Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Afterlife - Why The Aghast?


LogicalFallacy

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

Quite often a recently de-converted member is hit by Christians asking with aghast, but what after afterlife, what happens when you die? I know this because I just told my family 2 days ago and it was about the second question they asked.
 
Some Christians take this further such as Peter Hitchens who demands why would you want there to be no afterlife, no ultimate justice, no meaning for our actions other than what we immediately see?
 
And yet they all seem to miss a very important point about Christian theology: According to the Bible this is what will happen:

Revelations 21:1-4

1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

 

Now there will be differences of opinion, but a common view is that no memories of this life will pass to the new heaven. This portion of Revelations raises two important issues:

 

1) There will be a new heavens and earth. So we are talking creation all over again. This will be the 3rd time God has had to wrought world wide destruction/creation. The earth as you know it will be gone. Nothing that was dear to you here will remain nor will be remembered. God obviously likes creation/destruction magic. (Tongue in cheek there)

 

2) To the point of the topic - if we lose our memories, and don't have any memory of this mortal life then why be so aghast at the thought of either, someone you love going to hell, or the terrible idea of no afterlife? If you go to heaven you'll never know or remember the struggle on earth. Essentially you will not be you. There is also question on whether animals will be in heaven, and we know there will be no sea. (It says so above)

 

So why the aghast, and to turn Peter Hitchens around, why would you want this? Either way our life has no ultimate meaning in any context that anyone will ever remember according to scripture.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

The Bible isn't true literally or historically so why would a non-believer care what it says? Revelation is pure nonsense. Death is simply going to sleep & never waking up. There isn't anything else. The afterlife is a critical doctrine in religion. That's the carrot religion uses to attract & retain gullible people. The purpose of the doctrine of hell is to scare people so they'll be easier to control.

 

Religion is the best con game mankind has ever created.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is because many people are afraid of death. They need some sort of coping mechanism. Being free from religion frees one from the fear of death. (I just hope I get all my projects done, and that the process of dying isn't too painful.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is because many people are afraid of death. They need some sort of coping mechanism. Being free from religion frees one from the fear of death. (I just hope I get all my projects done, and that the process of dying isn't too painful.)

I'm more able to cope with the idea of complete, eternal death now that I accept it as probable fact, rather than believing in something else - and constantly fighting the doubts.  Like Woody Allen, I still don't like the idea of everything ending - and us having no way to exist or reflect on anything again from the moment we die - but if that's what it is, then I guess I have no choice but to feel "at peace" with the order of things.  I'm sure I'll raise my voice to God on my death bed - just because I imagine that I'll be scared of passing through that doorway alone.  But one thing is for sure;; I still can't base my life on faith like I used to.  It just made me artificial and still kept the nagging fear of death at merely an arm's length away.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Some Christians take this further such as Peter Hitchens who demands why would you want there to be no afterlife, no ultimate justice, no meaning for our actions other than what we immediately see?

 

When will these people realize that truth is not dependent upon what one wishes to be true?!

 

I wish I had a million dollars in the bank, but my account tells me that it's not true, so I must face that reality and not run up bills as if I had a million dollars.

 

The Bible isn't true literally or historically so why would a non-believer care what it says? Revelation is pure nonsense. Death is simply going to sleep & never waking up. There isn't anything else. The afterlife is a critical doctrine in religion. That's the carrot religion uses to attract & retain gullible people. The purpose of the doctrine of hell is to scare people so they'll be easier to control.

 

Religion is the best con game mankind has ever created.

 

Exactly!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians are controlled by fear of Hell, not promises of an infinitely boring Heaven.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why the aghast, and to turn Peter Hitchens around, why would you want this? Either way our life has no ultimate meaning in any context that anyone will ever remember according to scripture.

 

 

 
Once you start asking logical questions about the Bible, you soon discover that the Bible has no logical answers. Eventually, you realize the astonishing fact that people have believed it anyway for 2,000 years, despite this. So the conclusion is that we humans are basically insane. 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Moderator

Blood, not only that, but as I have painfully found out in the last few months when you point out these errors they are dismissed or accepted as part of "gods Word" WendyDoh.gif

 

I was talking to the pastor about the old testament in regards to slavery. I said God didn't say no slavery. First response, "That's the old testament" But you are preaching from the old testament: "God didn't need to tell people that". Yes but not only did God not condemn slavery, he has specific laws for it. At which point I received a longwinded explanation that can be summed up as its in the bible, God said to do it, so that's the end of it.

