PaulS

I see no issue with ending an inquiry when it is answered. But each to their own - of course one can inquire into life after death for the rest of their lives without finding another answer or conversely settling for one that suits their beliefs. Life after death is not a requirement for ultimate oneness. We all came from the same atoms as a result of the big bang and those atoms will continue to exist long after our consciousness shuts down. That is the ultimate oneness - we all come from the same stardust. I'm not aware of him having this view, but haven't read everything Erhman or finished this book yet. See above. Ultimate oneness doesn't need consciousness - it just is. I think it is the ego in our consciousness that tells us there cannot be any oneness if one's ego/consciousness ceases to exist. You miss the point - the fact that some think there is a level of judgement, punishment or correction required means we are already judging other's actions and creating those that 'qualify' for heaven directly and those that don't. Even 'degrees' of temporary torment or punishment or cleansing or whatever you want to call it, calls for judgment to be made and it is a typical human behavior that we want to start establishing what we think those actions and behaviors need to be. It is human judgment - all completely natural and part of our being, but something very human nonetheless in my view. I don't think it's a prejudice to acknowledge that our ego drives us to certain ways of thinking. Its a pretty major Buddhist concept that our egos drive us to think like we do. I'm not sure what you personally believe in concerning eternal life but I wonder if you actually know yourself. I mean apart from saying you think there is some sort of eternal life, that seems to me to be about as far as you have gotten. So it seems to me you can't say you understand man, life, meaning, God, oneness in such a way that it answers your question about what comes after death because you simply can't answer that question. So you seem to defend believing in an afterlife without actually understanding what that afterlife even looks like. It seems cart before the horse to me. I don't understand why you or others think that if they cease to have consciousness that their life has no meaning. You lose consciousness every night - did that day mean nothing to anybody because you are presently not conscious during your sleep? Of course not. When I die and my consciousness ceases, my children will live on. People I have met will continue. Things I have done in and of the world will also continue along their way. How does that make my life meaningless? If you could be certain right now that there is no afterlife, would you straight away turn around and say to your family - "My life has been a waste of time?" But more to the point, I think it is more about being at peace with one's non-existence after death. Clearly a lot of people don't want loss of consciousness to be the end so they possibly conflate meaning for this life with continued existence. I don't. I think of all the people who have gone before me - Buddha, Jesus, Einstein, Galileo, Plato etc etc. I hardly think their life is meaningless just because they no longer have an existing consciousness. If there is no afterlife, do you think Jesus' life was meaningless to humanity, that it was a waste of time to tell people to treat others with love? Galileo was just wasting his time determining that the earth rotated around the sun? The higher learnings that Plato shared with the world are of no regard? To me, it seems the ultimate selfishness if saying one's life has no meaning if they can't exist beyond it. Such a view selfishly disregards what their life has provided to others, what influence they have had on others, how they have helped others grow and develop. How on earth could you consider that meaningless just because you personally can no longer look back on it? To me you seem to be saying "I am only going to live a 'good' life if there is something in it for me afterwards. No afterlife - well I am going to live my life differently then". If there is in fact no afterlife - do you wish you had lived your life differently? That would seem to suggest you don't think you have lived your best life. Do you consider your life to have been a waste of time? Perhaps this is where we differ - you seem to conflate opinion with honesty. That's not to call you a liar, but many honest opinions are incorrect. I am being honest when I say that I believe I will cease to exist when I die, but I do not regard my life here and now to be meaningless. Do you think I am lying or otherwise not being honest?

Well, I think that's the thing - God isn't good, love or holy. They are all just human attributes and emotions that we apply with our human mind based on our human experiences. Rather, it seems to me, God just is - good and 'bad'. Evil happens, as does good. It's just all part and parcel of existence. Our 'perception' is what makes us pick sides on these issues. Other inquiring minds have sought and found the answer - it means nothing for human beings. We live, we die. I thin Erhman simpy takes a sensible agnostic view on things such as 'temporary' Hell. I don't think there is any biblical evidence to support any such Christian notion, but Bart wouldn't rule it out the same as he probably doesn't rule out Thor or Zeus, he just 'think's they don't exist. Of course, this all depends on ones view of what God is and what personal view one has of 'growing' into God. I don't think it is necessarily 'logical' though to deduce that because Christianity understands that there is a responsibility on humanity to grow in God that therefore it stands that as we aren't perfect by Christianity's understanding that therefore there must be more after this life. I would say you are perfectly human now and when you die, your consciousness ceases. But indeed levels and classes are determined by such thinking. This thinking starts trying to determine what type of person will deserve 'temporary' hell and what type won't. This leads to judgement about actions and behaviors, in groups and out groups, those that make the grade and those that don't. We do this as a perfectly natural human behavior, but that's what we do as perfect humans. I think they are interested in clickbait, they just don't understand why they are or how it works. The temptation of believing in an eternal existence is so great that most cannot accept non-existence after death - enter religion. The ego doing what the ego does. Yes, certainly the speculation means more to some. May they find peace.

