Yes God No God, Yes Bible No Bible, Yes Catholic Church No Catholic Church, Yes Afterlife No Afterlife ???????

Question

cliff notes version:

1) possibility of no afterlife, thought out by insecure men.

2) focus too much on how to get to afterlife and stop living their current lives.

3) laws of living make it a reward system in order to get to the afterlife.

4) reward system is a humanly quality in trying to control people. e.g. a king would use a rewarding system to control its citizens.

5) things like reward system, stories of god having human qualities (such as taking sides on battle field, killing nonbelievers, offerings, trying to win people over to his side, testing trust, judgments), and changes added into the bible by the catholic church suggest the bible to be man-made not godly. if not totally questionable, at least it contains some tainted misinformation.

6) personifying death giving notion of afterlife. humans naturally seek meanings and purpose due to insecurities.

7) evil doings within the church. too often it's their will be done than god's will.



more @ http://religion.2truth.com

@ antdakll, you're welcome to read the extensive explanatory version http://religion.2truth.com

@ Jennifer, my contacts were removed due to previous occurrences of spamming and harassment from others. however, you can contact me at [e-mail]
it's a dummy email address. so once i've received your email, i'll email you back with a real email address that i frequently use.




@ Badong, not very friendly of you now is it. sarcastic hypocrit. please either answer the question or move on. no need to put in the effort to give your comment. it's Yahoo! Answers not Yahoo! Messageboard. take your self-important pompous butt somewhere else like AA meetings. they'll give you the time of day.

@ Daver, my questions are directed at the people not the doctrine, even my questionings at the bible is directed at the people who wrote them not the doctrine or ideology itself. i think from what you've answered you've misunderstood. and i clearly stated in the beginning of the whole memo or whatever you want to call it in that webpage that that was my intention. and i also warned that people would get defensive for reasons of own insecurities and of self than of the ideology/doctrine over the points that i've mentioned. and you just illustrated what i warned at the beginning of this document.

yes it's possible that there's an afterlife. and it's possible that there isn't one. for you to state that there is one without backing it up other than just because it's your religion and so it's the ultimate true religion is an hollow point and pompous at best. however, if you argued against my point (that afterlife is created due to human insecurities of death and of life & the need to find ultimate meanings in everything) by atleast sharing your own views with details, than just a statement in a i-state-it-therefore-it's true motto.

it's not much of an argument or any intellectual productive exchange of ideas when you talk like what you believe-in is the ultimate truth and there's no other possibilities whatsoever. i stated in my document that that kind of argument or conversation doesn't lead anywhere. both sides being stubborn and narrow minded don't help with any constructiveness.

there's nothing wrong with christians looking forward to the afterlife or christians living a christian daily life. i said that it would seem blasphemous for christians to overlook this current life and focus excessively on the afterlife because it shows that these christians are neglecting god's gift that is this life, as if they're spitting at god's gift like it's an unwanted waste of a present.

"simply logic"?! ofcourse only one can be right or both be wrong. i'm open to possibilities. but again, it seems you're not. by you just stating that you're right doesn't make you right. do you not see the anti-logic of your logic? what is moral right? who's to say that is the ultimate moral right? and you say god has given enough for you to properly discern? who's to say how much is enough? are you god? do you speak for god? is god's lips on yours? and "Those who effort to live the moral right (that is to say - do God's will) are justified" that sounds like what an extremist would say.

keep in mind that extremists believe completely what they believe, not matter how or what others would say to them. that stubbornness and extremely narrow minded thinking would lead to danger for their lives and everyone around them who would be affected by them. and their decisions would only be validated if what they believe is true, but the odds are extremely against them, especially seeing how everyone has their own views of what they believe in, which would exponentialize the probabilities of against even more.

"Catholic Church has no "gestapo" with which it can force people to follow Church Doctrine." did you read what i wrote completely in my document/memo/questioning posted on my webpage? no gestapo? what about the crusades? to be killed if you don't follow their doctrine. what about the salem witch hunt? or to confess to a crime you didn't do, and if you're innocent, god will set you free by means of death. need i go on as to the extensive perversive nature of man to have his

to have his (man's) will be done, than god's will. it is the people and their motives and actions that i question. yes, there are some bad apples, but when a large amount if not majority are bad apples, and when especially the catholic church, which took a huge part if not entire part in translating and publishing the bible, is involved if not started in many of those "gestupo" activities, that's when the excuse of a few bad apples doesn't have any credibilities anymore.

relating to humans is not the issue here. the question is does the ends justify the means? according to the bible, so many humans have died under the hands of god while god picked sides on the battle fields. so killing people is an acceptable mean. and i'm not taking it out of context. they were human beings, atleast under the premise that the bible/the only source of god is the ultimate truth and not just stories in the bible to teach you a lesson on morals. so how can you be christianly and say those means are justi

justified.

also, are enacting live accounts of "taking sides, winning people over, killing an enemy" etc the only way for us humans to understand? at the expense of those who had suffered and died, mind you. are you saying that that's the only way god can relate to us and make us understand? or are you only defending it because they're part of the bible and you don't question it.

it's a circular reasoning to believe the bible just because it states that it's the truth.

