Living with the big questions

WE are trained to dismiss faith, even though we know rationalism can not provide for the spirit.
M. Scott Peck, psychologist and author of The Road Less Travelled, said the secular tendency was to deny the existence of soul.
“There is a self-fulfilling quality in secularism with the thinking `Since God does not exist, I will discount any evidence that hints at God’, ‘’ he said.
Italian novelist Umberto Eco said preoccupation with the end of the world was nowadays more a feature of the secular than it was of the Christian world.
“The Christian world turns this prospect into an object of meditation, and the secular world pretends to ignore it, while being haunted by it,’’ Eco said.
It was not the Biblical stories of apocalypse that bothered the secular, he said. It was the wretched condition of the poor, acid rain, the proliferation of nuclear waste and changes in the climate. The temporal problems.
“In the religious way of thinking, the end of time is a rite of passage that leads to the shining city, celestial Jerusalem. In the secular way of thinking, it is the end of everything, and that’s the thought that tends to be repressed.’’
The Christian tradition is of earthly history with a start and an end. One day God will decide to bring the cosmic story to a close and that will be the end of the world, the end of history, the end of time as we know it. There will be no reincarnation and no second chances.
To play out the story successfully, we will have to take the greatest possible emotional and intellectual risks.
In the end, only the truth will set us free


63 thoughts on “Living with the big questions

    • As Pontius Pilate once asked “What is truth?”
      According to some Christians, one either goes to heaven or hell upon death. So one needs to ask where is the need of a celestial city, lake of fire, second death, etc (as described in Revelation 20,21, etc)
      According to other Christians, man dies and is stored unconscious until the judgment. The just will be judged before the second coming then resurected. The wicked will be judged and resurrected after 1000 years to receive their punishmenent.
      Which camp is right?


      • I am not smart enough to answer all those questions. But one thing I do know, I met Jesus Christ, He is real, He is alive today. He healed me. I believe He came to die for me.
        Maybe that’s to simple for some. It’s enough for me.
        But then I am not a brain-surgeon … and neither have I ever seen my brain nor know how it works … yet I KNOW it’s right there, inside, doing what it suppose to be doing … (well, most of the time anyway)
        Proverbs 25:2 comes to mind
        “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
        But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.”


    • This is the truth davinci,

      From Jesus’ own lips:

      Luke 23:39-43

      One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”


      • The original manuscripts do not have a comma inserted in the text at all. So this verse could very well read:
        “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise”.
        Thus the battle of the commas starts. One group believes that the thief on the cross went with Jesus to Paradise on the very day Jesus died. Another group believes that the passage merely indicates when Jesus’ promise to the thief was ratified (ie. today). Who is correct?
        To understand who is correct you need to bring to the table all Scriptural verses that might shed light on a particular matter. One such verse is John 20:17 which says “Touch me not for I am not yet ascended to my Father:”. So was the thief on the cross in paradise? How could he be? Jesus was either lying or the truth was something else altogether.


      • “Every major Bible translation inserts the comma before the word today. Thus, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and RSV all agree that Jesus was speaking of the time that the thief would enter paradise. The thief would be in paradise with Jesus on that very same day.

        Also, Jesus prefaced His response with the phrase, “I tell you the truth” (“Verily I say unto thee” in the KJV). Many scholars have noticed that Jesus uses this as a prefix phrase when He is about to say something that should be listened to with care. Seventy-six times in the New Testament, Jesus uses the phrase. Interestingly, no one but Jesus ever says it. When the Lord says “I tell you the truth,” He is affirming that what He is about to say is worthy of special attention. It was Jesus’ way of saying, “Listen up! What I’m about to say is very important and should be listened to carefully.” We’re too used to hearing the phrase to appreciate the astonishing authority it expresses and the often solemn nature of the announcement that follows. In every one of the 76 times Christ uses this introductory phrase, He simply says it and then makes a startling statement.

        It would be strange indeed if, in this one instance, Jesus departed from His normal way of making His signature statement by adding the word today to it. In every case where this sort of introductory phrase is used, Greek scholars add a punctuation break after the phrase in question and before the rest of the statement. So, the translators have it right. The comma in Luke 23:43 belongs where they put it.

