Jesus of Nazareth, known as "J-dogg" by some

What is your opinion of Jesus?


  • Total voters
    34
This IS a quality thread! :D

My thoughts: Jesus was real and had real power to do special things (which of course upset everyone in control, and naturally they killed the guy); Ancient astronauts were a thing; We should all care about being altruistic; We are all gardeners.
 
My thoughts: Jesus was real and had real power to do special things

If by "real power to do special things" you mean extraordinary charisma and persuasiveness, then yes. But if you mean miracles, then nay.

I agree with Nietzsche that the best line in the gospels belongs to Pontius Pilate: "what is truth?" There are some Jesus-isms that are close seconds, but the random passers-by, chief priests, scribes, and elders at the crucifixion made a good objection: "Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" It seems his powers did not extend to showing up skeptics.
 
If by "real power to do special things" you mean extraordinary charisma and persuasiveness, then yes. But if you mean miracles, then nay.

I agree with Nietzsche that the best line in the gospels belongs to Pontius Pilate: "what is truth?" There are some Jesus-isms that are close seconds, but the random passers-by, chief priests, scribes, and elders at the crucifixion made a good objection: "Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" It seems his powers did not extend to showing up skeptics.

Strange how the gospels never once mention
the Romans or Jews trying to use Jesus’s magical powers for their own ends.
Instead their first reaction (supposedly) was to get rid of him. I would think that after hearing accounts of his magical abilities that they would want to use it as a weapon, etc. Though I guess they would never cop to wanting to manipulate Jesus for their own means.

This is not my idea, it was brought up in a debate on YouTube I saw a while back. I thought it was interesting.
 
If by "real power to do special things" you mean extraordinary charisma and persuasiveness, then yes. But if you mean miracles, then nay.

I agree with Nietzsche that the best line in the gospels belongs to Pontius Pilate: "what is truth?" There are some Jesus-isms that are close seconds, but the random passers-by, chief priests, scribes, and elders at the crucifixion made a good objection: "Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" It seems his powers did not extend to showing up skeptics.

Honestly, I believe in miracles to some extent. Not just from Jesus per se', but from all who've worked miracles...and the miracles themselves too, really. Like some others, I've been through just a few amazing things that you would have to see to believe, and that's why I think there is a source, so to speak. Whatever it is, it's something you want to be connected to, but I didn't connect through animal sacrifice, kneeling for extended periods, regularly declaring how 'awful' I am, starving myself, etc. I think we already are connected anyway (by default), but those far too concerned with 'self' don't feel it. And moreover, if this source I'm referring to is something that we create rather than some 'being' who created us and controls things, I'm all for it. Whatever it is, I think it's a good thing - the pursuit of benevolence, giving rather than taking, being thankful, etc.. I've got no problems with anyone else's religion really, as long as there's nothing savage about it (where they hurt others or themselves), and as long as they are accepting of others in the right ways.

There is certainly an attraction to goodness if you are truly good (under the surface), and vice versa. And in that goodness, there is power. I think of that power as God.

If all the miracles of Jesus, from the Bible, are in reality just very creative metaphors/comparisons/instructions/etc. (rather than real events) I'd honestly be alright with that. Without the miracles you referenced, his overall message is still pretty helpful anyway, and forgiveness is a very big deal. It sometimes takes deep courage to forgive, and doing so both strengthens you and relaxes your life in a refreshing way. In a way, you could think of forgiveness itself as miraculous. If Jesus was really just a human man, and not the son of God, I still believe he could have performed essentially 'magical' acts because, like you alluded to, he could really be convincing & because of that and his message he was life-changing (in a positive way) for many. There have been other people like Jesus throughout history who have left their mark on the globe in a similar way. Even those known for non-religious purposes, like Nikola Tesla, have some similarities to Jesus in my opinion, but that's another story.
 
