assuming you don't want to brainwash, what is the proper age to introduce religion

[Cecilie1200]

I think attempting to control behavior by evoking fear of reprisal in the afterlife is one of utter futility when dealing with kids. Who among us has never sinned using whatever criteria we have been taught to identify sin? And once you're headed for hell anyway, you don't have much to lose.

In my decades of observing the phenomenon though, I am convinced that those who reject a rigid fundamentalist religion tend to reject all of it and become sometimes antisocially rebellious. Or, if they reject it, they just go through the motons later on without any conviction behind it.

Those raised in faiths in which the basics are taught but independent questions and thought and logic and reason are encouraged are much more likely to stay with it their entire lives and encourage their children to follow suit.

It is a fact that children on average who grow up in the church are more likely to graduate highschool, obtain at least some higher learning, stay out of serious trouble, and achieve a degree of success in life. That is not to say that all will or that no children raised as Atheists will likely succeed.

But you don't wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves before exposing them to reading, writing, arithmetic, science, social studies, music, arts, sports, or anything else that might be important in their life. And yet each kid, exposed to these things, grows up with his/her own unique interests and focus.

Why would you wait to give a child opportunity to learn about something as important as religious faith?

I'm a bit curious as to what makes you think that fundamentalist religions and those that teach questioning and independent thought are somehow mutually exclusive.

Also, I refrained from all kinds of sins as a child because I didn't want to go to Hell. Admittedly, it didn't make me perfect, because it's not designed to. It certainly did provide me a strong, simple moral structure to fall back on at a time in my life - childhood - when my own reasoning skills were still shaky and immature.

Really? You were a sinless child? I applaud you. I thought there was only one of those, but hey, whatever. . . . (Teasing. . . .)

I DID say it didn't make me perfect. Just better. Children actually respond very well to negative motivators such as, "Don't do that, because this bad thing will happen." They are simple, straightforward, and easily understood.

There are perhaps a few exceptions, but Fundamentalist religions usually don't allow a whole lot of wiggle room about what is and what is not acceptable belief.

Oh, wiggle room on tenets, no. There's no point in a belief that's vague and infirm. On the other hand, life is complicated, and application of beliefs is a lot different from stating them. Christianity very much enshrines the idea of thinking and questioning for oneself, because the relationship with God is personal and individual, which means you aren't going to get to blame someone else if you screw up.

Though they may differ among themselves what is 'the way', they are more likely to teach religious doctrine as irrefutable fact.

Is there another way to teach religious doctrine? Does it work to teach it as "not necessarily a fact, it just sounds good"?

Some pentecostal groups are convinced a person isn't 'saved' unless they speak in tongues. Some groups put far more importance on a physical baptism or the form of baptism than others. Some require a specific statement of faith to ensure and/or verify one's salvation, etc. etc. etc. There are a few who place one's salvation within a particular church itself and consider all others to be damned. Some group teach predestination; most hold to a free will doctrine. Some have certain food or beverage taboos.

Yup. And they all came up with those personal interpretations and applications of God's will through individual thinking and questioning of what they were being taught. What's your point?

I spent an entire dinner with a pleasant young man who was convinced that if somebody was baptised without specific words being said, that person wasn't baptised.

Stuff like that sets the fundamentalists apart from the free thinkers who are open to revelation and don't attempt to confine God to a specific fixed doctrine or teach that we know all we need to know.

Sorry, I fail to see how you think any of this makes someone "not a free thinker". Free thought in religion means deciding for yourself which teachings are right, not refusing to choose anything as right or wrong at all.

Personally I don't think God cares one way or the other so long as people are interested in seeking and doing what He knows we should be about.

Yeah, except that's exactly what those people you mentioned are doing: seeking to do what He wants. Just because you don't agree with them on what that is doesn't mean they aren't free thinkers just as much as you are.

I am not and have never been of the fundamentalist group though I appreciate and respect the faithful there very much. But I think I tried to behave, at least most of the time, because I loved God. And not because I feared hell.

Which brings me back to why you think one is somehow superior to the other. Do you know that the Bible mentions Hell many, MANY more times than it does Heaven? Why do you suppose that would be, if God disdains people being motivated by a desire to avoid Hell?