        This brings us to another question. If Jesus was buried and rose after three days and then many days later ascended to heaven, how could He have been in paradise with the thief?

        After Christ died, it was His body that was buried in the tomb. However, Jesus’ spirit/soul was not in the tomb. Jesus’ spirit was in the Father’s presence (Luke 23:46; Ephesians 4:8).”

        “Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?”


      • Maybe:- “The thief would be in paradise with Jesus on that very same day.”

        Unless, Mon, He was using the same multi-billion-year time-frame we’re told He (wearing his other hat) used when He was creating the heavens and the earth. 😉

        …another thought, prompted by your erudite exposition:- Did Jesus, then, go immediately to heaven (“this day”)…and back down to the tomb in time to be resurrected all within three days?

        ….and if the thief’s entry to heaven was dependent upon Jesus’ entry, what became of him when Jesus departed heaven again?

        Strictly speaking, I suppose it’s fair to say Jesus ONLY actually promised the thief that he’d be THAT day ~ and left unsaid the bottom line that the following day the thief would be dumped into hell.

        How would you unravel the conundrum?


      • Dabbles,
        If you actually read the link that monica left, you will notice that “they” believe hell is separated in two. One part is where the wicked are punished, the other is called “Abraham’s bosom” or “Paradise” where the saints and Jesus go. So the conundrum is easily resolved. If “they” want to you to believe that once you die you go to heaven you define “Paradise” as heaven. If you find that your doctrine falls apart, you redefine “Paradise” as a division of hell. This is the strange and nonsensical path that “” have ended up on. That is why I don’t trust Biblical scolars, and anything anyone tells me about Judaeo-Christianity until I get confirmation from the Bible. Organisations such as “” can take their comments and go to… “paradise”!


      • Got Questions Org also says that ‘Soul Sleep’ is unbiblical and that the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians all believe in that doctrine. And since you have no shame about peddling your brand of Christianity and yet refuse to tell us what it is, why don’t YOU shove it you know where!


      • Bryan, when you and monica give me the Bible verses that indicate we should be part of one Christian group or another, then I will join that group. But you can’t. Because the Bible does not admit of Christian denominations. There is no shred of evidence that we should be part of Charismatic as opposed to Catholic, or baptist over pentecostal, etc.


      • So I assume you don’t go to any church. I’m not judging that but I wonder why when you seem to be so righteously denominational in your thinking. Can you explain that? Weren’t you a seventh day Adventist once?


  1. I forgot it was Sunday…sigh.

    This whole continuity is full of wormholes. eg.

    “`Since God does not exist, I will discount any evidence that hints at God’, ‘’ he said.”
    Not that there IS any such “evidence” of course, but, leaving aside the ‘facts’, is this logic not the epitome of ‘rational’?

    This bloke (““The Christian world turns this prospect into an object of meditation, and the secular world pretends to ignore it, while being haunted by it,’’ Eco said.”) obviously wasn’t on the planet when the entire christian world was running around like headless chooks stashing baked-beans in bunkers as we approached the Y2K-Bug. 😆 )

    Yep! –> ““In the religious way of thinking, the end of time is a rite of passage that leads to the shining city, celestial Jerusalem.”
    ….and yet anyone imbued with the “religious way of thinking” fights tooth and claw to avoid going.
    ‘Rationality’ would suggest they’d be lining up at the edge of the cliff/train-lines/where-ever.

    I DO wish the clowns vocalising such flights of fantasy would cite their authority! –> ” God will decide to bring the cosmic story to a close and that will be the end of the world, the end of history, the end of time as we know it.”
    ……and, apart from pre-empting any plans ‘god’ might actually have, …. explain how the observable ‘laws’ of nature can be overturned/defied in the process.


    • Do you mean those laws of nature that Krauss et al suggest sprang out of nowhere? The existence of the laws of nature are more a problem for atheists than theists.
      The typical atheist view of evidence goes like this – ther are breadcrumbs on the table, but we don’t know who left them there. Oh they must have fallen from the bread, but we can’t see someone eating the bread, therefore there is no evidence that anyone ate the bread.
      And then heap derision on Christians who suggest that just maybe the bread crumbs are there because someone ate the rbead.