I think it's a lot simpler than that. One doesn't need to speculate on what may come after because a) hell is a man-made concept used to try an influence others to live how others think they should, and it doesn't exist, so nothing to think about there, and b) therefore a promise of a heaven applies to everybody anyway, no matter how they live their lives (unless we start going down the path of 'levels' of reward and 'classes' of those in said heaven). Personally, I think one is more than capable of living a fruitful and worthy life without any supernatural clickbait. Of course, speculation for speculation's sake can be of interest.

Just received the book the other day and am looking forward to reading it. Unbelievably, I've found I've never been busier at home during this self-isolation time! My wife seems to have come up with a list of a thousand jobs we need to do right now around the house!

Our isolation and distance between cities is certainly our advantage in this scenario. Like the US, our overall statistics are skewed by different states. Our state of NSW is the most affected, primarily because of one cruise ship that was allowed to dock and infected passengers disembarked (but even that state has dropped from triple to double digit rates recently). My home state of WA has reduced it's new cases from in the 20's per day down to single figures. We may see an increase on our eastern coast due to the overall numbers, but there are heavy measures in place and being further brought in to ensure isolation and social distancing, so like I said, there is a quiet confidence that we are getting the better of it at this stage. It's certainly not going through the roof the wrong way anyway. Indeed we can't hide forever but I understand, like you I think, that these measures are required to 'allow' a more controlled spread of the virus to ensure our health systems aren't overrun with cases which invariably will shut them down and further the issues. In my opinion, our systems and economies are set up presently, so to speak, to cope with the numbers of people that die each year from the above list you posted of expected causes. It's the introduction of a new and rapid cause that has thrown everything out of kilter. A worst case scenario (that is if we all just went with the 'herd' option) would probably have seen tens of millions of deaths suddenly, just like with the Spanish Flu, which would indeed have a bigger impact on the economy than this 6 or so months of disruption, I think. Where that line gets drawn and we open society back up in stages, remains to be determined. I think luckily for you guys in the US, it isn't going to be Easter Sunday at least!

How's everybody travelling out there? I hope you are all safe and well. We're not copping it too bad here in Australia, comparatively, but it's still pretty unique to have so much of industry, retail and schools shut down. I think we have been lucky to date that our weather has still been warm and dry (we are mid-Autumn now, so heading into our cold and flu season soon) and that we commenced restrictions and isolations relatively early on in the piece. Most of our infections have come from cruise ships and people returning form overseas it seems, so there is a quiet confidence that we may be getting on top of it before it takes further hold. 21 deceased and nearly 5000 cases, but I know that's small fry compared to a lot of other nations out there.

I work in health & safety on an Offshore gas production facility, so it has been a major focus for me. As we’re a little bit like a cruise ship (200 people on board in the middle of the ocean) the focus has been on preventing the virus from arriving here (although I think most now understand that it is probably only a matter of time). We fly in people from all over the world to one town, and then helicopter them out to the facility. Now that coming into Australia earns you a 14-day quarantine, a lot of those people won’t be working. Our company has also taken an exceptionally cautious approach so if somebody at the heliport has the sniffles, we are preventing them and their fellow passengers from coming out. If somebody on board finds out a week after getting here that family back home have symptoms, we are sending them back to the beach as a precaution. It’s pretty full on and is causing all sorts of issues with work planning. I myself fly home in 48hrs (I’ve been out here for three weeks and so much has changed in that time!) but it sounds like I’m going back to a world gone crazy with supermarket shortages on toilet paper and staples such as flour and rice. My wife went shopping and she said almost all canned goods were sold out too. Interesting times. Social distancing or better yet - isolation, and washing your hands, are key to minimising risk. Hopefully the rate of the infection can be contained as much as possible to buy time for a vaccine to be developed.

I saw in your other posts that you worked it out. The universe at work maybe! Well I do hope this forum can be of some service to you in that regard. You haven't been an 'Aunt Ellen' at all or sound corny in the slightest. And thank you for your genuine well wishes.

It seems like a bit of a "how long's a piece of string" question. Meaning that all of the 'higher security' things you mention could be appropriate in some areas, but perhaps are less necessary is others. I think one should take a risk management approach - i.e. consider the credible likelihood against the potential consequences. And the likelihood or consequences could indeed change if one was male or female, elderly or young adult, value of possessions, etc. I was single when I bought my first house which was on a reasonable sized block of land in suburbia. Burglaries did occur in the area but most people were happy with a home alarm system, locks on doors, security screens on doors (some on windows but they're pretty ugly), and be smart about locking things up when you're out. Where I live now we had somebody murdered in an apartment block around the corner a couple of years ago - the offender was high on drugs, used to live in the apartment and went back there in his delusional state to collect his guitar. Instead he killed the man who had since moved in there. That's about as random in these parts as getting eaten by a shark, but it can happen. I mentioned previously about a security concept called CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) which, very briefly, touches on things like designing areas which have high visibility to passersby and neighbors which discourages crime (cos they can see the bad guys too easily), well lit areas, clearing bushes away from driveways and doorways (so nowhere to hide in ambush), and yes of course, having neighbors in your condo that in themselves act as a deterrent or extra set of security eyes. I'm not sure if this is what Joseph had in mind when he said that, but I was thinking that about the only place I could imagine where one would be 'completely safe from harm' would probably resemble some sort of prison with razor wire and security gates or some sort of concrete fortress, all dark and dinghy. From what I've seen, where there is a will there is a way - meaning that just about any security arrangements can be defeated if one has the will and resources to do so.

Thanks. I did remember your name and re-familiarized myself with some of your posts from way back in 2014. I liked your approach to things then and I still do now. Glad you have decided to end your hiatus for however long you should choose to. I hope you're liking participating here once again. Well, I'm still breathing so something's still kicking me along!

Ideally I'd like them to live in a building that doesn't need to be locked, windows can be left open at night, not be afraid people might be lurking in the backyard etc, but that's probably not the real world, even in 'good' suburbs. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking - I live in a reasonably crime-free area but I lock the doors at night, and to some degree our windows, but am more relaxed about them. We have a little dog (who's blind) but he's got good ears so I think he'd bark if somebody was forcing their way through a window flyscreen and timber slatted blind. I shut my front garage, we tend not to leave bikes or other property lying around out front, we have security lights that come on with movement and we have a security screen on the front door so you can open it without risk (unless they've got a gun!). I'm happy enough with that - it's probably just your standard basic security type stuff. Is that sort of what you're asking?

I would say “somewhere near me” but my wife might say “bugger that - we’re travelling!” I like the corner of the world where I live. It’s clean, relatively safe, we’re near the beach, town of only about 75,000 and an hour away from the state capital. So if they lived around here, I think that’d be good. But that said, they’re going to be their own selves, so all I really wish for is that they live in the place that makes them happiest - whatever that should look like. There’s always the risk of harm, but clearly there’s a lot more risk in some areas over others.

No, funnily enough, nobody ever eally presented the ‘challenges’ whenever we discussed having a family! 😜 I do sometimes joke with others who are talking about having kids by saying -“You know how people say they can’t imagine their lives without their children? Well I can!” I love them really, I promise. 😀

Yeah, I understand that Thanks. All good now. That was a period I went through about 12 years ago. The positives I take out of it are that I think I better understand how people may get to that point where they think suicide is the only answer (they just find themselves in a hole that they can’t imagine themselves escaping from) and it resulted in me volunteering on a suicide hotline for several years. For me it was all a freaky experience as up until that point (40 years of age) I thought I had everything in my life under control! Ha!

I agree - tiny houses aren’t necessarily secure in themselves and much would depend on where one was set up. I was thinking more about the affordability factor. Having been a police officer for 13 years (I left 20 years ago) I had a lot of experience with burglary, but you don’t need to be a cop to recognise the correlation between crime and lower socio economic areas. Happy to discuss architecture or design in another thread. A mix of concepts such as layered security (physical layers like an onion) and CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) can play a part, but these will probably always be limited to some degree depending on the community.

😀. Maybe I’ll just let my teenage boys run with their normal practice of telling me they don’t need to shower, even after a day full of sport!

I don't know if you had in mind, or have heard of, the Tiny House Movement so to speak. I see that as becoming very popular and a good way for people to live cheaply, safely, comfortably, and with or without a partner until such a time as they need to enlarge a little.

Thanks.

I generally try and live with conserving power and water in mind (turn off unnecessary lights, wash the car on the lawn, do full loads of washing, utilise natural light and windflow, etc). I too also separate my rubbish - waste in one bin (collected weekly) and recycling in another (collected fortnightly). I also compost all of our food scraps (not milk or dairy though). I mulch my gardens to prevent water loss which means then needing to use less water and power to water plants - I have a bore - I don't know what other countries call them ( a powered pump that taps into groundwater). I hope to get some solar panels on my roof soon if I can manage the immediate outlay (I know the long term benefits will be there, but have to ride out the short term costs). I generally use reusable shopping bags and not plastic, store bags. I have the first bath of the night, followed by my wife and then my two sons. Only kidding!