 

[Dr Grump]

project much, assmunch? i, unlike you, never set myself up as a *steadfast beacon of morality*.

i believe in god. in fact i'm certain of god's existence and god's love for me.

why?

i don't wake up next to you.

I wish I could rep you for this.....lol...

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm a bit curious as to what makes you think that fundamentalist religions and those that teach questioning and independent thought are somehow mutually exclusive.

Also, I refrained from all kinds of sins as a child because I didn't want to go to Hell. Admittedly, it didn't make me perfect, because it's not designed to. It certainly did provide me a strong, simple moral structure to fall back on at a time in my life - childhood - when my own reasoning skills were still shaky and immature.

Really? You were a sinless child? I applaud you. I thought there was only one of those, but hey, whatever. . . . (Teasing. . . .)

I DID say it didn't make me perfect. Just better. Children actually respond very well to negative motivators such as, "Don't do that, because this bad thing will happen." They are simple, straightforward, and easily understood.

Sure if the stove really is hot. But tell him it's hot and he tests it and finds out it isn't, then he won't be so quick to believe the next time.

Oh, wiggle room on tenets, no. There's no point in a belief that's vague and infirm. On the other hand, life is complicated, and application of beliefs is a lot different from stating them. Christianity very much enshrines the idea of thinking and questioning for oneself, because the relationship with God is personal and individual, which means you aren't going to get to blame someone else if you screw up.

Is there another way to teach religious doctrine? Does it work to teach it as "not necessarily a fact, it just sounds good"?

Were Adam and Eve real people? Or is the story an allegory explaining how sin entered the world and spoiled God's perfect creation? Whichever way you believe I will respect whether or not I share your belief. And that's how I teach religious doctrine. I try not to shake anybody's beliefs but I try to leave the door open for God's revelation too.

I suspect God doesn't really care what we think about that nearly as much as he cares that we seek his will and obey it.

Yup. And they all came up with those personal interpretations and applications of God's will through individual thinking and questioning of what they were being taught. What's your point?

Sorry, I fail to see how you think any of this makes someone "not a free thinker". Free thought in religion means deciding for yourself which teachings are right, not refusing to choose anything as right or wrong at all.

How do you explain hundreds and hundreds of different doctrines being taught and hundreds and hundreds of different denominations teaching them? Are they all right? Are they all wrong? Or maybe everybody has some of it right and some of it wrong? My concept of 'free thinking' is the concept that there is so much more that we don't know than what we do know. Others see doctrine as more settled and already determined.

I respect both points of view.

Personally I don't think God cares one way or the other so long as people are interested in seeking and doing what He knows we should be about.

Yeah, except that's exactly what those people you mentioned are doing: seeking to do what He wants. Just because you don't agree with them on what that is doesn't mean they aren't free thinkers just as much as you are.

That again depends on our individual definitions of 'free thought'.

I am not and have never been of the fundamentalist group though I appreciate and respect the faithful there very much. But I think I tried to behave, at least most of the time, because I loved God. And not because I feared hell.

Which brings me back to why you think one is somehow superior to the other. Do you know that the Bible mentions Hell many, MANY more times than it does Heaven? Why do you suppose that would be, if God disdains people being motivated by a desire to avoid Hell?

I don't see one as superior to the other except for my own observation that people raised in the stricter disciplines seem to be more likely to chuck their faith after they are out on their own. And I allow for my observation to be flawed about that.

I believe hell is mentioned more than heaven in the Bible because most of the Bible was written by Jews for Jews who understood obedience to the Law as the road to salvation and who did not yet understand salvation by grace as taught by Jesus and his followers.

 

[blu]

Talk about a bunch of non-commital folks and political correctness. You either want your child to believe in God or you don't want your child to believe in God. If you want your child to believe in God you take them to church with you as they are growing up. They learn by example. If you want them to learn about something else, you stay at home with them and play video games or something else on Sunday morning. Really now. Is that so hard to do?

what if the child should do neither and get to choose on his/her own later?

 

[AllieBaba]

My kids go to church because I do. When they are older they're free to choose what church, if any, they attend.

But while they're children, church is one of the things we do together. Besides exposing them to the Word, it also exposes them to a variety of people, it teaches them patience, social skills, and they become accustomed to dressing to show respect (and they learn to be comfortable in dress clothes). It provides a frame of reference for behavior and thought, and gives them something positive to do when they aren't at school.

