Religion, what's the point?

AN17 said:
I will get back to you with a little refreshing and addition of my limited knowledge. I'm 23 and not really an expert, don't practice religion frivolously, but since I've a interest and inclination towards that part of hinduism that deals with spirituality and not the rituals and practices, I have learnt a bit, although my knowledge would still be amateurish. There are better people out there who probably can explain it to you much better, but I will make an effort to help you understand since you asked. Please give me some time.

However, I'll tell you this much now. The concept in east regarding body and soul is diiferent to that of west.

In West, it is " Mark has a soul " or " "You have a soul"
whereas it becomes " This soul has got Mark's body for now", or "Your soul has this body". The body is like a cloth. You change it just like when you change your dress if it gets dirty or ragged.

The emphasis is on mind or soul rather than physical body. And as a result, the physical suffering is seen as temporary and insignificant which again the westerners might feel differently.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

So a young child dies a slow death from cancer, and that is just seen as temporary? May I ask you, if all we feel is temporary and not really important, why are we even here in this form? Why make us feel pain and anguish at all anyway? I can understand more if it was to punish us for past lives, but surely if that' sthe child, why cause everyone else that pain even if it's only considered temporary. It seems like uneccessary cruelty that changes absolutely nothing about existence.
 
It's not just the child who suffers either. The parents, the medical team, other relatives. Presumably they are all sinners too.
 
McUnited said:
In my opinion, (and those of Christians, I believe), the route to God is through Christ.
Click to expand...

What exactly does this (through Christ) mean though?

If I live my life by a set of moral codes somewhat akin to the Ten Commandments then would my own salvation (in the eyes of Christians) be blocked simply because I do not believe in God himself? If so, then again that seems rather narcissistic of him. If not, then why do you (not personally) need to preach to me or try to convert me?
 
Redlambs said:
That's what my questions have been about really. Why are so many punished, also does that mean all dead children deserve it according to this particular god and karma.
Click to expand...

It's all such a load of horseshit, isn't it?

I don't understand how any semi-intelligent person can be taken in by it.
 
Redlambs said:
Thank you.

So a young child dies a slow death from cancer, and that is just seen as temporary? May I ask you, if all we feel is temporary and not really important, why are we even here in this form? Why make us feel pain and anguish at all anyway? I can understand more if it was to punish us for past lives, but surely if that' sthe child, why cause everyone else that pain even if it's only considered temporary. It seems like uneccessary cruelty that changes absolutely nothing about existence.
Click to expand...

Would a pm be more appropriate ? Only I don't want to be seen as some sort of religious preacher trying to impress and convert others to the things I believe.
 
What I don't understand about the Hitler re-incarnation as a baby example is this : How do they know that it's Hitler that's been re-incarnated ? On what basis do they take such a monumental decisión ? Who has the right and ability to do that ?

Also, this baby - has he died or been killed ? If a decision was taken that he die, was this taken by God directly ? If so, is that a form of killing ? How can you tell that the baby didn't simply have a fatal disease, without all the opprobrium of having Hitler's soul in his body ?
 
Last edited:
AN17 said:
Would a pm be more appropriate ? Only I don't want to be seen as some sort of religious preacher trying to impress and convert others to the things I believe.
Click to expand...
For me at least, don't worry about posting here or on the alternative thread. These are big questions some will take seriously and others will have no interest.
 
jackofalltrades said:
For me at least, don't worry about posting here or on the alternative thread. These are big questions some will take seriously and others will have no interest.
Click to expand...

Don't want to perceived as some sort of evangelisque nutter trying to force something on people.

I mean there are people who actually want to know more on different viewpoints or unknown philosphies and those who would already have made up their mind and just want to take the piss.

The failure of most religions in the fact that it cannot go hand in hand with science or knowledge in a broader sense. The intolerance from one side that only religion is truth, the various propoganda and heinous crimes commited on its behalf over centuries has resulted in a similar dislike and outlook among the free thinking knowledgable scientific community and majority of today's society towards the other.

And if one tries even look from the other perspective or try to explain something they find interesting or fascinating in the other side, there'd be a few there to mock.

Whatever sort of faith I have doesn't deter me from scientific thinking, or doesn't deter me from questioning stuff, so I find the both complementary.
 
AN17 said:
Don't want to perceived as some sort of evangelisque nutter trying to force something on people.