Last edited:
Strange how the gospels never once mention
the Romans or Jews trying to use Jesus’s magical powers for their own ends.
Instead their first reaction (supposedly) was to get rid of him. I would think that after hearing accounts of his magical abilities that they would want to use it as a weapon, etc. Though I guess they would never cop to wanting to manipulate Jesus for their own means.

This is not my idea, it was brought up in a debate on YouTube I saw a while back. I thought it was interesting.

That's interesting, but I guess Jesus' miracles didn't stand out too much because miracle-working was already popular among both pagans and Jews of the time. The Romans were philosophically refined enough at the top to consider it the superstition of the credulous masses, while the Jews conceded J-dogg's miracles but decided he was of the devil's party: “this man drives out demons only by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons.”

If the Romans did want to hire Jesus for his magical powers, maybe Pilate discussed that with him. We'll never know, but I like how apologists often consider the gospels "eyewitness accounts." Really? Which disciple or follower, I wonder, was the privileged eyewitness allowed into the palace to record Jesus' private audience with Pilate? Speaking of Pilate, I think David Bowie was the finest Pilate of all the Pilates in the Jesus movies. @Juan Dulces will have maybe liked Bowie as Tesla in The Prestige, a movie which actually contains a very unsubtle dig at the Resurrection, and shows how it could've been faked.

"Jesus had a twin ... "

 
If Morrissey saw a ghost on the moors, then Morrissey might have a legitimate reason for believing in ghosts. But that doesn’t give me a reason for believing in ghosts. I wasn’t with him, and there are all kinds of strange things the human mind can be tricked into thinking it saw, especially in atmospheric places on spooky nights.

Should the fact that it was Morrissey who saw the ghost give it any more weight? Our tendency to believe depends a lot on who’s doing the telling. Nobody will be interested in this, but have you ever thought about how the first Christians came to believe in the resurrected Christ? Somebody had to have seen something. I have a theory, and the clue is in the gospels. Both Mark and John have it that Mary Magdalen was the first to see the risen J-dogg. What if Mary Magdalen was a beautiful, compelling, and charismatic woman? Her testimony would’ve convinced others to believe. I like the idea of Jesus as the Hebrew cult leader, talking about how he’s the Messiah and one with the Father, and he’s going to inaugurate the coming of the kingdom, and all this very male, Jewish, Father-god, apocalyptic, moralistic preaching. But then he gets into trouble for it and he dies a criminal’s death. End of the Messiah story. But nobody took into account the fey, delicate, spiritualist woman who followed him around like a lapdog, and it turns out she’s the one who sits by his tomb in mourning and has the miraculous vision that rescues the narrative and sets the whole thing in motion again—after which, the rest is history.
A fertile notion, but is it wise to take it all so literally?

Did you read this 1985 interview yet that I posted from the Greatest Lyricists booklet?

If you read about halfway down the second page, you'll find some incisive remarks about the challenges posed by religious beliefs and faith. Good interview, isn't it? I love the later part, with the author finding it harder and harder to take Morrissey's statements seriously, as if also finding reasons not to believe?!
Personally I see more nihilism in a universe with the Christian God than without. It's no less survival-of-the-fittest. Isn't this life a proving ground, in the Christian view? Survival is making it to heaven, and failure is consignment to hell. At least in the Darwinian world (horrible as it is) failure is just death—a merciful annihilation, not an eternal prolongation of suffering. And much like the cruel odds against survival in nature, where "of fifty seeds she often brings but one to bear," the world overseen by God comes with its own inborn handicap that no one asked for, original sin, which ensures more souls will be destined for failure than survival.
About my frogs, a friend, since deceased, said that it's a numbers game with them. But when we consider the big picture, of wars, famines, economies, disasters etc, isn't it not far off something similar for humans?

Re. original sin, I don't believe that's a Biblical concept. Which is a hint we're often talking about anthropogenic literature. Which is especially illustrated by gripes about women in the writers' domestic situations. Wouldn't you be tempted to dismiss a lot of it as the escapist ambitious dreams of grumpy old men?

If by "real power to do special things" you mean extraordinary charisma and persuasiveness, then yes. But if you mean miracles, then nay.