 

Even pointing out recent archaeological research that indicates there was no Joshua conquest of Canaan has no effect. Evidence shows that there was no conquest of Canaan.... I said.. "You can't take everything on evidence" is the reply.

 

Wendybanghead.gifWendyDoh.gifWendybanghead.gifWendyDoh.gifWendybanghead.gifWendyDoh.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Even pointing out recent archaeological research that indicates there was no Joshua conquest of Canaan has no effect. Evidence shows that there was no conquest of Canaan.... I said.. "You can't take everything on evidence" is the reply.

 

Wendybanghead.gifWendyDoh.gifWendybanghead.gifWendyDoh.gifWendybanghead.gifWendyDoh.gif

Hey LogicalFallacy, this is a bit of a derail, but ... when I was in seminary, we were told that "burn levels" show that many Canaanite cities were sacked and burned at the time when Joshua was leading the Israelites into Canaan.

 

Can you expand on the evidence that refutes this? Tx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Hi ficino
 
Certainly Biblical Archaeology supported by bible believers shows that burn levels correspond to Joshua's time period - however bear in mind their mission statement can be summed up as don't discover anything that might disprove the bible. Also I am skeptical of the type of opinion that because destruction occurred at X time, as written in X book by X person, therefore X book is true.
 
In saying that, certainly there is 'some' historical truth in the bible. You just have to tease it out. Remember much of it is people writing about the times they lived in while expanding or exaggerating stories, or attributing events to God/Israel/Blessings/Curses. For example I believe that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, I also believe they were burned to the ground. I don't believe God did it, but instead was a result of natural disaster - people then attributed this to God's wrath and made up the Sodom and Gomorrah story. This is based on what evidence I have been able to find about cities in the area and the high levels of sulpher and various flammable deposits in the area, as well as a propensity for earthquakes.
 
Back to the refutation - I still need more time and research, but essentially the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Jewish archaeologist (Neil Asher Silberman, Israel Finkelstein) refutes much of the conquest of Canaan and explains what happened and when. They have a follow up more recent book which I intend to read. A summary:

 

"Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University in Israel conducted extensive research and field excavations funded by the state of Israel, for the purpose of proving the historicity of the Jewish sacred texts. Sadly for the Jews & Christians, and the state of Israel in particular, Professor Finkelstein, and his team of scientists, instead that the Bible claims were lies and embellishments invented by Jewish priests in the 7th - 5th Century B.C.E. as "rallying points" to unite the peoples of Judah and Israel, and that the stories from Genesis were plagiarized from older cults, and David, Abraham and Moses, and the Exodus were fabrications. Finkelstein, a devout Jew, admitted this and that only the religious deny the facts. Notwithstanding his dismissal of the literal approach to Biblical history, Finkelstein believes that "New archaeological discoveries should not erode one's sense of tradition and identity". Much of this can be found in his book, "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text," published in 2001. The documentary "PBS/NOVA - The Bible's Buried Secrets" also revealed much of Finkelstein's research. He also revealed that the Jewish god, Yahweh, originally had a wife, Asherah, who was previously worshipped along with Yahweh, until the priests abolished the practice"

There is evidence of some of the destruction at the supposed time period of Joshua, if you can pin a date on that, but evidence also shows that some settlements were abandoned, and some were destroyed by internal strife.

 

I should note, that of course there are differing views on the subject. You have to decide for yourself what is acceptable, but for me there is enough doubt, combined with everything else we have discovered, to suggest that the Exodus and conquest of Canaan did not happen as recorded in the bible.

 

Some personal musings of mine: I'd say based on what we know of ancient civilization, cities were always being destroyed, thus there is more than one explanation for destroyed cities in Canaan beside Joshua's conquest. One such is that Canaan was a vassal state of Egypt.. possibly some cities got out of line and needed... 'correcting'. The Israelite's then wrote about this and created a backstory.

 

There's much more to be said on this fascinating topic, but I'll leave it there for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.