I mean there are people who actually want to know more on different viewpoints or unknown philosphies and those who would already have made up their mind and just want to take the piss.

The failure of most religions in the fact that it cannot go hand in hand with science or knowledge in a broader sense. The intolerance from one side that only religion is truth, the various propoganda and heinous crimes commited on its behalf over centuries has resulted in a similar dislike and outlook among the free thinking knowledgable scientific community and majority of today's society towards the other.

And if one tries even look from the other perspective or try to explain something they find interesting or fascinating in the other side, there'd be a few there to mock.

Whatever sort of faith I have doesn't deter me from scientific thinking, or doesn't deter me from questioning stuff, so I find the both complementary.
Click to expand...
Do you know there's an alternative thread - Religious Discussion, I think. The problem with the other thread is that some who would engage on this one won't go near that one - safe space etc.
 
AN17 said:
Don't want to perceived as some sort of evangelisque nutter trying to force something on people.

I mean there are people who actually want to know more on different viewpoints or unknown philosphies and those who would already have made up their mind and just want to take the piss.

The failure of most religions in the fact that it cannot go hand in hand with science or knowledge in a broader sense. The intolerance from one side that only religion is truth, the various propoganda and heinous crimes commited on its behalf over centuries has resulted in a similar dislike and outlook among the free thinking knowledgable scientific community and majority of today's society towards the other.

And if one tries even look from the other perspective or try to explain something they find interesting or fascinating in the other side, there'd be a few there to mock.

Whatever sort of faith I have doesn't deter me from scientific thinking, or doesn't deter me from questioning stuff, so I find the both complementary.
Click to expand...

This is the thread you're looking for

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/religion-discussion-wums-will-be-thread-banned.424322/page-8
 
jackofalltrades said:
Do you know there's an alternative thread - Religious Discussion, I think. The problem with the other thread is that some who would engage on this one won't go near that one - safe space etc.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that. I suppose that thread would be teeming with why 'this' is better than 'that' discussion ? Or would that be presumptous? I'm not that into religion to fight over it with strangers on a football forum. Peaceful discussion is fine.
 
AN17 said:
Didn't know that. I suppose that thread would be teeming with why 'this' is better than 'that' discussion ? Or would that be presumptous? I'm not that into religion to fight over it with strangers on a football forum. Peaceful discussion is fine.
Click to expand...

The other thread is for religious people to have an "intra-faith" chat about religion, which generally works better when there aren't atheists around to question everything. This thread is generally to question the validity of religion.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
The other thread is for religious people to have an "intra-faith" chat about religion, which generally works better when there aren't atheists around to question everything. This thread is generally one to question religion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, although it doesn't seem like what I'm looking for.

I don't mind atheists who question stuff because they are confused or have unanswered question about religious stuff. What I find annoying is when someone takes bits and parts of something, or make digs without trying to make any effort to know more, and just wants to look smarter. They're as stupid as people who insisted earth was flat because that's what they saw.
 
AN17 said:
Don't want to perceived as some sort of evangelisque nutter trying to force something on people.

I mean there are people who actually want to know more on different viewpoints or unknown philosphies and those who would already have made up their mind and just want to take the piss.

The failure of most religions in the fact that it cannot go hand in hand with science or knowledge in a broader sense. The intolerance from one side that only religion is truth, the various propoganda and heinous crimes commited on its behalf over centuries has resulted in a similar dislike and outlook among the free thinking knowledgable scientific community and majority of today's society towards the other.

And if one tries even look from the other perspective or try to explain something they find interesting or fascinating in the other side, there'd be a few there to mock.

Whatever sort of faith I have doesn't deter me from scientific thinking, or doesn't deter me from questioning stuff, so I find the both complementary.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure this is the case. Liberal communities (often more atheist) are still quite tolerant of religion to the point where they've been accused of not being critical enough of radical Islam etc. There are outspoken atheists but the vast majority of people you'll meet who aren't religious won't give much of a shite if you are, providing you don't pressure them etc.

And as has been said before, if the scientific/atheist communities worst crime is that they're kind of dicks in talking to religious people...then, well, they're far better than the various religious groups you admit have committed some awful crimes over the centuries. Yeah, Dawkins might be an arsehole, but most of what he's said has been fairly harmless. In a world where overt religious belief continues to hold back scientific advancement in certain respects, I fail to see what's wrong with people being critical of religion.
 
