately this message being brought to us by this girl can only be determined individually. A person believing or not believing this story changes nothing.

Thanks for your answer.

Please notice, that I wrote EXTREMIST religion in my initial post to you. It makes a lot of difference, as I don't believe the average religionist is an insane maniac, being both a nutter refusing science/logic or a bloodthirsty killing-machine.

Most religious people I know even dislike evangelists, because evangelists give their religion a bad name.

I believe extremists from all ideologies are potentially the bad guys.

Quote: ["Do I believe this story?.....Honestly I don't know, it sounds straight forward enough from a "Christian" perspective."]

You don't find the dead for 23 hours thingy a bit fishy? Any competent person testing this? Rigor mortis? Braindead (which ofcourse would be difficult to measure in a fundamentalist christian, as the difference before and after death would be negligible. Sorry about that, just couldn't resist the temptation to be glib).

Quote: ["It is definitely a stylized vision."]

Individuals from other religious groups come 'back' with THEIR versions, with feed-back from their own religion.

I've had my own share of para-normal experiences, but being a sceptic, I've never drawn conclusions.

reply to post by Praetorius


Thanks.

You wrote (on 'going out' much):

["and I've got a wide view on the world as well."]

You see, I own, live on and used to cultivate my farm since 1974. And any romantic ideas you may have about creation or nature being a great harmonious totality, you'll have taken out of you very quick on a farm. I'm a moral vegetarian, with somewhat ahimsa ideas, and while my farming (as non-invasive as I tried to make it) has made me a mass-murderer, this is still nothing compared to the fights going on in nature itself.

Apart from grass, clover and honey-bees living in symbiosis, there's hardly anything which isn't trying to kill something else out there. The first years here would beat any horror-movie with death-screams every night from small furry thing being killed by bigger hungry things. Eventually you get used to it.

Even the trees in my forest are killing each other as best they can and in different ways, and recently the local 'green fascists' re-introduced wolves here, so our household-pets aren't safe either.

This is REALITY I'm talking about; not some city-dweller's fantasy of back-to-nature fake tao'ism or whatever. And it happens with or without my participation.

Quote: [" which really isn't that large a part of things if you can focus on something other than the matrix we're trapped in."]

You mean everything in nature will be honky-dory as in a Jehovah's wittness' paradise, where lions are vegetarians, IF I FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE.

Dude, you have looked too much on the movie 'Avatar' or something similar. Things do as they do without my attention as an important part.

Quote: ["When I see the very narrow allowances of a wide range of variables required to support our existence on the cosmic scale coupled with the amazing amounts of information we're told to believe spontaneously organized itself through natural processes after somehow making a leap from disparate molecules to a complex structured unit with working form and function, on top of many many other details, I'm forced to ask how far I must strain my credibility."]

As I said earlier, complexity is a complety expected result of a dynamic asymmetrical set of polarities. And if you start with just three basic components, which can combine, and the combines combine again etc you will after only four generation have a potential result of outcomes exceeding something with more than 100 zeroes after it. And remembering how fast things happened at 'the start' a few generations didn't take long. Give complexity the app. 13-15 billion years of the universe and zillions is a laughable small number.

Given such a potential amount of complexity, the 'chance' of self-organizing complexity (=life) is VERY big. Ofcourse not 'life' as we know it, but 'life' fitting with another set a basic components combining in another way. In this other universe 'life' could be two space-dimensional and three time-dimensional and they would say: "Isn't it fantastic how we and the universe fit together. This surely must be structured from the beginning".

Quote: ["Aesthetics doesn't really figure into it. If you've never noticed the beauty of the natural world and the universe around you, as well as the interplay of life and the whole as an integrated unit, you have my apologies. Is it all happy and fluff? No, life is hard even in nature - but that doesn't make it less beautiful."]

Ofcourse I've seen the beauty in it, but no pipe-dreams based on doctrines or principles will ever take away the obvious brutality of it. Mice being tortured by a cat (cats can be rather sadistic) and inmates in a concentration-camp, neither of whom have the benefits of your grandious theoretical idealism EXPERIENCE the suffering. You seem to believe, you can talk it away, by postulating that changes in human attitudes will change nature's laws.

Quote: ["What unfairness not presented by man are you or yours having to deal with? Many of our physical afflictions can be ascribed to lifestyle choices and external pollutants introduced by man. As far as unpleasantness that occurs naturally, you can't consider it fair or unfair as there is nothing merited or due us from nature, and the natural world works according to its own rules and laws - for it to violate those would be unfair."]

Sorry, we seem to talking about two different things. You introduced the concept 'unfairness' earlier, which I perhaps misunderstood to be 'meaningless suffering'. It's the last I refer to; more like as in buddhistic terminology. And I won't go for toning down suffering to unpleasantness. That's cosmetic semantics.