"Catholic Bibles are not "tainted". ALL versions of the Bible were penned by human hands."?! so humans are flawless and godly, now? earlier, you mentioned those stories in the bible help us understand and relate, so now how would you know if the speculation of the bible being tainted is not another lesson. from the biblical stories, humans are flawed. so even just to go by the bible alone and nothing else, one would assume humans are flawed and sinful. and since the bible is penned by humans, how can you say it's not

tainted. and just because the bible says it's not tainted, it's the truth, and it's inspired by god, when it's written by humans, doesn't make it undeniably unquestionably true. you see the circular reasoning here? anyone can write a novel and state in it that it's inspired by true story, not fiction, doesn't make it nonfiction. how would you know if the Roman Catholic Church didn't add that in the bible, along with their own ideas and ways of life in order to accommodate their own agendas and political powers, while mixing in some doctrines and philosophies and ideologies from other cultures. who's to say the roman catholics didn't add and/or change the scriptures. who's to say the scriptures were even legitimate. just because a number of them are the same/similar. same argument can be made about japanese ww2 history texts neglecting some certain historical incidents/facts. there are many other speculations and possibilities. that's just one of many. but the main questioning here is

that it's irrational to just believe the bible because it says to believe and it says it's the truth.

"Humans naturally seek meaning and purpose because they, naturally speaking, were created for a higher meaning and purpose." do you see the circular reasoning here as well. so there's no possibility that humans can seek meanings without actually having higher meaning to exist? personally, i think the tools that allow us to seek meanings and purpose are in our conscience and conscious mind. but having a conscious mind doesn't mean there are higher meanings out there. you would say there is a higher meaning out there only because you seek meanings in things. get it. correlation versus causation. having a conscious mind doesn't mean there is a god. or having a god doesn't mean there is a conscious mind in us either. in the biblical sense, adam & eve didn't have a conscious mind till after they disobeyed god and ate from the tree of knowledge.

personally, i do believe there is a higher power, a supreme being. but that's besides the point. i'm not here to talk about me, but to consider and question the possibilities. i'm not looking for consensus or people to agree with me either, but to have rational arguments and reasonings.

so start questioning...

here's another thought: people seek purpose & meanings, not because there are none but because people are unsatisfied with what's presented that is this physical world, so they seek alternative/higher purpose & higher meanings, meaning they look for what they want to find, not what's out there. this goes back to the previous notion that people are spitting at god's gift for humankind that is this world.

Answer 1

Hey Peter could you allow e-mail, IM or something? I'm not getting your question here either. I can appreciate your thoughts and agree with many. I like the way you think. Question everything. Are you sharing? or trying to start a religion?
To answer your questions here, if you are looking for what we think as a consensus.

Yes, God
The Bible has good stories to learn from the human experience.
No, Catholic church. I have issues..Catholic school. You know. I don't have a problems with all Catholics many are very good people and Christians. I don't like the services/masses. I don't feel God's presence in the Catholic services that I have personally attended. I know there are most likely some good ones, but I haven't experienced one.
Yes, I think there is an afterlife.
I don't believe in a reward system either

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Take care.

Answer 2

Not quite. Observe:

<<1) possibility of no afterlife, thought out by insecure men.>>

There is afterlife; the quality of which depends on the manner in which one lives his/her life on earth. The "Second Death" spoken of in Catholic Theology is the condemnation of one's soul to hell.

Now, you might not want to believe in this, but don't you want to at least consider the possibility? After all, what if YOU are the one who is wrong? By the time you figure that out, it's going to be too late to do anything about it.


<<2) focus too much on how to get to afterlife and stop living their current lives.>>

There is nothing wrong with a Christian wanting to go to heaven in the afterlife. I said before, the manner in which we live this life can greaty effect the quality of the afterlife. It is the Christian lifestyle, of living in the "here and now", that allows him/her to look forward to the afterlife.

Yes, Christians do look "forward" to the afterlife. They can do this without fearing the afterlife IF they are living the Christian lifestyle.


<<3) laws of living make it a reward system in order to get to the afterlife.>>

Simply logic: You cannot have two people believing in opposing views and both be right. There is a right and there is a wrong. God has given us enough to properly discern the moral right from the moral wrong. Those who effort to live the moral right (that is to say - do God's will) are justified. Those who refuse to do God's will condemn themselves to hell.


