She lived a life of love and service unto others

[Zzyzx]

She lived a life of love and service unto others.

Aunt Rose never said an unkind word to or about anyone. She dedicated her life to helping others. Her own needs and desires were always secondary to making life a little bit better for those in need. She worked for modest wage in a charity hospital serving poor people, and did other charity work in her spare time. She lived frugally and gave generously when she knew it was needed. She helped those who were genuinely in need – not those looking for a handout – and she knew the difference.

She made it clear that her actions came from her own mind, by her own decisions – and not from any religious beliefs. She left no doubt that she had no use or time for religion. When religious people tried to “save” her, she told them to go practice what they preach and when they had done that as long as she had, come back and talk again. I never heard about anyone returning to “witness” to her.

Aunt Rose lived into her nineties, helping and caring and loving others as best she could right up to the end. She had no fear of death or the “damnation” that is commonly threatened as a “fate” of non-believers. She died in peace, loved and respected by many.

A Christian who had known her said that it was a real shame that such a good person had refused to “accept Christ as her savior” so her soul could go to heaven. I asked where that person thought her soul had gone and he said “She cannot have gone to heaven because she rejected Jesus Christ”. He would not say directly that she had gone to hell, but he did not identify an alternative between the two for special cases like hers. He left the question (and her soul’s location) hanging.

That made quite an impression on me – a very negative impression of that person’s version of Christianity. A person who had lived more wholesomely and graciously and lovingly than anyone I had ever known (religious or not) could not “go to heaven” because she didn’t meet the criteria??????

I have asked many religious people since what they believe about a case like Aunt Rose’s. I have gotten a lot of different answers from Christians of various denominations – and from Christians within the same denomination. I heard an even greater variety of answers from those who practice Non-Christian religions or other types of spiritualism.

What is your answer to where the soul of Aunt Rose resides? Why do you think so?

[Vanguard]

What is your answer to where the soul of Aunt Rose resides? Why do you think so?

I do not know where the soul of Aunt Rose resides as it is not my responsibility to seriously entertain such considerations other than when I am idly speculating. If you are asking me where I think she resides based on your description then I would say that I hope she resides in God's presence.

I have this hope because there is really nothing in your description that seems to run afoul of what I believe our Father-in-Heaven idealizes for his children. OK, so maybe she didn't accept Christ as her Savior in this life but that is not to say that she won't be given a fair opportunity while she awaits her judgment day (yes, I know this opens a whole Pandora's box but it is what my faith believes).

I suspect that when this veil is lifted and she sees more of Christ than any of us ever have she will quickly understand that so much of her charitable spirit found it's source in Him. I want to believe, in turn, her soul will make that last, final transition toward embracing Him as her Savior.

Then again... I am not expected to read what is written in her heart - only to hope that she stretched toward her God-given capacity as often as she could while in this life.

[scorpia]

She lived a life of love and service unto others.

Aunt Rose never said an unkind word to or about anyone.

What is your answer to where the soul of Aunt Rose resides? Why do you think so?

Depends. And only God himself knows. My shot at it though;

Does that "anyone" include God?

If so it's ambiguous again. there was some disciple in the end who doubted the ressurection yet Jesus did not accuse him, just said those who believe so and so arte blessed. And then there's the people of the OT. Hell, I will admit that I am not even sure if the Christian methodology is the correct methodology of worshipping God.

But if the answer is no then I am afraid the previous claim; that she never said an unkind word to anyone, is false. She was not an all-loving person, for she didn't love God.

Probably harsh to someone who's dead, but one day I'll be old and dead too and I would have given charity. This would not make me an innocent person Christian or not, nor does it make me undeserving of hell. And I am afraid that if I am to judge others I would do so as myself.

Slight OT question;

She made it clear that her actions came from her own mind, by her own decisions – and not from any religious beliefs.

Why is this so idealistic for an unbeliever?

Doing someone else's descision is part of everyday life, humbling, the only proper basis for morality I can see, and necessary to help us learn, yet often enough it seems that some unbelievers, probably believers too, baulk at the idea of doing what someone else says. I cannot understand this fear and I probably never will.