In addition, they hear the political viewpoints of different people, they learn the bible, they learn the history not only from a biblical viewpoint, but also the history of our country, and they learn about charity.

All valuable things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Talk about a bunch of non-commital folks and political correctness. You either want your child to believe in God or you don't want your child to believe in God. If you want your child to believe in God you take them to church with you as they are growing up. They learn by example. If you want them to learn about something else, you stay at home with them and play video games or something else on Sunday morning. Really now. Is that so hard to do?

what if the child should do neither and get to choose on his/her own later?

Again do you leave it to the child to choose what history he wants to study or what mathematics he wants to learn or whether or not he will learn spelling, grammar, and sentence structure? Do you keep him away from information on how economics, his government and politics work until he stumbles upon them himself? Do you choose not to expose him to music, art, or sports until he is old enough to decide on these things himself? Or do you consider it wise to introduce him to the basics of all these things so that he will be able to know where his aptitude lies and what disciplines entice him to fully master them?

And if you see it wise to introduce your child to a broad spectrum of all that other knowledge in the interest of a full and complete education, why leave it to him to stumble across religion and matters of faith?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? You were a sinless child? I applaud you. I thought there was only one of those, but hey, whatever. . . . (Teasing. . . .)

I DID say it didn't make me perfect. Just better. Children actually respond very well to negative motivators such as, "Don't do that, because this bad thing will happen." They are simple, straightforward, and easily understood.

Sure if the stove really is hot. But tell him it's hot and he tests it and finds out it isn't, then he won't be so quick to believe the next time.

And who says he's going to find out that the stove isn't hot THIS time?

Were Adam and Eve real people? Or is the story an allegory explaining how sin entered the world and spoiled God's perfect creation? Whichever way you believe I will respect whether or not I share your belief. And that's how I teach religious doctrine. I try not to shake anybody's beliefs but I try to leave the door open for God's revelation too.

You can't shake my religious beliefs. I'm not sure why you're even asking, since I don't see what difference my personal beliefs have to this topic.

I suspect God doesn't really care what we think about that nearly as much as he cares that we seek his will and obey it.



How do you explain hundreds and hundreds of different doctrines being taught and hundreds and hundreds of different denominations teaching them? Are they all right? Are they all wrong? Or maybe everybody has some of it right and some of it wrong? My concept of 'free thinking' is the concept that there is so much more that we don't know than what we do know. Others see doctrine as more settled and already determined.

Obviously they aren't all correct, because they can't all be correct. I explain them by free will and free thinking. God gave us all free will to determine what path we would follow, what we would believe, and how we would perceive the world, and those people used it to think freely about the available teachings and either choose one that was already available, or break off and teach a new interpretation. A shortage of choices would be what would indicate a lack of free thought.

Just because there's more in the universe than we know doesn't mean we have to try to pretend we don't know ANYTHING. That's like saying that because there's so much to the universe that we don't know scientifically, we can't have any already-settled, determined scientific principles.

I respect both points of view.

I see no reason to respect "I don't know everything, so I can't know anything."

I am not and have never been of the fundamentalist group though I appreciate and respect the faithful there very much. But I think I tried to behave, at least most of the time, because I loved God. And not because I feared hell.

Which brings me back to why you think one is somehow superior to the other. Do you know that the Bible mentions Hell many, MANY more times than it does Heaven? Why do you suppose that would be, if God disdains people being motivated by a desire to avoid Hell?[/QUOTE]

I don't see one as superior to the other except for my own observation that people raised in the stricter disciplines seem to be more likely to chuck their faith after they are out on their own. And I allow for my observation to be flawed about that.[/QUOTE]

I think you're incorrect about stricter disciplines "chucking their faith" more often. What you're seeing is normal rebellion, writ large because it's in such stark contrast to the faith they're rebelling against. Many people raised in more fundamentalist faiths remain with it, and many more return to it later in life.

I believe hell is mentioned more than heaven in the Bible because most of the Bible was written by Jews for Jews who understood obedience to the Law as the road to salvation and who did not yet understand salvation by grace as taught by Jesus and his followers.

Ah, so you don't think the Bible was written by God, it was just a work of man.