Cheesy said:
I'm really not sure this is the case. Liberal communities (often more atheist) are still quite tolerant of religion to the point where they've been accused of not being critical enough of radical Islam etc. There are outspoken atheists but the vast majority of people you'll meet who aren't religious won't give much of a shite if you are, providing you don't pressure them etc.

And as has been said before, if the scientific/atheist communities worst crime is that they're kind of dicks in talking to religious people...then, well, they're far better than the various religious groups you admit have committed some awful crimes over the centuries. Yeah, Dawkins might be an arsehole, but most of what he's said has been fairly harmless. In a world where overt religious belief continues to hold back scientific advancement in certain respects, I fail to see what's wrong with people being critical of religion.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I've not said don't criticise religion, becuase I'm not religious per se. I'd call myself a spiritual person with a scientific outlook.
I don't see why both cant coexist together.

If someone with a considerable understanding of a religious/spiritual belief or philosophy can raise a fair criticism, then I'm all for it. However making assumptions or generalising faiths and puting a blanket over it labelling everything as against science and irrational without any understanding, that is as unscientific and illogical as it can get.

But like you said, that all they've done which is nothing compared to the atrocities of certain religious institutions throughout centuries. So that's kind of ok.
 
AN17 said:
I don't disagree. I've not said don't criticise religion, becuase I'm not religious per se. I'd call myself a spiritual person with a scientific outlook.
I don't see why both cant coexist together.

If someone with a considerable understanding of a religious/spiritual belief or philosophy can raise a fair criticism, then I'm all for it. However making assumptions or generalising faiths and puting a blanket over it labelling everything as against science and irrational without any understanding, that is as unscientific and illogical as it can get.

But like you said, that all they've done which is nothing compared to the atrocities of certain religious institutions throughout centuries. So that's kind of ok.
Click to expand...

Do you comfort yourself when bad stuff happens by saying it's just god's plan?

That's when it becomes a problem IMO.
 
Grinner said:
Do you comfort yourself when bad stuff happens by saying it's just god's plan?

That's when it becomes a problem IMO.
Click to expand...

For that I'd have to say I don't see god as an angry judgemental person sitting in clouds and plotting and scheming stuff. I don't see god as someone who interferes in the laws of universe, who punishes sinners and non believers while blessing those who do.

I believe creator is the creation itself. That Universe in its entirety can be considered as god or brahman.

I don't comfort myself with putting bad things as god's plan. But I also don't believe shit happens because shit happens. There are some reason we may not fully understand. Some can call it karma and stuff, some just say shit happens.
 
Grinner said:
Do you think god just created Adam & Eve or does he make every new person?
Click to expand...

For one thing, I am not a Christian.
Hinduism is my religion although, I'm not the practising kind.

Another thing stories whether from Bible or hindu mythology or epics or other religion can't all be taken as absolute truths like the clergy men tell it. Most of it is symbolic and blown up to make it a memorable and fascinating story so that it can last through centuries.
 
AN17 said:
For one thing, I am not a Christian.
Hinduism is my religion although, I'm not the practising kind.

Another thing stories whether from Bible or hindu mythology or epics or other religion can't all be taken as absolute truths like the clergy men tell it. Most of it is symbolic and blown up to make it a memorable and fascinating story so that it can last through centuries.
Click to expand...


But that's crap. It was always said to be truth until science kept showing that it was bollocks.
 
AN17 said:
For one thing, I am not a Christian.
Hinduism is my religion although, I'm not the practising kind.

Another thing stories whether from Bible or hindu mythology or epics or other religion can't all be taken as absolute truths like the clergy men tell it. Most of it is symbolic and blown up to make it a memorable and fascinating story so that it can last through centuries.
Click to expand...

So basically its all nonsense made up by people.
 
Grinner said:
But that's crap. It was always said to be truth until science kept showing that it was bollocks.
Click to expand...
I assume you're talking about Christianity as that's the religion you've more proximal to and have a better understanding of. I agree with you that semitic religions including Christianity professed to be the absolute truth and have opposed any other thought process and scientific exploration. As you might already know, they wanted to be a monopoly for 'helping people to absolve sins and acheive salvation' and encouraging science would have been detrimental to their cause. Their lies would have been exposed and like you've said that's mostly bollocks.