[MagusYanam]

My question is: does it really matter that she was or was not Christian? Remember St. Mark 9, when John complained to Jesus that there was someone who was not following Jesus who was casting out demons in his name. Jesus' response was not to stop him, because 'no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.'

Also, Jesus made clear in St. Matthew 7 that 'you shall know them by their fruits'. And if what you have told us about Aunt Rose is true, her spiritual fruits were good. Personally, I cannot envision a God who would burn the wheat on the threshing floor, wherever it might be found.

Doing someone else's descision is part of everyday life, humbling, the only proper basis for morality I can see, and necessary to help us learn, yet often enough it seems that some unbelievers, probably believers too, baulk at the idea of doing what someone else says. I cannot understand this fear and I probably never will.

Yikes! That sounds dangerous to me, especially as a Christian; you damn well bet I baulk at it. Here's why: during the Eichmann (I think that was his name) trial about twenty or thirty years back, when he was being tried for war crimes and genocide against the Jews, his defence was that he was only doing someone else's decision. How many other Nazis do you think justified their actions, however brutal and heinous, on the basis that they were 'just following orders'?

In ethics class, we covered a type of evil (heteronomous evil) that stems from the surrender of one's own moral autonomy (either completely or in part) to another, whether a person, a corporation or an ideology. This can lead to some horrendous moral abuses; but can a person be absolved if they willingly surrendered their moral autonomy to another? My opinion is that they cannot: I believe that at the judgment, people will be judged for their own actions as individuals; no corporation or substitute can stand in their place. To say that you base your morality on moral heteronomy and the surrender of your own moral agency is, to be blunt, terrifying.

[Zzyzx]

Replies in blue

She lived a life of love and service unto others.

Aunt Rose never said an unkind word to or about anyone.

What is your answer to where the soul of Aunt Rose resides? Why do you think so?

Depends. And only God himself knows. My shot at it though; Does that "anyone" include God?

If so it's ambiguous again. there was some disciple in the end who doubted the ressurection yet Jesus did not accuse him, just said those who believe so and so arte blessed. And then there's the people of the OT. Hell, I will admit that I am not even sure if the Christian methodology is the correct methodology of worshipping God.

But if the answer is no then I am afraid the previous claim; that she never said an unkind word to anyone, is false. She was not an all-loving person, for she didn't love God.


Does “lived a life of love and service to others” make a claim of “all-loving” in your estimation? Can you define “all-loving” since you have interjected it into the discussion?

Does that "anyone" include God?

I would not include any imaginary or mythical characters in the discussion; however, there are many who seem to prefer to bring along an invisible friend. So be it.

How will we know what the invisible friend thinks or says? Are you a ventriloquist? Will you be interpreting or speaking for your friend? Do you have your friends’ approval and proxy to do so?

. . . . I am afraid the previous claim; that she never said an unkind word to anyone, is false. She was not an all-loving person, for she didn't love God.

Do I understand correctly that a person cannot be considered a loving (or “all-loving”, whatever that means) unless they “love” a deity that they consider to be fictional? That is akin to saying that a person cannot be regarded as a loving person unless they include love for Peter Pan.

Must one also love Allah, and Baal and all of the thousands of other gods that have been feared and worshiped by humans? Or, is it just your favorite god that must be loved (and all others ignored or condemned)? Who decides these critical matters?

[scorpia]

Does “lived a life of love and service to others” make a claim of “all-loving” in your estimation? Can you define “all-loving” since you have interjected it into the discussion?

Yeah; the claim "lived a life of love" speaks for itself, since one cannot "live a life of love" if hate is factored into it. Otherwise it would simply be a life of hate and love.

I would not include any imaginary or mythical characters in the discussion; however, there are many who seem to prefer to bring along an invisible friend. So be it.

That's nice, since God is not a myth.

How will we know what the invisible friend thinks or says?

How do we know what an invisible atom looks like? Through other people's past observations.

Are you a ventriloquist? Will you be interpreting or speaking for your friend? Do you have your friends’ approval and proxy to do so?

No to all.

Do I understand correctly that a person cannot be considered a loving (or “all-loving”, whatever that means) unless they “love” a deity that they consider to be fictional? That is akin to saying that a person cannot be regarded as a loving person unless they include love for Peter Pan.