And Christ's ministry in no way changed the realities of the universe as related in the Old Testament. I think if His coming had heralded the disappearance of Hell from the universe, He'd have mentioned it. Instead, God allowed it to continue to be mentioned and warned against quite a bit in the New Testament, which tells me He still didn't disdain negative consequences as a motivational tool, so there's no reason for ME to believe that one motive for action is somehow "purer" or better than another.

 

[blu]

Talk about a bunch of non-commital folks and political correctness. You either want your child to believe in God or you don't want your child to believe in God. If you want your child to believe in God you take them to church with you as they are growing up. They learn by example. If you want them to learn about something else, you stay at home with them and play video games or something else on Sunday morning. Really now. Is that so hard to do?

what if the child should do neither and get to choose on his/her own later?

Again do you leave it to the child to choose what history he wants to study or what mathematics he wants to learn or whether or not he will learn spelling, grammar, and sentence structure? Do you keep him away from information on how economics, his government and politics work until he stumbles upon them himself? Do you choose not to expose him to music, art, or sports until he is old enough to decide on these things himself? Or do you consider it wise to introduce him to the basics of all these things so that he will be able to know where his aptitude lies and what disciplines entice him to fully master them?

And if you see it wise to introduce your child to a broad spectrum of all that other knowledge in the interest of a full and complete education, why leave it to him to stumble across religion and matters of faith?

history and math don't attempt to teach you how to act and what will happen to you in the afterlife if you don't. neither does economics, politics, science, sports, and the rest of the stuff you mentioned. and for most people they don't introduce their children to the basics of all religions, they introduce them/push them into the religion they follow and maybe some slight variation of it.

as stated before, when my stepson is older, somewhere between 11 and 13, we will do a full teaching of all religions to him, but I don't see a point of introducing fanatical/faith based stuff to him at this point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

what if the child should do neither and get to choose on his/her own later?

Again do you leave it to the child to choose what history he wants to study or what mathematics he wants to learn or whether or not he will learn spelling, grammar, and sentence structure? Do you keep him away from information on how economics, his government and politics work until he stumbles upon them himself? Do you choose not to expose him to music, art, or sports until he is old enough to decide on these things himself? Or do you consider it wise to introduce him to the basics of all these things so that he will be able to know where his aptitude lies and what disciplines entice him to fully master them?

And if you see it wise to introduce your child to a broad spectrum of all that other knowledge in the interest of a full and complete education, why leave it to him to stumble across religion and matters of faith?

history and math don't attempt to teach you how to act and what will happen to you in the afterlife if you don't. neither does economics, politics, science, sports, and the rest of the stuff you mentioned. and for most people they don't introduce their children to the basics of all religions, they introduce them/push them into the religion they follow and maybe some slight variation of it.

as stated before, when my stepson is older, somewhere between 11 and 13, we will do a full teaching of all religions to him, but I don't see a point of introducing fanatical/faith based stuff to him at this point.

Um, they don't attempt to teach you how to act? Really? Learning history isn't about finding out what happened in the past so that you can make better choices in the future? Ditto economics and politics? Sports is actually the only thing mentioned here that can't really be learned from books. I frankly fail to see how the "afterlife" aspect of religion makes it ineligible to be learned using books.

And you're damned right I push my kids to learn about our religion exactly the way that I push them to learn good table manners, close the bathroom door while using the toilet, wash your hands afterward, etc. I would be remiss if I didn't instill in them the things I genuinely believe will give them a foundation toward being a better person, whether they grow up to chew with their mouths open and have dirty hands or not.

 

[Foxfyre]

I DID say it didn't make me perfect. Just better. Children actually respond very well to negative motivators such as, "Don't do that, because this bad thing will happen." They are simple, straightforward, and easily understood.

Sure if the stove really is hot. But tell him it's hot and he tests it and finds out it isn't, then he won't be so quick to believe the next time.

And who says he's going to find out that the stove isn't hot THIS time?



You can't shake my religious beliefs. I'm not sure why you're even asking, since I don't see what difference my personal beliefs have to this topic.



Obviously they aren't all correct, because they can't all be correct. I explain them by free will and free thinking. God gave us all free will to determine what path we would follow, what we would believe, and how we would perceive the world, and those people used it to think freely about the available teachings and either choose one that was already available, or break off and teach a new interpretation. A shortage of choices would be what would indicate a lack of free thought.