I agree with Nietzsche that the best line in the gospels belongs to Pontius Pilate: "what is truth?" There are some Jesus-isms that are close seconds, but the random passers-by, chief priests, scribes, and elders at the crucifixion made a good objection: "Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" It seems his powers did not extend to showing up skeptics.
But he needed to die to fulfil the word, right? He couldn't afford to get distracted by the equivalent of shit-posts!

It wasn't even the dying that was the main thing. It was the nonviolent absorption of hatred and surviving it even unto death, creating space for the persecuted of the future to find internal sanctuary, and a new idea for the conservative mimics practicing eye for an eye interactions to consider that was holding out the possibility of a more agreeable lifestyle for the soul.
 
About my frogs, a friend, since deceased, said that it's a numbers game with them. But when we consider the big picture, of wars, famines, economies, disasters etc, isn't it not far off something similar for humans?

Definitely. We in the developed world at this point have it relatively good. But for most of our time as a species, we weren't really all that different from any other animal in terms of infant mortality rate, lifespan, and susceptibility to predation, disease, and famine. Even the Church's teaching encouraging large families dates back to not so long ago in human history, when it wasn't crazy to have a lot of children, because it meant at least a few of them would make it to adulthood.

Re. original sin, I don't believe that's a Biblical concept. Which is a hint we're often talking about anthropogenic literature.

I think the confusion here is that I'm addressing different posters with different beliefs. I don't believe in original sin, but the Church does. On his way out (the anon poster) is a believer. The point I was making was that (theoretically) a universe with the Christian God would still be survival-of-the-fittest—and more so: not only physically, but metaphysically as well. And if original sin is true, then it's as much a curse to a soul's odds of eternal survival as bad genes are to temporal survival.

But he needed to die to fulfil the word, right? He couldn't afford to get distracted by the equivalent of shit-posts!

Even if there was something to be accomplished by his death, that's still no reason why Jesus couldn't have gotten off the cross to prove his divinity. He could've shocked the scoffers into believing and then said, "now if you'll excuse me, friends, I have to get back up there and die for your sins." And were the skeptics really the equivalent of shit-posters? That's pretty harsh. All they were saying was, "prove it and we'll believe," which is the same as what Doubting Thomas asked for, and Jesus obliged Thomas.

It wasn't even the dying that was the main thing. It was the nonviolent absorption of hatred and surviving it even unto death, creating space for the persecuted of the future to find internal sanctuary, and a new idea for the conservative mimics practicing eye for an eye interactions to consider that was holding out the possibility of a more agreeable lifestyle for the soul.

:confused:
 
Personally I see more nihilism in a universe with the Christian God than without.
Lots of assumptions listed for this view, let's consider each in turn.
It's no less survival-of-the-fittest. Isn't this life a proving ground, in the Christian view?
It is a proving ground for those who can exercise their free will to the good. Isn't that kind of fitness- virtue- preferable to the temporary survival of the most physically powerful?
Survival is making it to heaven, and failure is consignment to hell.
You forget purgatory, see Benedict XVI's contention in Spe Salvi that a middle ground is likely for most.
At least in the Darwinian world (horrible as it is) failure is just death—a merciful annihilation, not an eternal prolongation of suffering.
Option J: loving God and others in hope of a better life in the next world (footnote failure risks eternal torment)
Option D: horrible Darwinian competition ending in death's final annihilation
Aubrey: I'll take option D thanks
And much like the cruel odds against survival in nature, where "of fifty seeds she often brings but one to bear," the world overseen by God comes with its own inborn handicap that no one asked for, original sin, which ensures more souls will be destined for failure than survival.
Undoubtedly nature is red in tooth and claw. However I do not see how original sin would ensure most are hellbound. John the Baptist and Jesus did not traverse the Holy Land preaching "the Miserable News". The locals had to wait another 2000 years for that.