Can I go around treating her like she's a figment of your imagination and say your a simply a nutcase? If I do not believe she exists does that make it right for me to not like her? Can I say whatever I like about her because I don't think she's real? As so far you have given me no evidence for her existance and I can assume that you have just given a story of some aunt just to play around with some emotions, not because she is real. In which case, it is okay for me to say that she in fact sounds like a complete and utter bitch.

Must one also love Allah, and Baal and all of the thousands of other gods that have been feared and worshiped by humans? Or, is it just your favorite god that must be loved (and all others ignored or condemned)? Who decides these critical matters?

It is my view that diffrent religions do not represent different Gods, just different observations of the one God out there. Although it is unlikely there is more than one God; if there was, they would not be all-powerful with other Gods power limiting that power.

[Zzyzx]

Replies in blue

Does “lived a life of love and service to others” make a claim of “all-loving” in your estimation? Can you define “all-loving” since you have interjected it into the discussion?

Yeah; the claim "lived a life of love" speaks for itself, since one cannot "live a life of love" if hate is factored into it. Otherwise it would simply be a life of hate and love.

This is another example of a “good” religionist injecting HATE into the discussion. There was no mention of hate until you denigrated love by demanding that it include your favorite god.

It is common for Christians to follow the pattern of hate, intolerance, jealousy, anger, killing and genocide that characterizes the god they worship. The biblical god is a terrible character.

Any thinking person who has read the bible should realize that the Christian war god is not a being worthy of worship or emulation.

I would not include any imaginary or mythical characters in the discussion; however, there are many who seem to prefer to bring along an invisible friend. So be it.

That's nice, since God is not a myth.

Can you show independent, impartial, verifiable evidence that your invisible friend is not a myth? Do you have anything other than emotion to go on?

How will we know what the invisible friend thinks or says?

How do we know what an invisible atom looks like? Through other people's past observations.

How do others observed an invisible atom? Has this actually been done? Has someone actually seen (observed) what an atom looks like?

Can you cite references to those observations? Are you knowledgeable in science? Are you aware of the limits of observation of small objects?
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PETROLGY/Wha ... okLike.HTM

Do I understand correctly that a person cannot be considered a loving (or “all-loving”, whatever that means) unless they “love” a deity that they consider to be fictional? That is akin to saying that a person cannot be regarded as a loving person unless they include love for Peter Pan.

Can I go around treating her like she's a figment of your imagination and say your a simply a nutcase? If I do not believe she exists does that make it right for me to not like her? Can I say whatever I like about her because I don't think she's real? As so far you have given me no evidence for her existance and I can assume that you have just given a story of some aunt just to play around with some emotions, not because she is real. In which case, it is okay for me to say that she in fact sounds like a complete and utter bitch.

That is a nice little sidestep and subterfuge to avoid a difficult question.

However, the question remains, in order to be considered “loving” must a person love Peter Pan (and other characters they consider mythical)?

Thank you for demonstrating “good” Christian behavior by injecting negativism and hate into the discussion. I am sure that the value of your comments and the products of your beliefs are not lost on those who read these threads seeking information and answers.

The AA&AC appreciate your demonstrations of some of the reasons to avoid religiosity (negativism and hatred).

Must one also love Allah, and Baal and all of the thousands of other gods that have been feared and worshiped by humans? Or, is it just your favorite god that must be loved (and all others ignored or condemned)? Who decides these critical matters?

It is my view that diffrent religions do not represent different Gods, just different observations of the one God out there. Although it is unlikely there is more than one God; if there was, they would not be all-powerful with other Gods power limiting that power.

Is there any reason to believe that “different religions do not represent different gods – or is that conjecture a totally blind guess?

How does one determine if there is one god or thousands? Thousands have been worshiped by humans. Most have fallen out of favor after a time. The currently popular gods will also probably decline in popularity over time as history of other (false?) gods has demonstrated.

[scorpia]

Does “lived a life of love and service to others” make a claim of “all-loving” in your estimation? Can you define “all-loving” since you have interjected it into the discussion?

This is another example of a “good” religionist injecting HATE into the discussion. There was no mention of hate until you denigrated love by demanding that it include your favorite god.