<<4) reward system is a humanly quality in trying to control people. e.g. a king would use a rewarding system to control its citizens.>>

The Catholic Church has no "gestapo" with which it can force people to follow Church Doctrine.

Earthly authorities can and do have law enforcement agencies to see to it that people subject to those authorities follow the law.

Following or breaking earthly law carries with it earthly rewards and penalties. Following or breaking God's Law (which transcends earthly law) carries with it rewards and penalties in the transcendant afterlife.

Do you understand the difference?


<< 5) things like reward system, stories of god having human qualities (such as taking sides on battle field, killing nonbelievers, offerings, trying to win people over to his side, testing trust, judgments), and changes added into the bible by the catholic church suggest the bible to be man-made not godly. if not totally questionable, at least it contains some tainted misinformation.>>

We are human beings, so what's wrong with God trying to relate His Wisdom and Understanding in such a way that makes it easier for human beings to understand? As humans, we understand we understand taking sides, winning people over, killing an enemy, trust, and moral judgement calls. God helps us make sense of the things you have mentioned through the teachings of His Son, God-Incarnate, Jesus Christ. Your objections are unclear.

Catholic Bibles are not "tainted". ALL versions of the Bible were penned by human hands. Don't pretend they were not. The difference between the Bible Books, and any other book, is that the authors' words were Inspired by God Himself. That is why we can be certain the Catholic Bible is untainted.

What's more, learn your history - the Catholic Bible of today is the same Bible the Church had when it compiled the Scriptures during the first centuries of Christianity. It is the Protestants who have REMOVED mostly OLD TESTAMENT Scriptures. It is the Protestants, not the Catholcs, who are the offenders to the Scriptures.


<<6) personifying death giving notion of afterlife. humans naturally seek meanings and purpose due to insecurities.>>

Humans naturally seek meaning and purpose because they, naturally speaking, were created for a higher meaning and purpose. If there was no Higher Power, people would not have that "natural" instinct to seek a higher meaning and purpose in life.


<<7) evil doings within the church. too often it's their will be done than god's will.>>

NOWHERE does any Church Doctrine - not even Jesus Himself - has ever claimed merely being Catholic makes one perfect. In fact, the Bible speaks of controversies within the Church, that is - not to lose hope simply because some people within the Church are corrupted.

Here is some Scriptural teachings that pertain to controversies in the Church:

Matt. 13:24-30 - scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God's mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time.

Matt. 13:47-50 - God's plan is that the Church (the kingdom of heaven) is a net which catches fish of every kind, good and bad. God revealed this to us so that we will not get discouraged by the sinfulness of the Church’s members.

Matt. 16:18 - no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of death will never prevail against the Church.

Matt. 23:2-3 - the Jewish people would have always understood the difference between a person's sinfulness and his teaching authority. We see that the sinfulness of the Pharisees does not minimize their teaching authority. They occupy the "cathedra" of Moses.

Matt. 26:70-72; Mark 14:68-70; Luke 22:57; John 18:25-27 - Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly.

Mark 14:45 - Judas was unfaithful by betraying Jesus. But his apostolic office was preserved and this did not weaken the Church.

Mark 14:50 - all of Jesus' apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church.

John 20:24-25 - Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus' resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India.

Rom. 3:3-4 - unfaithful members do not nullify the faithfulness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Eph. 5:25-27 - just as Jesus Christ has both a human and a divine nature, the Church, His Bride, is also both human and divine. It is the holy and spotless bride of Christ, with sinful human members.

1 Tim. 5:19 - Paul acknowledges Church elders might be unfaithful. The Church, not rebellion and schism, deals with these matters.

2 Tim. 2:13 - if we remain faithless, God remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself.

2 Tim. 2:20 - a great house has not only gold and silver, but also wood and earthenware, some for noble use, some for ignoble use.

Jer. 24:1-10 - God's plan includes both good and bad figs. The good figs will be rewarded, and the bad figs will be discarded.

1 Kings 6,7,8 - the Lord commands us to build elaborate places of worship. Some non-Catholics think that this is controversial and the money should be given to the poor, even though no organization does more for the poor of the world that the Catholic Church. We create our churches with beauty because Christ our King lives in the churches in the blessed Eucharist.

Matt. 26:8-9; Mark 14:4-5; John 12:5 - negative comments concerning the beauty of the Church are like the disciples complaining about the woman anointing Jesus' head with costly oil. Jesus desires that we honor Him with our best gifts, not for Him, but for us, so that we realize He is God and we are His creatures.

Matt. 26:10-11 - Jesus says we have both a duty to honor God and give to the poor - a balanced life of reverence and charity.

Answer 3

this sounds like the lyrics to a John Lennon song

Answer 4

My friend, one who hides and then asks questions does not deserve an answer. Why not just remain silent in your hiding place as your profile does set forth.

Answer 5

it is all to confusing. . . .