James Randi crosses over

In this case, most souls of deceased humans must be in effectively hellish state after death...

Yeah it's hard to know. Would be interesting to look at the historical record of NDEs and afterlife visions. IIRC the NDEs associated with Pureland Buddhism said it was the path toward avoiding damnation, however it is hard to know how much of those accounts are embellished or even falsified. After all if someone came back and said "crazy" stuff like democracy should replace feudal structures those in power would want a counter-narrative.

In today's time I'd be curious about afterlife journeys of those who, while not suicide bombers themselves, feel it is a necessary tactic.

Yeah it's hard to know. Would be interesting to look at the historical record of NDEs and afterlife visions. IIRC the NDEs associated with Pureland Buddhism said it was the path toward avoiding damnation, however it is hard to know how much of those accounts are embellished or even falsified. After all if someone came back and said "crazy" stuff like democracy should replace feudal structures those in power would want a counter-narrative.

In today's time I'd be curious about afterlife journeys of those who, while not suicide bombers themselves, feel it is a necessary tactic.

My thoughts are that we should be careful not to think of these afterlife experiences as some form of punishment. “Damnation” suggests condemnation to me which also suggests judgement. Everything I have read about the life following death maintains that there is no judgement, no punishment, no retribution. So those awful conditions must be, as I understand it, the result of a state of mind. For example, a personality devoid of compassion or empathy and lacking the ability to feel or show love would inevitably create conditions which reflect that disposition. 

I have also read of spirit helpers who devote themselves to guiding and rehabilitating these “lost souls “.

My thoughts are that we should be careful not to think of these afterlife experiences as some form of punishment. “Damnation” suggests condemnation to me which also suggests judgement. Everything I have read about the life following death maintains that there is no judgement, no punishment, no retribution. So those awful conditions must be, as I understand it, the result of a state of mind. For example, a personality devoid of compassion or empathy and lacking the ability to feel or show love would inevitably create conditions which reflect that disposition. 

I have also read of spirit helpers who devote themselves to guiding and rehabilitating these “lost souls “.

I think I prefer your 'preferred' interpretation, Dave. Having spoken to quite a few people who've had these experiences now, I would have to add that I have indeed heard more than once that there appears to be an unpleasant "area" that they pass by on their way to wherever they went (heaven or whatever it is). It's a grey, dull area with unhappy beings, apparently. 

I've mentioned this before. Could it be the outer darkness ? I don't know. There are some nasty pieces of work (are there not?) in the world and I don't think I would want them knocking on the door of my club or dance hall or holiday camp, personally.

My thoughts are that we should be careful not to think of these afterlife experiences as some form of punishment.

I agree with you and Tim on this. My own thinking is quite optimistic.

If God is all about love, as I tend to think, then punishment isn’t a form of love. Being ‘cruel to be kind’ may be, but it must get complicated. 

I can see how it’s so complicated that our brains, as capable as some are, are probably well short of understanding such matters fully.

If God is all about love, as I tend to think, then punishment isn’t a form of love.

The problem is sin.  The next world is going to get as bad as this one if God lets every Tom, Dick and Harry live forever.  The idea that a loving God has to be constantly nice to everybody, no matter what, is like the sickly sweet God that parents traditionally used to tell their children about at bedtime.

That's an interesting post (not that others weren't, of course). I tend to baulk at the idea that "God" is just love (not specifically referring to your post Stan). You hear that mantra so often but I've never really understood what it's supposed to mean. 

There's (arguably) just as much hatred and rejection as there is love and attraction in God's creation. There's only one culprit ultimately, even though it can obviously be argued that we the created  haven't helped much. 

Maybe I've got it wrong when I hear a priest (occasionally) tell me that God is love. Maybe the priest's text doesn't actually mean that literally, but I prefer to think about "God" as the totality of everything, an intelligence beyond my grasp, not just something that can't help loving no matter what, but an intelligence that chooses to love no matter what. 

But then how do we resolve the problem of punishment for heinous crimes (linked with the problem of evil) ?

The problem is sin.  The next world is going to get as bad as this one if God lets every Tom, Dick and Harry live forever.  The idea that a loving God has to be constantly nice to everybody, no matter what, is like the sickly sweet God that parents traditionally used to tell their children about at bedtime.

Sorry Brian but I must take issue with you here. 

The God you seem to describe here is the same kind of anthropomorphic God of the old testament: a God who decides the fate of everyone, a God who is the Lord and Master, Judge and executioner, arbiter of fate and provider of love and favour. That, to me, is as much a fairy story as any children's bedtime story.

For me, God doesn't dole out love, God *is* love. Love is the ultimate state of perfection, that which we must all evolve towards while, counter-intuitively, love is that to which we return. God doesn't "let" anyone live forever because that separate entity which is called Tom or Dick or Harry is an illusion. Tom is a transitory personality which has the illusion of a separate existence. A soul, in my understanding, is an entity consisting of several (perhaps countless) personalities and that soul is, in turn, part of another entity which may contain countless souls. None of these entities are separate from God - all exist within God.

Sorry Brian but I must take issue with you here. 

The God you seem to describe here is the same kind of anthropomorphic God of the old testament: a God who decides the fate of everyone, a God who is the Lord and Master, Judge and executioner, arbiter of fate and provider of love and favour. That, to me, is as much a fairy story as any children's bedtime story.

For me, God doesn't dole out love, God *is* love. Love is the ultimate state of perfection, that which we must all evolve towards while, counter-intuitively, love is that to which we return. God doesn't "let" anyone live forever because that separate entity which is called Tom or Dick or Harry is an illusion. Tom is a transitory personality which has the illusion of a separate existence. A soul, in my understanding, is an entity consisting of several (perhaps countless) personalities and that soul is, in turn, part of another entity which may contain countless souls. None of these entities are separate from God - all exist within God.

Why is Brian's post a fairy tale? And yours not?

Why is Brian's post a fairy tale? And yours not?

I usually have you on ignore but seeing as you have been quiet lately (or I have just not noticed your posts) I'll attempt an answer. And that is: for the same reason your worldview is not a fairy tale to you. Brian has his worldview, I have mine and you have yours. I guess we have all put a lot of thought into why we look at the world that way but I can't prove Brian is wrong. FWIW, I think that both religious and atheist views are pretty hard to justify and I've never seen a convincing argument from either.

I usually have you on ignore but seeing as you have been quiet lately (or I have just not noticed your posts) I'll attempt an answer. And that is: for the same reason your worldview is not a fairy tale to you. Brian has his worldview, I have mine and you have yours. I guess we have all put a lot of thought into why we look at the world that way but I can't prove Brian is wrong. FWIW, I think that both religious and atheist views are pretty hard to justify and I've never seen a convincing argument from either.

Well there is something peculiar about the fairy-tale pseudo-skeptics believe in, in that it claims to be fact based and thus not a fairy tale. Instead it is the truth.

Yet if this is so, and evidence can speak for itself, why was Randi such a manipulative charlatan?