      • That’s called a ‘God of the gaps’ argument,Clappy ~ and one of the most basic, if classic, ploys used by would-be apologists.
        ‘Things exist, therefore they must have been created, and only god (s) could’ve created them.’
        There are FOUR major flaws in those three clauses; see if you can pick them.

        …and no; I mean ‘laws of nature’ like the ‘laws of thermodynamics’, among many others. Moreover, while you’re at it read up on the ‘god particle’ – which not only flushes the the god-gap argument down the sewer, but solidly confirms Newton’s work.


      • Oh please bread – HULLO what’s the most common side dish for a pasta meal. Garlic Bread !!!!!!

        Those crumbs you’d be seeing are evidence of his noodly goodness the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

        May you be touched by His Noodly Appendages! R’amen


    • Yawn, please lets not go through Dawkins abysmal dealing of the God of Gaps issue. And your very use of the term “god particle” shows you know absolutely nothing about it. That name is the one thing scientists claim it is not – perhaps you should do some reading on it.


      • I really wanted “to do you slowly” * Crappy, but don’t have the time.

        However, next time you spend a couple of hours on the dunny seeking inspiration, you might consider that the ‘God of the Gaps’ isn’t
        an invention of Dawkins’. He was merely citing theological ‘experts’:-

        “God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God’s existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.”

        …and if you’d lashed out and put a brighter globe in the dunny you’d have noticed that I put ‘god particle’ in inverted commas so that any dill would know to what I was referring.

        But the common ‘misuse’ of a term in no way invalidates the validity of the matter to which it relates, and the proven existence of the ‘god particle’ does in fact do away with one of the major arguments apologists use in support of a ‘divine’ (note inverted commas)
        existence….as does Newton’s work ~ particularly the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (which I note you studiously avoided).

        But a couple of questions:-
        1…Since you assert I “know absolutely nothing” about the ‘god-particle’ (note inverted commas) will you post YOUR qualifications in the field of particle physics?
        2… Just for the edification of those without your vast knowledge, will you list the scientists you insist “CLAIM it is not” ( as distinct from those merely disliking the term.) Six such names would convince me….or even three…..two?

        Meantime, a suggestion:- try to keep dogs away from your trunk (on crapham common)~ otherwise your nuts could end up rusty too.



  2. Difficult to know where to begin… lots of deductive views from this guy, but he doesn’t verify his premises. It seems odd to me a psychologist would run a spin on rational thinking versus beliefs… but there are lots of people talking about the end to life on earth, so you KNOW, there’s lots of MONEY at play here, in this pseudo-science market.


  3. “WE are trained to dismiss faith, even though we know rationalism can not provide for the spirit.”

    Rationalism can’t account for the tooth fairy either, I don’t really think that the issue is with rationalism.


    • There’s nothing wrong with rationalism in its right place. The joke is thinking that you can rationalise everything in life. Try using reason and rationality to provie the exitence of your significant other’s love and then lets talk.


      • Well you could show changes in my SO’s brain activity when she thinks about me, you could interview us as to the nature of our relationship, design a questionnaire to measure our feelings for the other. Consider the extent to which our relationship is entwined etc, etc ,etc

        All rational.


      • yes, what you have described there is collecting bread crumbs of evidence and then reaching a conclusion. this is what Christians do. we’re not that dissimilar. We are just disagreeing on the breadcrumbs…Because of course your SO could be lying….and i dare say you don;t go through that process, you just have faith in her….and good on you for doing so.


      • Hmm crumbs of evidence. Let’s be frank Christians don’t even get that far.

        Yep my SO could be lying I guess. However there is rather a lot of actions consistent with the professed sentiment so, at this stage, I’d rule lies out.

        Even then that’s only one consideration, can you make brain activity “lie” or physiological reactions?

        Commonsense would support me more than “faith”.


      • Yep exactly. IF however it does none of those things and you’re still calling it faith then that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

        Do you see things that aren’t there often ? 😉


      • No offence but you know roughly nothing about my relationship with my SO.