Raoul said:
So basically its all nonsense made up by people.
Click to expand...
You could say that if it's against proven scientific principles I guess.
Most of the stories have some sort of teaching or moral, the imagery and description is mainly symbolic and doesn't claim to be the absolute truth at least in Hinduism.
The fundemental principles and philosophical part of Hinduism has never had the kind of conflict that other faiths have had with scienctific thinking. It doesn't have a singular doctrine or a one true instruction manual sent from god, encourages free thinking and questioning things and finding answers for yourselves. So you could say it not really a religion in that sense. Although 'the religious part' of it may seem a bit similar to other faiths. And to a foreigner, this distinction can truly seem weird and confusing at so many levels.
 
AN17 said:
Another thing stories whether from Bible or hindu mythology or epics or other religion can't all be taken as absolute truths like the clergy men tell it. Most of it is symbolic and blown up to make it a memorable and fascinating story so that it can last through centuries.
Click to expand...

I know this has been addressed by Grinner and Raoul, but I think it's possibly the most annoying thing about religions. Particularly the Abrahamic ones. These stories were taught as absolute truths and only when they contradicted the scientific evidence to people say "oh well, you're not meant to take them literally! They're just stories"


I teach 10 year olds in a catholic school and we were going over the creation story. On day 2, god created light to counter the dark. But it wasn't til day 4 that he created the sun and the stars. Straight away, 26 hands go up. (We had just done planet earth and the sun in science the previous week)

26 hands, all with the same question. "How was there light before god created the sun when we get all our light from the sun and the stars?

So I have tow the line a bit because I want to keep my job. I say, "well this is a story not to be taken literally. This was written 6,000 years ago by people who didn't know as much about space and the sun as we know now. "

Again, some hands go up. 10 year olds, remember. "But isn't it the word of god? Wouldn't he have known enough about space and the sun when he was telling the people what they write?"

"Good point", I say. And I leave it at that and there are 26 confused faces looking back at me.

All I wanted to say to them was "it's all bollox. You're 10 and you can see it's all Bollox. Yet a billion people believe in it all and worse still, millions of grown adults believe this story to be literally true. "

Genisis is the bibles attempt at explaining nature and our world. It is a horrible attempt. People say now, oh it's just stories. Not to be taken literally. But it was. This was taught as fact. That's why I have a problem with it.
 
RexHamilton said:
Genisis is the bibles attempt at explaining nature and our world. It is a horrible attempt. People say now, oh it's just stories. Not to be taken literally. But it was. This was taught as fact. That's why I have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

Remember when we have people in this thread (mostly the Muslims) trying to persuade us that human being made from clay is scientifically justified?
 
RexHamilton said:
I know this has been addressed by Grinner and Raoul, but I think it's possibly the most annoying thing about religions. Particularly the Abrahamic ones. These stories were taught as absolute truths and only when they contradicted the scientific evidence to people say "oh well, you're not meant to take them literally! They're just stories"


I teach 10 year olds in a catholic school and we were going over the creation story. On day 2, god created light to counter the dark. But it wasn't til day 4 that he created the sun and the stars. Straight away, 26 hands go up. (We had just done planet earth and the sun in science the previous week)

26 hands, all with the same question. "How was there light before god created the sun when we get all our light from the sun and the stars?

So I have tow the line a bit because I want to keep my job. I say, "well this is a story not to be taken literally. This was written 6,000 years ago by people who didn't know as much about space and the sun as we know now. "

Again, some hands go up. 10 year olds, remember. "But isn't it the word of god? Wouldn't he have known enough about space and the sun when he was telling the people what they write?"

"Good point", I say. And I leave it at that and there are 26 confused faces looking back at me.

All I wanted to say to them was "it's all bollox. You're 10 and you can see it's all Bollox. Yet a billion people believe in it all and worse still, millions of grown adults believe this story to be literally true. "

Genisis is the bibles attempt at explaining nature and our world. It is a horrible attempt. People say now, oh it's just stories. Not to be taken literally. But it was. This was taught as fact. That's why I have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

I'd feel the same way if I were you. It's sad that even now some people can't just come terms with the fact that there is 'no end all be all' book or doctrine and something written by bunch of illiterates and power crazy people thousands of years ago can't be questioned because it's the absolute truth.
 
Kentonio said:
Then whats the point in the punishment? If you do something bad, another you who you'll never meet and who won't remember anything about you will be punished. That isn't really much of a deterrent.