Morrissey thrilled to be in ‘God’s country’ as he performs first of two shows​

Beloved former frontman for The Smiths appeared tired during tight 75-minute concert at Binyamina amphitheater, but Israeli crowd seemed delighted to see him anyway​

Former Smiths frontman and solo artist Morrissey performed in Binyamina's Amphi Shuni July 2, 2023 (YouTube screengrab; used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)
Former Smiths frontman and solo artist Morrissey performed in Binyamina's Amphi Shuni July 2, 2023 (YouTube screengrab; used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)
English singer Morrissey brought his crisp baritone and familiar, turmoil-filled lyrics to Amphi Shuni in the northern town of Binyamina Sunday night, and while all 1,350 seats of the restored Roman amphitheater were full to bursting with dedicated fans, Morrissey himself seemed a little, well, listless.
He was happy enough to be there, calling out to the crowd, “Binyamina, Binyamina, bring me home, take me in your arms,” at the start of the tight, 75-minute show.
“I’m very happy to be here in God’s country, the heart of the world,” said Morrissey, who’s also performing on July 4 in Tel Aviv. That certainly made the crowd of die-hard fans very happy.
 
I was talking about a universe in which the Christian God actually exists. You’re talking about religion, not necessarily God. This could be true: God does not exist, yet belief in God has certain benefits. That fact wouldn’t make me any less nihilistic. It would just mean belief in Christianity works in a Social Darwinist paradigm. That’s Jordan Peterson’s theory essentially. Ouch. Not a world I want to live in, thanks.
You are clearly a rational human being, Aubs, and the supposition that there is a 'Christian God', and no other, isn't really a rational supposition. It's a non-starter. There are thousands of gods and goddesses out there and the idea that one is true and all the others are fake is nonsensical. The rational supposition is that 'God', whether Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever, is an expression of something that is culturally and psychologically (and spiritually?) useful and beneficial, and the one thing all these gods and goddesses have in common is that they may relate human beings to some deeper truth about the universe and life after death etc. that human beings do not and cannot fully understand. That doesn't mean it's all just social Darwinism and nothing else. But if something is useful, even just on a basic psychological level, it may be worth not throwing away. If it's psychologically useful for a Christian to imagine the fires of hell for sinners - doesn't bother me in the slightest. Whatever gets them through the night. I do agree with Lawrence's assessment of Revelation. He is spot on that it's a rather nasty little book of the Bible. And maybe not very 'Christian'?
 
You forget purgatory, see Benedict XVI's contention in Spe Salvi that a middle ground is likely for most.

Purgatory isn't infinite, though. Souls in purgatory are souls who died in the state of grace. They're going to heaven; they just have to do some penance for their sins first. Did Benedict XVI say purgatory is eternal? Because that would be wild. Catholics pray for “the poor souls in purgatory.” It’s not pleasant, nor is it a “middle ground” between heaven and hell. If someone were in purgatory forever, they would essentially be in hell.

Option J: loving God and others in hope of a better life in the next world (footnote failure risks eternal torment)
Option D: horrible Darwinian competition ending in death's final annihilation
Aubrey: I'll take option D thanks

I don't actually want option D. If we're asking what I want, it would definitely not be this world. And I would love to have an abundant afterlife. If there’s a menu of options, I'll take the Islamic jannah please. Sadly, though, option D seems the only option that exists. It gives me no consolation.

But my personal avoidance of suffering, or my personal enjoyment of bliss, is not the point. My point was that if Christianity were true, regardless of my individual fate, there would still be others in hell. Wouldn't it be selfish of me only to care about myself? I think I should care about all suffering. I mean, I'm not a child being sex-trafficked or an animal being factory-farmed—my own life is comparatively great, but that doesn't change my negative assessment of this world if I take the god's-eye view. The same would apply for the Christian afterworld.

Undoubtedly nature is red in tooth and claw. However I do not see how original sin would ensure most are hellbound. John the Baptist and Jesus did not traverse the Holy Land preaching "the Miserable News". The locals had to wait another 2000 years for that.