Why is nature's laws not fair or unfair, but it is unfair to violate these laws. How did you get to that? I'm a vegetarian, this is violating my nature. I train my cat (otherwise he would use my bed as a toilet). Is it some new-age mish-mash syncretism of tao'ism, christianity etc. you're trying to bring across?

reply to post by bogomil

You see, I own, live on and used to cultivate my farm since 1974. And any romantic ideas you may have about creation or nature being a great harmonious totality, you'll have taken out of you very quick on a farm. I'm a moral vegetarian, with somewhat ahimsa ideas, and while my farming (as non-invasive as I tried to make it) has made me a mass-murderer, this is still nothing compared to the fights going on in nature itself.

Apart from grass, clover and honey-bees living in symbiosis, there's hardly anything which isn't trying to kill something else out there. The first years here would beat any horror-movie with death-screams every night from small furry thing being killed by bigger hungry things. Eventually you get used to it.

Even the trees in my forest are killing each other as best they can and in different ways, and recently the local 'green fascists' re-introduced wolves here, so our household-pets aren't safe either.

This is REALITY I'm talking about; not some city-dweller's fantasy of back-to-nature fake tao'ism or whatever. And it happens with or without my participation.

I'll apologize now, I think we're just running into a difference of interpretation here. I'm not saying everything in nature is happy and soft and gets along well. The struggle is part of the cycle, and I know surviving in it is not easy, but there is a harmony that one can reach with nature - hopi and various other native cultures illustrate this well. Our society in general is out of harmony with the world.

You mean everything in nature will be honky-dory as in a Jehovah's wittness' paradise, where lions are vegetarians, IF I FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE.

Dude, you have looked too much on the movie 'Avatar' or something similar. Things do as they do without my attention as an important part.

No. Life still feeds on life, and sometimes that involves killing. I'm saying that's natural and not a negative thing. Maybe it's just different world views here, but I have much larger issues with the world of men than I do with the biting and toiling parts of nature. I much more respect the interactions of indigenous peoples, jungle tribes, plains indians, etc., with the world than our own.

And avatar was OK, but I don't draw any of my feelings from it, although it does have some of the same general themes - hollywood style. Sorry I'm not following the last sentence well at the moment.

As I said earlier, complexity is a complety expected result of a dynamic asymmetrical set of polarities. And if you start with just three basic components, which can combine, and the combines combine again etc you will after only four generation have a potential result of outcomes exceeding something with more than 100 zeroes after it. And remembering how fast things happened at 'the start' a few generations didn't take long. Give complexity the app. 13-15 billion years of the universe and zillions is a laughable small number.

Given such a potential amount of complexity, the 'chance' of self-organizing complexity (=life) is VERY big. Ofcourse not 'life' as we know it, but 'life' fitting with another set a basic components combining in another way. In this other universe 'life' could be two space-dimensional and three time-dimensional and they would say: "Isn't it fantastic how we and the universe fit together. This surely must be structured from the beginning".

I'll not try to argue statistics and probability with you, I was just giving one of the reasons I see a creator behind our existence. To say that what we see around us is a logical expected result with no hesitation, I believe is overly optimistic and takes a overly simplistic view of things. It overlooks issues with original biogenesis and I believe still grossly underestimates the amount of time required for the needed number of beneficial mutations to outweigh the much larger number of harmful or neutral mutations to get anywhere close to the level of information encoded in even 'simple' life forms - once the hurdle of biogenesis is overcome. And that's not addressing the various other highly-specific requirements that wouldn't take much of a touch to alter things fundamentally.

Ofcourse I've seen the beauty in it, but no pipe-dreams based on doctrines or principles will ever take away the obvious brutality of it. Mice being tortured by a cat (cats can be rather sadistic) and inmates in a concentration-camp, neither of whom have the benefits of your grandious theoretical idealism EXPERIENCE the suffering. You seem to believe, you can talk it away, by postulating that changes in human attitudes will change nature's laws.

No, I don't. Cats with mice is natural, though - concentration camps are not. I don't have a problem with the cats, but the people should know better and do as much damage to themselves emotionally and spiritually as they do to their prisoners on the same and additional levels.

The point is that we're not just working with nature's laws - we've introduced actual perversities and atrocities to the natural cycle, and live in completely unnatural ways in a state of detachment from the world around us - aside from trying to mold it to our whims and to fulfill our desires.

Sorry, we seem to talking about two different things. You introduced the concept 'unfairness' earlier, which I perhaps misunderstood to be 'meaningless suffering'. It's the last I refer to; more like as in buddhistic terminology. And I won't go for toning down suffering to unpleasantness. That's cosmetic semantics.