        Yet based on that lack of knowledge your still willing to make definitive statements as to the nature of that relationship.

        That has to be close to delusional, and incredibly arrogant at that.

        You don’t have any of those “breadcrumbs” at best you have a field which may or may not have been used for a picnic at some stage at which bread could have possibly been served.


      • I’ll do that ~ as soon as you provide a generally-acceptable definition for ‘love’ . (note the inverted commas) IS.


      • Hey C-C-T

        Nah that’s ok, it’s not a boundary issue (I do appreciate the sentiment though) . It’s just you’re making a definitive claim that you can’t possibly have the knowledge to make.

        For all you know I met my SO a couple of months ago and we don’t really know each other yet or we might have been together for 30 years and been though and amazing amount of turmoil and sacrifice together.

        About the only thing you know about my SO is her gender. Apart from that you just don’t have the knowledge to be making the claims your doing.

        AS to your opening comment “Try using reason and rationality to prove the existence of your significant other’s love” .

        There would be no other way to prove such lover than reason or rationality. There are no other options.


      • as i typed it i wondered whether you would call me on it! and you are right to!

        i agree with you on reason and rationality but i guess my point is that they always (?) only take you so far – at some point you take a view. Its the same with Christianity. We do (i hope!) apply reason and ratoonality but those arent the only tools in the box.


      • Hey C-C-T

        If you and I want to have a meaningful conversation on a topic then, for the most part, they are the tools that matter.

        They are the ones that work objectively.


      • I’m using the definition of faith as belief without proof.

        But you opened this conversation by suggesting that we can’t rationalise everything – do I sense a change of tack ?


      • i hope not! :-). i like to think that my faith is reasonable and rational but i recognise (using reason) that the acientific method does not provide iron clad answers for everything. and we dont apply it to everything.


      • Depends what you call rational. I think I am but others have accused me of being irrational for believing in miracles for example. I personally don think it’s irrational to think that God should he exist can perform supernatural feats.


      • ” I personally don’t think it’s irrational to think that God should he exist can perform supernatural feats.”

        Surely then it must follow that it would not be irrational to think that a magic lamp, should it exist, would be able to summon a genie.

        So do you wanna buy a lamp 😉


  4. “The Christian tradition is of earthly history with a start and an end. One day God will decide to bring the cosmic story to a close and that will be the end of the world, the end of history, the end of time as we know it. There will be no reincarnation and no second chances.”


    You mentioned how we Christians were taken in by the Y2K prophecies, well every Christian I bump into these days is telling me that Jesus is about to come back. Trouble is that I think it makes them look silly because they are so eager to believe every prophetic word without discerning for themselves if it is true or not.

    Got Questions Org says:

    “Let us be abundantly clear: we do not believe that God has revealed to anyone when Jesus is coming back, and we see nothing in Scripture which indicates that God will ever reveal to anyone when Jesus is coming back. Matthew 24:36-44, while spoken directly to the people in Jesus’ time, also contains a general principle. The timing of Jesus’ return and the end of the age is not for us to know. Scripture nowhere encourages us to try to determine the date. Rather, we are to “keep watch, because we do not know on which day our Lord will come” (v. 42). We are to “be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when we do not expect Him” (v. 44). The force of Jesus’ words diminishes if at some point in the future someone will be able to determine when He is coming back. If the date is discovered, we no longer need to “keep watch” or “be ready.” So, with the principle of Matthew 24:36-44 is mind, no, it is not possible for anyone to know the date that Jesus is coming back.”

    And I agree.


    • It is written
      “so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, {right} at the door.” Mat. 24:33
      Whilst we cannot determine the exact time of Jesus’ coming, we can determine whether this event is near or in the distant future, by comparing the Biblical signs with the signs in the contemporary world.


      • Bryan,
        You are confusing two separate things:
        – The exact time of Jesus coming which we don’t know and which your quote refers to.
        – The imminence or approaching time of Jesus’ coming, which we do know.

        In Matthew 24:32 Jesus told us::
        “Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh”
        This verse does not set the date for summer but rather when summer is approaching.