Well, “miserable” and “good” are always going to be subjective. But why don't you think most souls are hell-bound? Jesus said the path to damnation was broad, and the gate to salvation was narrow. Surely I don't need to cite every time he mentioned the fewness of the saved. Obviously Jesus himself did not teach original sin. That was St. Augustine's reading of St. Paul, but the general idea is that man inherits the guilt of Adam's transgression, deserves its punishment, and suffers its penalty: an inherent inclination to sin. “Concupiscence,” as the theologians say. This is a serious handicap. It’s why Augustine believed in a massa damnata, the “damned masses.”

“I’m very happy to be here in God’s country, the heart of the world,” said Morrissey, who’s also performing on July 4 in Tel Aviv.

Yes, Morrissey is something of a Zionist. Blech. He also scorched an innocent Portuguese woman for the sin of posting a lovely remembrance of her interview with him on Instagram. He holds some strange views and does some strange things in his Norma Desmond phrase, and a few of them are disappointing. The man is quite fallible.
 
Last edited:
You are clearly a rational human being, Aubs, and the supposition that there is a 'Christian God', and no other, isn't really a rational supposition. It's a non-starter. There are thousands of gods and goddesses out there and the idea that one is true and all the others are fake is nonsensical. The rational supposition is that 'God', whether Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever, is an expression of something that is culturally and psychologically (and spiritually?) useful and beneficial, and the one thing all these gods and goddesses have in common is that they may relate human beings to some deeper truth about the universe and life after death etc. that human beings do not and cannot fully understand. That doesn't mean it's all just social Darwinism and nothing else. But if something is useful, even just on a basic psychological level, it may be worth not throwing away. If it's psychologically useful for a Christian to imagine the fires of hell for sinners - doesn't bother me in the slightest. Whatever gets them through the night. I do agree with Lawrence's assessment of Revelation. He is spot on that it's a rather nasty little book of the Bible. And maybe not very 'Christian'?

Okay, but just for clarity's sake: my continued usage of “the Christian God” was because the original dispute (between me the anon) was about the Christian God, and I was only supposing it for the sake of discussion. If we're on to something else that's fine. It might be psychologically useful for people to believe in a specific god, or many gods, or a vague “ground of all being.” I'd have to address each on a case-by-case basis, but I'm always going to judge for gooeyness.

Now the concept of hell is not gooey, but I’ll still defend Nietzsche's point that hell is an infantile expression of vicarious revenge. It may get someone through the night, and it may even make them happy (I think it does make a lot of people happy), but isn’t that a dangerous minimal standard to keep around? If it feels good, do it? Do we want humanity to make any progress here, or do we just want it to wallow in spiritual masturbation? Lennon did sing “whatever gets you thru the night,” but he also sang, “one thing you can’t hide is when you’re crippled inside,” and I don’t think the psychology of someone who likes the notion of hell is a healthy psychology. All this Jordan Peterson crap seems calculated to indulge some of the worst instincts of humanity. “What makes most people feel happy | leads us headlong into harm … ”
 
Last edited:
Okay, but just for clarity's sake: my continued usage of “the Christian God” was because the original dispute (between me the anon) was about the Christian God, and I was only supposing it for the sake of discussion. If we're on to something else that's fine. It might be psychologically useful for people to believe in a specific god, or many gods, or a vague “ground of all being.” I'd have to address each on a case-by-case basis, but I'm always going to judge for gooeyness.