Why is nature's laws not fair or unfair, but it is unfair to violate these laws. How did you get to that? I'm a vegetarian, this is violating my nature. I train my cat (otherwise he would use my bed as a toilet). Is it some new-age mish-mash syncretism of tao'ism, christianity etc. you're trying to bring across?

Agreed, and I'm sorry if I got us off track here. I crossed my thought of likely arguments to what I said with my personal views on fairness so probably went out of context somewhat.

To clarify my thought, people like to say life isn't fair. There is definitely unfairness in human society - lies are told, promises and rules broken, expectations intentionally not fulfilled, etc. These are willful actions of men, who should know better, and depending on who is being unfair and what positions of influence they hold in life, their unfairness affects wide swaths of humanity.

There is also what people would like to call unfairness in the natural world - but nature doesn't operate by any rules of men, doesn't withhold anything that is due to us as it owes us nothing, etc. The bad things that happen in nature aren't unfair in my view - they are natural cycles, most necessary, and we sometimes are unfortunate enough to end up on the bad side of it. As nature doesn't have intellect, morals, etc. it cannot be unfair - it just is. People can be and are unfair. Nature can just be unpleasant, some times and places more than others. This is where I make my distinction.

And no, I'm not trying to offer any sort of mish-mash here. My view is what I take as christian from the bible, along with not liking what we've done with the place and ourselves. We have the potential to meet the needs of each and every one of us, yet millions starve. The rich hoard more than they could ever do anything with. We distract ourselves (not all, of course, and some minimally) with toys and gadgets instead of applying pressure on our leaders where needed to end the bad decisions - the number of people that vote for American Idol and talk about it obsessively at work drives me crazy.

I'm tired, so sorry again if I lost track anywhere here or this broke down into non-sensical non-answers somehow.

reply to post by bogomil


Ill make it clear that I am not blindly accepting everything this story has to say without question.
I think getting hung up on the small seemingly unimportant aspects of the story detracts from what is really important here, which is the message she has.

I am a very skeptical person regarding most things, this is no different. But I have noticed others who have read this deny it's possibility for one reason or another, some examples include:

1. It didn't happen because she could not have been dead 23 hours.

2. it sis not happen because the Pope would not be in Hell.

3. It did not happen because God loves children and he wouldn't let them suffer in a hell.

My opinion is not to get bogged down with those things because they may just be representational aspects of something else, in other words not literal. For example if you were a singer in life that's what you will be doing forever. Seriously that sounds more like a representational aspect to me rather than a literal one.

Her death for that matter, well, honestly I don't know she was truly DEAD dead. I mean like has been pointed out already there were no doctors present to verify true death. So perhaps she was just spiritually absent from the body. Again a representational view when one considers metaphysically speaking a body with out a soul could be considered dead...

Anyway all that aside i see an important message about the state of the world and the consequences and rewards for how one lives this life. Whether a person accepts this message is obviously up to them, but it does not take away from the effectiveness of the statements in my opinion.

HOW U CAN BE DEAD 23 HRS??????????????,,,,,PLEASE!!!!!,,,

Originally posted by MKultraVideos
reply to post by thegoods724

 

Yeah I find it hard to believe in a spiritual being who would send people to an eternal never ending fire, because they didn't whole heartly believe in him. I'm a spiritual person, I believe in no organized religion, bhuddism may be the closest I come, but I'm still wouldn't call myself bhuddist. I just like their teachings. I like some of the bible's teachings, and I like some of the Quran's teachings. All religions are beautiful when you see good people practice them. And I also wish we could live in a world where all religions could coexist, because they could.
The way I see it Christ could return and enlighten the masses and encourage peace and love. I can't reconcile his power and what he chooses to do with it, if all he did was come and take a few and let the rest burn. Then I can't call him a savor. That falls in line with more of a rent collector. Their are some amazing people in this world, and there are some very evil ones, and we do live in a world where most of the time you only see the evil ones. Religion doesn't seperate them. There are evil christians and there are good tribal people who never learned a religion.
I don't know what happens when you die, I think it's got more to do with what somebody envisioned about their mortalilty after death. When I die I envision a heavenly place with clouds made of nougat, and all my favorite people, and open bar all the time. So if i did die and go there, then came back would people think that my nougat, and bar like heaven was actually heaven. I hope so cause it's awesome sounding. Good thread, star and flag.

Its buddhism and buddhist not bhuddism.

reply to post by bogomil


nice to see we still recognize decency!.....this thread doesnt worth 1 sec of my time..of any sane beeing s time

story as been changed now?


'thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven'