December 1965. San Pablo, CA. I was studying the bible with one of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who was trying to tell me that thereImagine There’s No Hell
December 1965. San Pablo, CA. I was studying the bible with one of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who was trying to tell me that there was no real hellfire. It sounded good, but I was not sure if I should believe her or not. She suggested that I find a King James version of the bible, one with margins. and check out the words, “Shel” and “Hades” which are the Hebrew and the Greek words for our English word “Hell.” I went to the Richmond library, found a King James bible with margins, and sat down to read it. Both Sheol and Hades were translated as “the common grave of mankind.” I was satisfied. The Jehovah’s Witnesses also be3lieve that God’s kingdom would be a paradise on earth, and that the wicked would die, just die, not burn for eternity. The Witnesses also used reasoning: “If you had a child would you punish him by putting his hand in a fire?” “No,” I said, “That would be cruel, even Sadistic.” “Then,” my teacer, Mavis, said, “Why do you think that God would punish us, his children, in a burning fire?” Six months later I had joined the Witnesses, and I remained one for four years before being asked to leave. Ostracized. Since then I had also questioned as to whether a loving God, one who loves unconditionally, would kill anyone of his children. I could not conceive of it, but I could believe that he would save everyone, somehow.
A few years later I moved to Berkeley, California and walked up the hill from my apartment to what we all called “Holy Hill,” Berkeley’s Christian seminary. I found a minister and asked him about “Sheol” and “Hades,” telling him what I had learned. He said, and I paraphrase, “There is no hellfire, but if I preached this, people would walk out.” Then, I talked with a rabbi as to the meaning of the word “Sheol,” and his statement went like this, “We, the Jews, didn’t know what Sheol meant. We thought maybe it could be a watery deep. We do not know what happens after we die. We just love God.” I was deeply impressed by anyone who would love God without knowing if there were a reward or not.
A while back, I learned of Bart Ehrman, the bible scholar who is a member of the Jesus Seminar, the group that had published the book, “The Five Gospels.” I had that book in my possession, and I had learned when reading it that what Jesus had preached had been mostly preached before. There was not much that was new. Since then I had read other books by him, or tried, one that I had finished dealt with the issue of suffering. Lately, I had wished that he would write a book on the history of hell. I just wanted his opinion. I knew my own: there is no hell. Then the other day I learned that he had just published this book. I bought and read it immediately. So. the bible scholar, Bart Ehrman also learned that Hades means “the common grave of mankind,” and he explains away scriptures, like the one on Gehenna, just as the Witnesses had done, but in a more scholarly manner.
The beginning chapters of this book dealt with the Greek philosopher’s views on the afterlife. Plato’s version was that man had a Soul, and that it was immortal and was more real than the body. I like this view. Ehrman then went on to explain Jesus’ beliefs, which were apocalyptic. He taught that his kingdom would be on earth and that his disciples would still be alive when this happened. He also taught that the wicked would die. Just die. No everlasting punishment, no hope for a resurrection. When his disciples realized later that they would not be alive to see his kingdom, they changed their beliefs. Plato’s beliefs filled the gap. And this is where the bible became confusing. First, Jesus’ teachings were changed, and then Paul preached a different message. Then even the Christians became confused. Some of them believed in one thing, others, another. While God is said to not be a God of confusion, everyone was confused, everyone but Paul who thought that he had all the right answers. Next, I learned that even the church fathers had their own beliefs and argued them as well. Let’s face it, no one knows what will happen after we die, even if we think we do.
While I do believe in a Creator, I do not believe in the bible. If there is a personal God, I do not understand why He allows suffering. I have not even heard of a good reason for why there is suffering in the world. And it could be that the mystics get glimpses of God when meditating, and that He is a God of Love, and that there is a reason why things are as they are. But like the teachings on the afterlife, we just don’t know and may never know. For some of us, it is enough to realize that the universe had a Creator and that we get to enjoy this creation. For others, the suffering is too great to believe in any Creator, much less a personal one. Then there are those that just accept reasons as to why suffering exists. I used to be one of those people. Now, I don’t know what to believe and maybe it doesn’t matter....more
Anthony Flew was a renowned atheist that had written more than 30 books about the subject of atheism. It appears that his books influenced atheists grAnthony Flew was a renowned atheist that had written more than 30 books about the subject of atheism. It appears that his books influenced atheists greatly. In the meantime, in the last several years, we have had a new breed of atheists. Some call them new atheists, others, militant atheists. When Flew announced that he now believed in God, he was attacked. The new atheists thought that he had flipped his wig in his old age. Like some Christians, the new atheists were like pit bulls. The need to save others often brings out the worse in mankind, as do many strong beliefs that men hold to be the trutj.
What I liked about Flew’s book was his listing the book or books that led him to the conclusion that there was a Creator. But I will add this: He did not believe in a personal God or in life after death. He also listed names of scientists that believed in God and added quotes by them, proving that they also believed in a Creator, if not in a person God. Flew also and gave his own reasons for his change of mind.
What I objected to, and I think it is because Fleew had a ghost writer, was Appendix B in the book, which was an argument for Christianity. Flew did not believe in Christianity. Was his book hijacked? This appendix was written by a Christian in hopes to get new converts.
One of the arguments in this appendix was the belief that Christianity is unique in claiming that there was an incarnation of God on earth, Christ. No other religion has believed this. What? The Hindus believed in incarnations way before Christianity came on the scene. God had come down to earth to save mankind many times. Krishna, whose name mean Christ, was one of those incarnations, as were other gurus. They all took, and continue to take, on their disciple’s sins, their karma. They just do not have to die on a cross to do so. But, of course, taking on the karma of their disciples does makes them ill, and in time, they get sick and die. ...more
Ron Rosenbaum, author of "Explaining Hitler," is now trying to explain evil. It seems to me that neither of these subjects can be explained and every Ron Rosenbaum, author of "Explaining Hitler," is now trying to explain evil. It seems to me that neither of these subjects can be explained and everyone has tried.
He is writing this book in light of the new science that claims there is a neurological explanation for evil, but if we were to accept this, it would take away free will and the belief that evil exists. And this is why he wants to save the belief that evil exists.
For years psychologists have said that the sociopath is born a sociopath, There is a theory out there that "if a person lacks a conscience, then he/she "cannot choose evil without violating a conscience that tells them they're doing evil." To see where he goes with this you would have to read the book, as it isn't an easy read. And he doesn't go into the new science that neuroscientists are getting into that show how your brain is wired to do good or evil. But you can Google "Evil, brain imaging," and you find all the research that he only touches on, or read the book: Behave.
The question Rosenbaum comes back to is this: "Did Hitler know that he was doing evil?" And, "Can we call Hitler evil if he believed that what he was doing was good?" Or my own question, "If a brain scan of a psychopath shows that a certain part of a person's brain seems to be misfiring, is this person still evil when he/she commits a heinous crime?
Neuroscientist Michael Koenigs said, "But even when psychopaths know that what they’re doing is a crime, that doesn’t mean they’re in control of their behavior when they offend.”
But can you change that wiring, like in this old Indian saying:
"One evening an old Cherokee Indian told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, ‘My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.’
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: ‘Which wolf wins?’
The old Cherokee simply replied, ‘The one you feed.’"
Nothing ever gets settled in this book, but I did like the philosophy of one man that he quotes by first leading into his belief system by saying,
"How can you believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God who also permits so much suffering and evil in the world? I can't hope to summarize adequately Polkinghorne's thought and its place in the history of theodicy. Here is what he argues:
'The key idea is to understand an evolutionary world as a creation that is allowed to make itself. God neither produced a ready-made world nor imposed upon its history an eternally determined rigid forum. Instead the process of the universe is that of a continuously unfolding creativity, a kind of improvisation in which creates participle together with their creator. Such a world of freely developing fertility is a great good but it is a necessary cost.' " Evil and suffering is that necessary cost.
It is interesting what Polkinghorne says here in regards to the problem of evil:
"The well-known free will defense in relation to moral evil asserts that a world with a possibility of sinful people is better than one with perfectly programmed machines. The tale of human evil is such that one cannot make that assertion without a quiver, but I believe that it is true nevertheless. I have added to it the free-process defense, that a world allowed to make itself is better than a puppet theatre with a Cosmic Tyrant. I think that these two defenses are opposite sides of the same coin, that our nature is inextricably linked with that of the physical world which has given us birth."
Let me tell you about this book. Well, I don't recall it much; I only recall the angst it caused me for in my first year of college there were only twLet me tell you about this book. Well, I don't recall it much; I only recall the angst it caused me for in my first year of college there were only two classes left that looked somewhat interesting. First time; last served. I took Philosophy 101 and Child Psychology.
I walked into my philosophy class and thought it was really going to be interesting. The teacher, Mr. Flores, spoke in broken English. No one told me that I could drop out of a class, so I sat there. I couldn't take notes because I didn't know what he was saying. I read this book, and I was still struggling. A student suggested Cliffs Notes. They helped. The test didn't include anything in the book, what it included was his lectures. But with the help of the Notes, I got a C in the class. I didn't even know then that I could take the class over and change that grade.
And one other thing happened in the class. I was always afraid to speak in public, but Mr. Flores said that we had to give a speech. It didn't matter how short or how long it was. If we gave it we would pass. I found a cartoon, and I got up in front of the class. This is what happened: "This is a theological question. Is there life after death? I don't know if there is life before death." I went to sit down, and a student said, "Don't you consider yourself part of this rat race?" I said, "What rat race?" Then the professor said, "That was using the system." And another student said, "Does she get credit for that?" "Yes," he said. And I smiled.
But maybe taking the class helped me in other ways, for I knew then that I needed to get a lot of As in order to get rid of that C, and when I quit going to college 12 years later, I had a 3.38 grade point average. I still needed more As. I never graduated because I didn't want to take some required classes. So I spent those years changing majors and taking whatever sounded good. I considered myself a college bum and just quit when I was burned out. Now I just read books I like....more
This was a stupid book that I had to read in college. It was either supposed to be based on Frank Lloyd Wright's philosophy or the professor just likeThis was a stupid book that I had to read in college. It was either supposed to be based on Frank Lloyd Wright's philosophy or the professor just liked to talk about Wright. I hated Wright's architecture, but I liked his idea of blending buildings with nature.
What I remember about the book is this quote:
“Toohey: "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us." Roark: "But I don't think of you.”
And I just don't think much of Ann Rand's philosophy. ...more
Siddhartha was a seeker, but at one time he was into materialism, hedonistic living. Perhaps, that too, was seeking. Then he heard about enlightenmentSiddhartha was a seeker, but at one time he was into materialism, hedonistic living. Perhaps, that too, was seeking. Then he heard about enlightenment and wanted it, so he believed that becoming a Buddhist was the way.
I was once a seeker. I was first a Christian, then an atheist, next a Buddhist, a Neo-Hindu, a Unitarian Universalist, and now I just have a few beliefs, mostly Native American.
I liked the ending of Siddharta's life best, where he was a ferryman. It felt like he, too, gave up his search to find meaning in life and just lived. Some say he became enlightened on that river, that he became one with nature. If so, that had to have been a great experience. But I feel that no one has the real answer to the questions: What is enlightenment? What is the meaning of life? Who am I?
"In the shade of a banyan tree, a grizzled ferryman sits listening to the river. Some say he's a sage. He was once a wandering shramana and, briefly, like thousands of others, he followed Gotama the Buddha, enraptured by his sermons. But this man, Siddhartha, was not a follower of any but his own soul." ``Siddartha
When I walked away from all religions, I sat down one day and contemplated what it was that I believed, and I came to the conclusion that all that mattered in life was caring for others and for the earth but mostly, just do no harm.
None of the above is easy, but it is easier than seeking answers to big questions and dealing with organizations that actually try to take away your freedom of thinking.
"Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth, being limitless, unconditional, unapproachable by any path whatsoever , cannot be organized; nor should any organization be forced to lead or to coerce people along any particular path." ~~J. Krishnamurti...more
Loading...