Now the concept of hell is not gooey, but I’ll still defend Nietzsche's point that hell is an infantile expression of vicarious revenge. It may get someone through the night, and it may even make them happy (I think it does make a lot of people happy), but isn’t that a dangerous minimal standard to keep around? If it feels good, do it? Do we want humanity to make any progress here, or do we just want it to wallow in spiritual masturbation? Lennon did sing “whatever gets you thru the night,” but he also sang, “one thing you can’t hide is when you’re crippled inside,” and I don’t think the psychology of someone who likes the notion of hell is a healthy psychology. All this Jordan Peterson crap seems calculated to indulge some of the worst instincts of humanity. “What makes most people feel happy | leads us headlong into harm … ”
Hell may be an 'infantile expression of vicarious revenge'. It is also simply an expression of the worst thing that can happen to a person. For desert dwellers - this was burning to death in the heat of the sun; for Eskimos, this was freezing to death in the ice and snow. Is it any wonder therefore that the Abrahamic religions view hell as a fiery furnace; and Eskimos view hell as an icy wilderness?
There is also evidence that people on their deathbed very much focus on 'judging' themselves and their life. Many feel 'tormented' by regrets and remorse on their deathbed. Is 'hell' just an expression of that?
I think The Tibetan Book of the Dead is worth a read on this topic, if you haven't already done so.
Not totally sure what you mean by 'gooeyness' and 'Jordan Peterson crap'. But ultimately life is a search for meaning - especially so in these days of post-modernism where 'God is dead' as Nietzsche put it. We create our own meaning - and if that's yoga, or tai chi, or gooeyness, or Morrissey, or Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or atheism, or fantasising about your enemies burning in hell fire - as I say, whatever gets you through. But I can't imagine the latter of those is very fulfilling.
 
Purgatory isn't infinite, though. Souls in purgatory are souls who died in the state of grace. They're going to heaven; they just have to do some penance for their sins first. Did Benedict XVI say purgatory is eternal? Because that would be wild. Catholics pray for “the poor souls in purgatory.” It’s not pleasant, nor is it a “middle ground” between heaven and hell. If someone were in purgatory forever, they would essentially be in hell.

I don't actually want option D. If we're asking what I want, it would definitely not be this world. And I would love to have an abundant afterlife. If there’s a menu of options, I'll take the Islamic jannah please. Sadly, though, option D seems the only option that exists. It gives me no consolation.

the option of ‘ending in death's final annihilation’ is not really a bad thing at all. Come to think of it, it seems to be what Buddhists and Hindus desire to achieve.

The option of a heaven forever may sound and be hell for most, sitting on clouds doing nothing for eternity, isn’t it?

But my personal avoidance of suffering, or my personal enjoyment of bliss, is not the point. My point was that if Christianity were true, regardless of my individual fate, there would still be others in hell. Wouldn't it be selfish of me only to care about myself? I think I should care about all suffering. I mean, I'm not a child being sex-trafficked or an animal being factory-farmed—my own life is comparatively great, but that doesn't change my negative assessment of this world if I take the god's-eye view. The same would apply for the Christian afterworld.

But if ‘Darwinian competition’ exists in heaven, which it seems it must, then caring only for your survival and wellbeing quite naturally allows for selfishness and not caring for those burning in hell.

Yes, even in heaven Darwin’s rules apply.


Well, “miserable” and “good” are always going to be subjective. But why don't you think most souls are hell-bound? Jesus said the path to damnation was broad, and the gate to salvation was narrow. Surely I don't need to cite every time he mentioned the fewness of the saved. Obviously Jesus himself did not teach original sin. That was St. Augustine's reading of St. Paul, but the general idea is that man inherits the guilt of Adam's transgression, deserves its punishment, and suffers its penalty: an inherent inclination to sin. “Concupiscence,” as the theologians say. This is a serious handicap. It’s why Augustine believed in a massa damnata, the “damned masses.”

Good, bad, sin? all judgment is an invention of man. Why do we need to invent a god to keep us on a leash? Is education, laws and policing still not enough? Nah, we need prisons(= fear of punishment) external and internal too. How sad this world is.


Yes, Morrissey is something of a Zionist. Blech. He also scorched an innocent Portuguese woman for the sin of posting a lovely remembrance of her interview with him on Instagram. He holds some strange views and does some strange things in his Norma Desmond phrase, and a few of them are disappointing. The man is quite fallible.

fallible, because he’s human, lest we forget.
He ain’t no god or Jesus, not even Jesus’s son. And I hope the silly comparisons being made by the anon are in jest.