        My explanation is also supported by the very chapter from which your quote came. In verses 14 to 18 Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem without specifically giving the exact date of its destruction. Jesus merely gave warning signs that it was imminent or approaching, so that His people could take the appropriate action.

        When you quoted that verse, you should have quoted Mark 13:28-29 which is similar to Mat. 24:32. That would have set the whole record straight.


      • Actually, only Christian groups who deliberately ignore the Bible will engage in date setting. I am not aware of any mainstream protestant or fundamentalist Christian denomination that claims this today. In fact they go to great lengths to ridicule date settings for the second coming. So the statement from Got Questions Org is making a statement based on the wrong premise.


      • There’s a supposed Prophet, Dr David Owuor coming to Australia next month “with a specific mandate from the Lord Jesus Christ to prepare His people for His soon coming”. So because he says so, then it must be (according to some).

        In fact, I felt the Lord tell me 16 years ago that He was coming back in my lifetime. But I do not believe it. I think it was His way of telling me to read the signs and to prepare just as if He was truly coming back in my lifetime.


      • We’re supposed to always assume each day to be our last and live as such, so as to avoid last regrets — God has various ways of reminding us to stay focused, whether it be a “crap, I saw my life flash before my eyes” sense of mortality, or an emboldening of spirit with promises of imminent return. I don’t always feel the urgency, so I need this reminder a lot!


      • Monica,
        Preparing a people to meet their God is not the same as date setting for the actual coming.


      • davinci,

        I never said they were date-setting. You assumed that. I said the buzz word amongst Christians lately is that Jesus is coming back soon.

        Will someone please define ‘soon’?


      • “We’re supposed to always assume each day to be our last”

        Hmmm remind me not to loan you anything


    • “What signs indicate that the end times are approaching?”

      “Matthew 24:5-8 gives us some important clues so we can discern the approach of the end times, “For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.” An increase in false messiahs, an increase in warfare, and increases in famines, plagues, and natural disasters—these are signs of the end times. In this passage, though, we are given a warning: we are not to be deceived, because these events are only the beginning of birth pains; the end is still to come.

      Some interpreters point to every earthquake, every political upheaval, and every attack on Israel as a sure sign that the end times are rapidly approaching. While the events may signal the approach of the last days, they are not necessarily indicators that the end times have arrived. The apostle Paul warned that the last days would bring a marked increase in false teaching. “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). The last days are described as “perilous times” because of the increasingly evil character of man and people who actively “resist the truth” (2 Timothy 3:1-9; see also 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

      Other possible signs would include a rebuilding of a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, increased hostility towards Israel, and advances toward a one-world government. The most prominent sign of the end times, however, is the nation of Israel. In 1948, Israel was recognized as a sovereign state, essentially for the first time since A.D. 70. God promised Abraham that his posterity would have Canaan as “an everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8), and Ezekiel prophesied a physical and spiritual resuscitation of Israel (Ezekiel chapter 37). Having Israel as a nation in its own land is important in light of end times prophecy because of Israel’s prominence in eschatology (Daniel 10:14; 11:41; Revelation 11:8).

      With these signs in mind, we can be wise and discerning in regard to the expectation of the end times. We should not, however, interpret any of these singular events as a clear indication of the soon arrival of the end times. God has given us enough information that we can be prepared, and that is what we are called to be.”

      Got Questions Org.


      • Gee you guys,
        Just how long are Christians prepared to wait for the ‘Second Coming’ and the associated end of the world/age/universe or whatever? Surely there must be some potential point of time, when you simply wont be able honestly to wait any longer. Another 10 years? 100 years? another 1000 years?

        A truly scientific approach to the question would have its propogators calculating some sort of event or lack of event that can demonstrate failure of the expectation. In their experiments by contrast, Scientists can always describe or detail the circumstances and/or negative that would automatically deflate any current hypothesis. But I’ve never heard of any Christians (or maybe devotees of any religion) who would be honest and fair enough to describe definite conditions or happenings that would prove them wrong about their beliefs and faith.