Just because there's more in the universe than we know doesn't mean we have to try to pretend we don't know ANYTHING. That's like saying that because there's so much to the universe that we don't know scientifically, we can't have any already-settled, determined scientific principles.



I see no reason to respect "I don't know everything, so I can't know anything."

I am not and have never been of the fundamentalist group though I appreciate and respect the faithful there very much. But I think I tried to behave, at least most of the time, because I loved God. And not because I feared hell.

Which brings me back to why you think one is somehow superior to the other. Do you know that the Bible mentions Hell many, MANY more times than it does Heaven? Why do you suppose that would be, if God disdains people being motivated by a desire to avoid Hell?

I don't see one as superior to the other except for my own observation that people raised in the stricter disciplines seem to be more likely to chuck their faith after they are out on their own. And I allow for my observation to be flawed about that.[/QUOTE]

I think you're incorrect about stricter disciplines "chucking their faith" more often. What you're seeing is normal rebellion, writ large because it's in such stark contrast to the faith they're rebelling against. Many people raised in more fundamentalist faiths remain with it, and many more return to it later in life.

I believe hell is mentioned more than heaven in the Bible because most of the Bible was written by Jews for Jews who understood obedience to the Law as the road to salvation and who did not yet understand salvation by grace as taught by Jesus and his followers.

Ah, so you don't think the Bible was written by God, it was just a work of man.

And Christ's ministry in no way changed the realities of the universe as related in the Old Testament. I think if His coming had heralded the disappearance of Hell from the universe, He'd have mentioned it. Instead, God allowed it to continue to be mentioned and warned against quite a bit in the New Testament, which tells me He still didn't disdain negative consequences as a motivational tool, so there's no reason for ME to believe that one motive for action is somehow "purer" or better than another.[/QUOTE]

You seem to see my point of view as somehow a personal jab at you. It was not intended that way and I apologize if it came across that way. I tried to answer your questions. I can see that you don't like my answers. And that's cool. I respect your beliefs whether or not I can agree with them.

As for the Bible I accept that some think God wrote every jot and tittle. I see the Bible as the written accounts of people of faith recording their encounters with, understanding of, and perceptions of God. Was it inspired by God? Absolutely. Is it infallible? I think the people who wrote it were fallible in their understanding of God, but I don't require that anybody else see it that way. I think prophecy is still happening and I think scripture is still being written though I don't expect any of the newer stuff to make it into the book. Do I believe people are blessed and instructed by the written scriptures? Absolutely.

I can't imagine a world without God. How empty it would seem to me. But I take Paul' instruction seriously that now we seek through a glass darkly. Then we will see face to face and what we don't understand now or get wrong now will be made clear.

 

[amrchaos]

I said inside the womb!!


What is needed is a device to turn the female Belly into a mind washing chamber!! Where the Belly button acts like a loudspeaker to the pre-infant!!

Of course it has to be comfortable to the mother!! Stress in the mother can cause stress in the infant.

 

[antagon]

baptism, anyone?

weeks if not days.

 

[jillian]

I believe hell is mentioned more than heaven in the Bible because most of the Bible was written by Jews for Jews who understood obedience to the Law as the road to salvation and who did not yet understand salvation by grace as taught by Jesus and his followers.

Hi, Foxy

I've enjoyed reading your part of this conversation a lot. But I needed to jump in just to respond to the above. The New Testament doesn't mention hell more because the Bible was written by Jews for Jews. Hell isn't a concept Jews really believe in. I don't believe Jesus talked about hell either, at least not in terms of a fire and brimstone hell. Those images go back to various mythologies. Jews viewed heaven as being near G-d and viewed the not being near G-d as a type of purgatory they called sheol

Sheol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-- j

 

[Dr Grump]

I believe hell is mentioned more than heaven in the Bible because most of the Bible was written by Jews for Jews who understood obedience to the Law as the road to salvation and who did not yet understand salvation by grace as taught by Jesus and his followers.

Hi, Foxy

I've enjoyed reading your part of this conversation a lot. But I needed to jump in just to respond to the above. The New Testament doesn't mention hell more because the Bible was written by Jews for Jews. Hell isn't a concept Jews really believe in. I don't believe Jesus talked about hell either, at least not in terms of a fire and brimstone hell. Those images go back to various mythologies. Jews viewed heaven as being near G-d and viewed the not being near G-d as a type of purgatory they called sheol

Sheol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-- j

Don't tell the Cesspit! It is an expert on everything....including your religion....