Anyway, ‘scorched’ is a bit much. I look at as him misunderstanding and jumping to wrong conclusions. Yes… human.
 
Hell may be an 'infantile expression of vicarious revenge'. It is also simply an expression of the worst thing that can happen to a person. For desert dwellers - this was burning to death in the heat of the sun; for Eskimos, this was freezing to death in the ice and snow. Is it any wonder therefore that the Abrahamic religions view hell as a fiery furnace; and Eskimos view hell as an icy wilderness?
There is also evidence that people on their deathbed very much focus on 'judging' themselves and their life. Many feel 'tormented' by regrets and remorse on their deathbed. Is 'hell' just an expression of that?
I think The Tibetan Book of the Dead is worth a read on this topic, if you haven't already done so.
Not totally sure what you mean by 'gooeyness' and 'Jordan Peterson crap'.

But ultimately life is a search for meaning -
Unfortunately, for so few. Fortunately, for so few. Lol.

From my point of view, the search ( though futile?) is a good thing. Otherwise for so many to go through life without questioning why, you’ll end up on your deathbed calling for a priest as last resort!
especially so in these days of post-modernism where 'God is dead' as Nietzsche put it. We create our own meaning - and if that's yoga, or tai chi, or gooeyness, or Morrissey, or Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or atheism, or fantasising about your enemies burning in hell fire - as I say, whatever gets you through. But I can't imagine the latter of those is very fulfilling.

Is any belief, when truly broken down and seeing it for what it is, fulfilling?

But yes, ‘whatever gets you through’ sometimes and maybe ultimately, belief in anything, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ has to be enough.
 
There is also evidence that people on their deathbed very much focus on 'judging' themselves and their life. Many feel 'tormented' by regrets and remorse on their deathbed. Is 'hell' just an expression of that?
I think The Tibetan Book of the Dead is worth a read on this topic, if you haven't already done so.

O nobly born, like the good teenaged Lennon obsessive I was once was, I did read it. I think the scariest bardo was the one where the soul after death finds itself in a land of sensual bliss, surrounded by the Tibetan equivalent of houris. You think you've got it made: this is the best afterlife; how could it not be? And so you indulge. But then over time the houris degrade and degrade until they turn out to be hideous demons. Surprise: you were supposed to resist the temptation! And now your soul is stuck in a hell that you'll spend aeons trying to get out of, and even when you do, you're still on the wheel of samsara. Moral of the story: the best afterlife is the snuffing of the flame completely.

Not totally sure what you mean by 'gooeyness' and 'Jordan Peterson crap'. But ultimately life is a search for meaning - especially so in these days of post-modernism where 'God is dead' as Nietzsche put it. We create our own meaning - and if that's yoga, or tai chi, or gooeyness, or Morrissey, or Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or atheism, or fantasising about your enemies burning in hell fire - as I say, whatever gets you through. But I can't imagine the latter of those is very fulfilling.

I have no objection to this, as long as we're honest about what's going on here: all these things are just hobbies, or diversions, while we kill the little bit of time we have bookended between two eternities of darkness. And I don't think religious people's hobbies deserve any more respect than anyone else's. In certain aspects I think they're more harmful. I’m in no way accusing you of doing this, but I do see, in a lot of these “life is a search for meaning” things, a sleight of hand where religion or spirituality is snuck in. And the more overt version, the Douglas Murray/Tom Holland/Ayaan Hirsi Ali thing of “let’s become Christian soldiers to preserve the West against its enemies” seems a modern form of ressentiment.
 
Last edited:
the option of ‘ending in death's final annihilation’ is not really a bad thing at all. Come to think of it, it seems to be what Buddhists and Hindus desire to achieve.

The option of a heaven forever may sound and be hell for most, sitting on clouds doing nothing for eternity, isn’t it?