        I find it fascinating to recall how the two infallible declarations made by Catholic Pontiffs over the last 160 years were very conveniently unprovable. I’m speaking of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin. They simply cannot be proven nor yet can they be unproven.

        Cheers, Rian.


  5. You’re right Mon ~ as always.

    ….But I DO have some calendars that have miraculously had a red circle appear around a certain date in the not too distant future!…..

    ….and the first 375 callers can have one for free ~ and pay only the mailing cost of $19.99
    if they call with their credit-cards ready in the six next minutes.!!! 😉


    • I’ve been giggling all morning…….. “You’re right Mon ~ as always”

      Seriously though, if only I took more notice of that small voice (check in my spirit). I so readily dismiss the Spirit’s leading/ prompting and afterwards I could just kick myself for not trusting in God my Helper to lead me in my everyday life.

      How amazing to think that God’s Spirit dwells within us. I still can’t get my head around that one!


      • It’s good to have ambition.
        But remember Eve’s experience with ‘that little voice’.
        (and play it safe: stay away from fruit trees. 😉 )


  6. To bring my contribution here, one must understand that the moment we translate anything, we change it. The only way to get the real meaning is to read it in original language. I mastered 7 languages fluently and know first hand that translator influences the original text. It is impossible not to bring subjectivity to translation.
    I did study the bible and all related texts in depth over the duration of my life and found many contradictions in the bible itself. I learned Hebrew to understand the Torah or old testament better. I also spent time in study of the Jewish rite and rituals. The Jews have an amazing ability to deny what they think does not serve the perfect picture of god. The early Church decided to remove at least 50% of the written material from the bible 300 ad. Further refinement took place when the bible was translated from Latin to English.
    And then there is the subjectivity of every individual reader. The level of ability to comprehend and admit colours the way she/he reads the bible. Why do we think that only the archaic written records are the word of god? Does he/she not say I am all present? Does he/she set limits to all presence or is that absolute? If we actually believe that, the further step is that he/she is light. How can be there darkness then? Does he/she dim the light a bit to conform to our superstition? And finally it says I am all powerful. So how come he/she has an opponent called Satan? Is this clever trick of the religious leaders of the early church to keep people in fear and therefore under control? Does god, which is all powerful, perfect need rules by which we please him/her? What sort of god it would be?
    I mean people, do you really think about these things? Do you question your pastor, bishops and what ever functions in the religious organisations? Do you always follow the leaders blindly “in faith? I don’t and never did. But I was christened with communist regime, daily propaganda of lies and manufactured truths. I knew I can’t believe what others are telling me. I knew from very early age I must think for myself. I challenge you to do the same. Forget the religions and look at god with fresh eyes. He/she is your parent and creator, but not by any means the way religions portray it. Does it not say in Genesis one that when man was created male and female (in same body) it was good. did god created something imperfect? Hardly, so why people believe the Church blaring about the fall of man kind? The original sin? Did god not know this? He predicted everything else right. What if Adam was not a human at all, what is the woman, Eva was not a female? I recommend to study the Hebrew bit more and the way the old Hebrews lived. They had lot of symbols in their lives. Translate the genealogy of Jesus to find what the names represent. The names are VERY significant in Jewish tradition. VERY significant. I could go on, but I am sure lot of you are already thinking about what I said here. And if you like to voice some abuse because what I said, please feel free. I am not ouched by it, for I gave up self conscience quite a while back.
    What I say is not to upset though, but to make to think. An original thought quelling out of yourself, not out of the mouth of someone else. Quelling out of your heart, for we are all knowing within the heart. That’s where the eternal soul dwells.


  7. Davinci questions the varying beliefs of what happens after death, and what the end times will bring. He asks which camp is right.

    When you ask what happens to a soul brought into this world, between birth and death, the answers are not simple. Consider there could be a great variation in the experience of souls after death. All ‘camps’ could be right.


    • Exactly!

      You only need to see how professed Christians differ in their interpretation of Scripture to come to the conclusion that no-one really knows what the reality is when we die. All we can do is try and live by our ideals and convictions whether we have a biblical world view or not…..and hope for the best.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s