So I've been thinking about this a bit and have thought I would apologize to Thormas by way of PM, but that might not be fair considering I made my initial comment on a shared thread. So instead, I think it is more appropriate to apologize here. So, for what it's worth, I apologize unreservedly Thormas for saying you actually did read my post when you said you didn't. That in effect meant I was calling you a liar in public. It was an inappropriate comment to make, either as a member or as an Administrator, and I am sorry. That's not the type of forum I want us to build here. Regards Paul

I suppose I shouldn't/don't rule it out entirely as not real, it's just that I can't feel it these days as actually having been real and I guess I can't help the feeling that I now 'know' it wasn't really. But 'maybe' as you say. I can say I'm open to such, just that I am yet to experience anything that makes me believe such. See, I'm just not convinced that that isn't out own minds just coming up with the 'experience'. Our minds are powerful tools. The fact that we each have a different image of Jesus that we were both most familiar to us suggests to me that our mind is accommodating us rather than us having a genuine experience. But I mull this over in discussions like this and I don't want to say that other people's experiences aren't real experiences. It's just that for me personally, I'm not convinced they are or that mine were. It's hard to say that without people often taking offence, but that's not my intention, it's just that their claimed experience does nothing to convince me of its authenticity. Does that make sense? No problem, at all. Perhaps I could believe, it's just that I don't. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I don't think we can make ourselves believe one thing or another. We either believe something or we don't. I don't think it's a choice. Could it be real and I not believe so - I think yes. Ha - I didn't handle it! Not if you consider 9-10 months of anxiety and depression, whilst seriously considering taking my own life, as handling it! (that was after the Jesus/Satan duel in the sky). But luckily for me, I kept breathing and came out the other side. This forum was literally a life saver. I hope it is always here for others that may come across it in such a state. Thanks. I appreciate your comments and discussion. I don't read you as trying to convert or tell me what to think either. Cheers.

Just a feeling really, to my core. Mabel that’s how to explain it - I feel an experience to my core that tells me those past experiences were imagined - my brain at work. There was one relatively vivid experience where Jesus (white Jesus with blonde hair) was sitting in the loungreoom with me. I felt ‘saved’, safe and at ease. That was when I believed in an eternal Hell of torment. Other times I would swear that Jesus was with me personally, unable to be seen but an invisible consciousness that was a definite presence, as I experienced anyhow. Maybe not unsurprisingly, I stopped having any such experiences as I moved away from Christianity - read more, experienced more, changed the beliefs that I had held for as long as I could remember. That was a time of stress interestingly enough and I had a lot of other spiritual experiences that I was convinced had occurred, but they too lessened and disappeared as I distanced myself from my old beliefs. As for my Jesus experiences, I came to the experience where I am convinced now that these also were my mind at work. There were times I tried to recreate some of these old experiences - to no avail. About 20 years later when I suffered a bout of anxiety and depression, I had further ‘experiences’ with a black dog often attacking me in bed (half dream half awake state) and an ominous spiritual presence in my room. I definitely could feel that, so said my experience then. I also experienced a vision of Jesus having a battle with Satan in the sky above me. I can still see that vision to this day - that’s how real and convincing it was. But again, what I experience now tells me that was my brain doing the work, not any ‘real’ experience so to speak.

In my head I’m not limiting it to the Muslim - that was just an example as a conversation starter. I have had the very real experience of being in the presence of Jesus as God. If you had asked me then if it was a genuine experience, I would have sounded very convincing that it was. I could probably have said my experience was beyond any understanding of others, that I had experienced Jesus directly and that I knew the experience was genuine. My current experience is that that experience was an illusion. Same person, two different experiences, both of which seem completely and inarguably real. I’m not sure seeking out our own experiences, and having them, is actually the best measure. Just thoughts. Thanks for discussing.

Okay. Thankyou for taking the time to explain. I think you can entertain that personal experiences of God differs amongst individuals - I expect some are similar to others and I know others make claims that are different. It’s hard for me to understand how some people can say one experience is a true experience of God whilst simultaneously saying another’s experience isn’t true - like I think you are saying about the fanatical Muslim. But I do acknowledge that maybe neither of us are actually speaking from a position of authority on that aspect of the matter as neither of us have had personal exposure to fanatical Muslims.

Sorry, I don’t mean to sound difficult, but I’m not asking you to explain your own experience but rather this concept, this belief or understanding that one’s experience is an accurate reflection of what there is to experience and not just our minds making it seem ‘real’. I used the extreme example of the fanatical Muslim because I think they would also say their experience of God and what God desires, is very real to them, yet I suspect it would be different to yours. And I just don’t see both necessarily being reconciled. So I was interested if you had any insights into how we can understand this concept of ‘personal experience’ aside from the only point that seems to have been used so far - i.e. the experience to the user is real, so therefore it is real. I’m happy if you cannot provide an answer - I was just asking to see if you could shed any further light.