An example might be to consider a puppy. The puppy does something bad several times, so instead of discipling it, you wait 6 months and then kick the shit out of it for all the things it did months previously. Is that a good system? The puppy has no idea what is going on, or why it is being punished, it doesn't learn anything or connect the events in any way, it just thinks you're a cruel bastard.
Click to expand...

Because it's not a punishment according to Karma. It's simply action - reaction and consequence. Karma is neutral. It's not meant to 'teach a lesson', nor is it about 'deterrence'. It's about the balance of nature. The puppy is a judgment type situation where you punish the puppy for doing something wrong, that's not how Karma works. In other words, everything we feel we are being punished for, is a direct consequence of our own actions, and nothing else.

It's we as humans who perceive what happens as punishment if it causes pain and suffering.
 
Last edited:
Will reply in your quote as I think it's an easier way.

Redlambs said:
First up, thanks for the replies guys, I'm finding this a very interesting subject, I appreciate it!




I personally think God showing up would be the best way to test us, surely then that would really show up those who should not get into heaven? If he turned up and confirmed the rules but said he still wouldn't actively touch anything, surely that would show up the truly evil people who would no doubt still kill for example? I don't get why we should all be tested and even if we live our lives better than the average christian, still not get in.

As for the bone cancer in babies scenario, can I genuinely ask if your answer makes you happy with that? Ok, happy obviously being the wrong word, satisfied that god is still all loving? You say cancer is a flaw, and anomaly, but surely that then proves good is fallible and by extension, nearly all of Christianity? Even if so, why couldn't he just stop babies and children getting it?


Human nature is such that even if God showed up once, eventually it would be forgotten and people would still have their own reasons to commit atrocities anyway. However, I would say that God actually has "showed" up via the various Prophets. In Sikhism, God is formless and beyond human comprehension in terms of complexity. I repeat, religion in itself is not the key, so living a better life than a Christian gets you more favour.

Does it make me happy? No of course not, it makes me sad and feel anguish. But I recognise that it is not God to blame, but our own deeds. However, we do our best to help them as best we can, and if possible cure their cancer.

What, then is the level of ego and materialistic things we are allowed to have? I mean we all have egos, is there some cut off? Or are we all supposed to just go without and be eternally humble?

None. Ego must be completely surrendered to achieve enlightenment, and you cannot have attachment to materialistic things because they are all temporary.


Well that seems like a stacked deck. A test that isn't fair.

Yes it is. However the means are there for those who seek them out.

I understand it's complex my friend :)

But is there an answer for why babies? As in is the scale of past deeds relevant to how long you live? And what about the knock on effect, what about people who might do some unknown wrong as a direct result of their child dying? But most of all, I really want to know, does that mean all children who die deserve to in the eyes of our creator?

It's not a simple criteria checklist, so why in babies is not that simple. Perhaps it is that they have done more severe crimes which have taken their toll. But you have to realise the 'baby' is just one of many thousands of lives. In this life the baby died early, in the next 5 because the due has been received, the person enjoys happiness and wealth. As for the knock on effect, it becomes very complex as I've mentioned. Because everyone in their lifetime if they live long enough will lose someone, so does that mean by definition we are all sinners? Are the Doctors, nurses etc. that have been affected sinners?

Think of it like this, every action/thought you take is like throwing a pebble into a lake with a ripple effect. Now imagine how many actions/thoughts you do on a daily basis, each equivalent to throwing a stone and how many ripples that generates and the subsequent overlapping etc. Then imagine across a lifetime. That's the complexity of it. The good = reward, and bad = punishment is an extremely simplified version just to explain the foundation.


So again, doesn't that render religion pretty much unnecessary?

Yes, and no. We don't need religion itself, what we need is a master who can show us the way, and religion is the best way to access these teachings and methods. Let's say you met a master who had achieved enlightenment, and could show you the way. You could follow him, and let him mentor you on a 1v1 basis. That wouldn't be a religion, you wouldn't be part of a religion at all but you'd still need his mentoring. It's the same with religion, it's just that it's a way to give many people that kind of access.
Click to expand...
 
RexHamilton said:
I know this has been addressed by Grinner and Raoul, but I think it's possibly the most annoying thing about religions. Particularly the Abrahamic ones. These stories were taught as absolute truths and only when they contradicted the scientific evidence to people say "oh well, you're not meant to take them literally! They're just stories"


I teach 10 year olds in a catholic school and we were going over the creation story. On day 2, god created light to counter the dark. But it wasn't til day 4 that he created the sun and the stars. Straight away, 26 hands go up. (We had just done planet earth and the sun in science the previous week)

26 hands, all with the same question. "How was there light before god created the sun when we get all our light from the sun and the stars?