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe hell is mentioned more than heaven in the Bible because most of the Bible was written by Jews for Jews who understood obedience to the Law as the road to salvation and who did not yet understand salvation by grace as taught by Jesus and his followers.

Hi, Foxy

I've enjoyed reading your part of this conversation a lot. But I needed to jump in just to respond to the above. The New Testament doesn't mention hell more because the Bible was written by Jews for Jews. Hell isn't a concept Jews really believe in. I don't believe Jesus talked about hell either, at least not in terms of a fire and brimstone hell. Those images go back to various mythologies. Jews viewed heaven as being near G-d and viewed the not being near G-d as a type of purgatory they called sheol

Sheol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-- j

Hi Jillian. Thanks. Are you Jewish? I can be pretty stubborn in some of my views, but there is no way I would presume to be so arrogant to argue Jewish beliefs with a Jewish scholar.

In reading some of the writings of some great Rabbis, however, I am convinced that while Judaism has not suffered nearly as many schisms as has Christianity, there are some differring views on certain doctrines including the understanding of Gehenna (i.e. Greek 'hades'; English 'hell'.) And my understanding of Gehenna is much as yours: Gehenna is far closer to the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory than the fundamentalist Chrsitian doctrine of hell as a place of eternal torment.

Still here and there in the Old Testament you find passages like Isaiah 66:22-26 that starts off with Isaiah quoting God speaking of the 'new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me. . . ." and ends with ". . And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." Which some Christians would interpret as a good description of their doctrine of hell as eternal punishment.

But hell, by whaever name, is mentioned 31 times in the original King James Version, 23 times in the New King James version, and only 13 or 14 times or less in all other English translations. By contrast, in the Old and New Testaments, prhases of salvation and grace are far more prevalent and in both such are the related to our Creator's concern for us and assurance of better times ahead. Which most Christians interpret as heaven.

I love ancient history.

 

[jillian]

Hi Jillian. Thanks. Are you Jewish? I can be pretty stubborn in some of my views, but there is no way I would presume to be so arrogant to argue Jewish beliefs with a Jewish scholar.

In reading some of the writings of some great Rabbis, however, I am convinced that while Judaism has not suffered nearly as many schisms as has Christianity, there are some differring views on certain doctrines including the understanding of Gehenna (i.e. Greek 'hades'; English 'hell'.) And my understanding of Gehenna is much as yours: Gehenna is far closer to the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory than the fundamentalist Chrsitian doctrine of hell as a place of eternal torment.

Still here and there in the Old Testament you find passages like Isaiah 66:22-26 that starts off with Isaiah quoting God speaking of the 'new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me. . . ." and ends with ". . And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." Which some Christians would interpret as a good description of their doctrine of hell as eternal punishment.

But hell, by whaever name, is mentioned 31 times in the original King James Version, 23 times in the New King James version, and only 13 or 14 times or less in all other English translations. By contrast, in the Old and New Testaments, prhases of salvation and grace are far more prevalent and in both such are the related to our Creator's concern for us and assurance of better times ahead. Which most Christians interpret as heaven.

I love ancient history.

Yep... I'm a member of the tribe. I would hardly consider myself a Jewish scholar. I simply find religion interesting and have done my reading. Plus, I do know we don't believe in hell... We don't consider sheol as 'eternal punishment' except to the extent that you aren't next to G-d. At least not in any construct I've ever learned. Plus, my understanding, limited as it is, is that we don't believe it lasts more than 12 months in any event. You are absolutely correct, though that the Old Testament, or the Tanackh, as it's known in Hebrew, focuses much more on heaven... The concept of anything after death is exceptionally vague in Judaism, actually.

I know what Isaish says, but we view the bible as more allegorical and don't see the messiah in the same way as the christian church. to jews he is a messianic king who will bring 1,000 years of peace. We do believe that when the messiah comes, the dead come back to life... perhaps that simply means those bodies don't rise. Beyond that, I wouldn't opine.

I love this type of thing, too.

:cheers:

 

[Samson]

to become religious, without "Brainwashing." would be 70.


No one needs to be compelled to get themselves ready for an "afterlife" when they're about to die.