That depends. Sitting on clouds would get boring pretty quick. But an afterlife of “perfect natural happiness,” like the Christian limbo or the Islamic jannah, would be great. The only problem with it is that natural pleasures are finite, and the situation is infinite, so even all the pleasures would become boring by the endless repetition. But the cure for that problem would be to wipe your memory and start all over again, and experience the pleasures anew. The ideal “heaven forever” would be like a samsara of jannah.

fallible, because he’s human, lest we forget.
He ain’t no god or Jesus, not even Jesus’s son. And I hope the silly comparisons being made by the anon are in jest.

Ah, I think I misread the anon. When he said “the miserable news” came two thousand years after Jesus, I thought he was talking about Darwin or Nietzsche (≈two thousand years later). But now I see he meant Morrissey performing in J-dogg’s homeland. I thought he just tacked on “look at Morrissey in Israel” to his post as an irritant to me, since I’m always complaining about Morrissey’s Zionism. Apologies, anon! And also for calling you a he if you’re in fact a she; I do not know your gender.
 
That depends. Sitting on clouds would get boring pretty quick. But an afterlife of “perfect natural happiness,” like the Christian limbo or the Islamic jannah, would be great.

The only problem with it is that natural pleasures are finite, and the situation is infinite, so even all the pleasures would become boring by the endless repetition.
Exactly. It’s a contradiction. You can’t have pleasure/happiness without pain, infinite happiness would turn into pain. You need contrast to experience either, as we do here.

Maybe Heaven is full of zombie like angles, unfeeling, not being able to care for themselves or those below in hell?

I guess there may be a kind of ‘happiness’ in that.

But the cure for that problem would be to wipe your memory and start all over again, and experience the pleasures anew. The ideal “heaven forever” would be like a samsara of jannah.
Yes, maybe the brains of the spirit (o_O!?) is in constant erase and rewipe mode!

The only Heaven and Hell we ever know is the one we create for ourselves here and now.

Ah, I think I misread the anon. When he said “the miserable news” came two thousand years after Jesus, I thought he was talking about Darwin or Nietzsche (≈two thousand years later). But now I see he meant Morrissey performing in J-dogg’s homeland. I thought he just tacked on “look at Morrissey in Israel” to his post as an irritant to me, since I’m always complaining about Morrissey’s Zionism. Apologies, anon! And also for calling you a he if you’re in fact a she; I do not know your gender.

maybe.
 
Maybe Heaven is full of zombie like angles, unfeeling, not be able to care for themselves or those below in hell?

I guess there may be a kind of ‘happiness’ in that.

The Catholic version is that in heaven, your will is perfectly conformed to the will of God. So when we wonder how we can possibly enjoy heaven while knowing that others are suffering eternally, the answer is that we won't have that concern. If I'm saved, I'll see the sufferings of the damned as a manifestation of God's glory and justice. But in what sense would that meaningfully be me anymore? That's somebody else's perspective (God's). It's like getting a cosmic lobotomy. So the blessed in heaven become, as you say, zombies.
 
Did Benedict XVI say purgatory is eternal?
No. He referred to a cleansing period, like being tested in fire. He also referred to communal aspects of praying for such souls, rather than only thinking of himself as a poached ex-Benedict.
I don't actually want option D.
You compared it only to option J and preferred option D. Why not have a little more faith in yourself?
My point was that if Christianity were true, regardless of my individual fate, there would still be others in hell. Wouldn't it be selfish of me only to care about myself? I think I should care about all suffering.
It is difficult to speculate on these things but wouldn't those in Hell be the ones who consciously had not cared about suffering? Would you be disrespecting the sufferers to indulge them? Justice and mercy will always clash.
But why don't you think most souls are hell-bound?
I should stop being surprised by your level of certainty, about your own opinion and mine. I don't claim to know- about standard demoniac behaviour around pigs, about the number of souls saved, about the particular joys of heaven. Yes there is the narrow gate- in Luke few find it, in Matthew it is just hard to enter. There is also a light burden in Matthew and an uncountable multitude of the saved in Revelation.
 
Tags
christianity edith sitwell jesus religion
Back
Top Bottom