So I have tow the line a bit because I want to keep my job. I say, "well this is a story not to be taken literally. This was written 6,000 years ago by people who didn't know as much about space and the sun as we know now. "

Again, some hands go up. 10 year olds, remember. "But isn't it the word of god? Wouldn't he have known enough about space and the sun when he was telling the people what they write?"

"Good point", I say. And I leave it at that and there are 26 confused faces looking back at me.

All I wanted to say to them was "it's all bollox. You're 10 and you can see it's all Bollox. Yet a billion people believe in it all and worse still, millions of grown adults believe this story to be literally true. "

Genisis is the bibles attempt at explaining nature and our world. It is a horrible attempt. People say now, oh it's just stories. Not to be taken literally. But it was. This was taught as fact. That's why I have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

If you're genuinely interested in wrestling with this problem (and providing your students with a more satisfying answer), may I suggest John Lennox's Seven Days That Divide The World?
 
Last edited:
Redlambs said:
Thank you.

So a young child dies a slow death from cancer, and that is just seen as temporary? May I ask you, if all we feel is temporary and not really important, why are we even here in this form? Why make us feel pain and anguish at all anyway? I can understand more if it was to punish us for past lives, but surely if that' sthe child, why cause everyone else that pain even if it's only considered temporary. It seems like uneccessary cruelty that changes absolutely nothing about existence.
Click to expand...

I realise I'm just picking up on one small point in your post here, but I don't agree with your implication that pain is itself bad. Without pain, I may leave my hand accidentally on the stove without realising my hard is burning up. It's pain that allows me to preserve my hand. Mental anguish may help us to cherish more those things that are important to us.
 
I have some questions for those who believe in the cloudy paradise heaven concept.

1) How does it work?

2)When you die your physical body is left here on Earth, so what form do you take in Heaven? And via what medium/material?

3) Also let's say someone's partner passes away at a young age, at let's say 30 or so. His/her surviving partner waits and lives the rest of their life until 80/90 and dies by natural causes. If they are re-united in heaven, does that mean they manifest at those respective ages at which they died?
 
Grinner said:
It's all such a load of horseshit, isn't it?

I don't understand how any semi-intelligent person can be taken in by it.
Click to expand...

I can, it's indoctrination. Tell someone something from a young age for years and it becomes rooted into the core. When questions arise just tell that person to have/hold faith.

I find that it's not necessarily intellect as many persons of obvious intelligence still believe in nonsensical mythology. It goes back to core belief and indoctrination. For some it gives hope in a cruel world.

I hold pity towards religious persons as breaking from indoctrination is not easy, like myself coming to the terms that this is all bullshit. What I despise is when religion interferes with politics, education, medicine, etc.
 
3AdK7We.jpg


Don't get me started on the other religions...
Concerning all this about religions and respect. I respect your right to have a belief or an opinion, but I don't have to respect your opinion or your belief.
 
MrMarcello said:
I can, it's indoctrination. Tell someone something from a young age for years and it becomes rooted into the core. When questions arise just tell that person to have/hold faith.

I find that it's not necessarily intellect as many persons of obvious intelligence still believe in nonsensical mythology. It goes back to core belief and indoctrination. For some it gives hope in a cruel world.

I hold pity towards religious persons as breaking from indoctrination is not easy, like myself coming to the terms that this is all bullshit. What I despise is when religion interferes with politics, education, medicine, etc.
Click to expand...

It works both ways. I was an atheist. Now a Christian. Had to work at removing atheist indoctrination!
 
AXVnee7 said:
I have some questions for those who believe in the cloudy paradise heaven concept.

1) How does it work?

- Nobody knows.


2)When you die your physical body is left here on Earth, so what form do you take in Heaven? And via what medium/material?

- Nobody knows.

3) Also let's say someone's partner passes away at a young age, at let's say 30 or so. His/her surviving partner waits and lives the rest of their life until 80/90 and dies by natural causes. If they are re-united in heaven, does that mean they manifest at those respective ages at which they died?
Click to expand...

- Nobody knows.

Why ask questions that no mortal can answer? Try praying! :angel:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.