I fail to see how the above comment was hateful.

It is common for Christians to follow the pattern of hate, intolerance, jealousy, anger, killing and genocide

Maybe. And maybe I'm one of them. I don't know. But if that is what you say, it must be so.

Any thinking person who has read the bible should realize that the Christian war god is not a being worthy of worship or emulation.

Not everyone thinks like you. Not everyone who has read the Bible in it's entirety would turn away. I'm sure that's what you tell yourself but it isn't always going to be the case. What then?

Can you show independent, impartial, verifiable evidence that your invisible friend is not a myth? Do you have anything other than emotion to go on?

No one takes the Bible alone as evidence. But then there is alot of apocrypha regarding the same being. Then there's the remains of the earlier saints and Abraham.

How do others observed an invisible atom? Has this actually been done? Has someone actually seen (observed) what an atom looks like?

Can you cite references to those observations? Are you knowledgeable in science? Are you aware of the limits of observation of small objects?

That is what I meant. People do some research or experiments and that way they can deduce the structure of it.

That is a nice little sidestep and subterfuge to avoid a difficult question.

However, the question remains, in order to be considered “loving” must a person love Peter Pan (and other characters they consider mythical)?

Thank you for demonstrating “good” Christian behavior by injecting negativism and hate into the discussion. I am sure that the value of your comments and the products of your beliefs are not lost on those who read these threads seeking information and answers.

Sidestep? No, see, we were adressing why one shouldn't be regarded as hateful if they are cursing soemthing that they don't believe something exists. however I have clearly pointed out that I have no reason to believe this aunt exists. I cursed her, and now you call me hateful. I find this hypocritical.

This has proven my point. I might not believe she exists. And maybe that in itself is not an insult. And who knows maybe she doesn't. But it could be that she does and it doesn't matter what I believe you know she's real. Similairly it does not matter what you believe, if God is real he is real. Going around and calling him a myth doesn't make him unreal. And believing he isn't real doesn't make cursing him okay. You considered me as hateful therefore people who curse God can also be seen as hateful.

And to be honest I felt guilty about saying what I did earlier but if you really did view me as hateful maybe I can get across to you just how hateful I see cursing God. Yes, there's the whole don't be vengeful thing, but how else could I get my point across. Sugar coated answers doesn't get to anyone maybe this does.

The AA&AC appreciate your demonstrations of some of the reasons to avoid religiosity (negativism and hatred).

Very likely. And that's pretty much the story of my life. And it is very likely I may be the one who should burn in hell for doing such.

It is my view that diffrent religions do not represent different Gods, just different observations of the one God out there. Although it is unlikely there is more than one God; if there was, they would not be all-powerful with other Gods power limiting that power.

Is there any reason to believe that “different religions do not represent different gods – or is that conjecture a totally blind guess?

How does one determine if there is one god or thousands? Thousands have been worshiped by humans. Most have fallen out of favor after a time. The currently popular gods will also probably decline in popularity over time as history of other (false?) gods has demonstrated.

I gave my answer in the quote above already.

Oh yes I missed this;

Yikes! That sounds dangerous to me, especially as a Christian; you damn well bet I baulk at it. Here's why: during the Eichmann (I think that was his name) trial about twenty or thirty years back, when he was being tried for war crimes and genocide against the Jews, his defence was that he was only doing someone else's decision. How many other Nazis do you think justified their actions, however brutal and heinous, on the basis that they were 'just following orders'?

So because of such example all of it is bad, and it's always going to result in the same manner? How is better than killing because of your own choice? People do some shocking things due to the conditioning of their sexuality should that mean giving into sexuality itself would lead to the same result? You have these ethics classes you tell me.

In ethics class, we covered a type of evil (heteronomous evil) that stems from the surrender of one's own moral autonomy (either completely or in part) to another, whether a person, a corporation or an ideology. This can lead to some horrendous moral abuses; but can a person be absolved if they willingly surrendered their moral autonomy to another? My opinion is that they cannot: I believe that at the judgment, people will be judged for their own actions as individuals; no corporation or substitute can stand in their place. To say that you base your morality on moral heteronomy and the surrender of your own moral agency is, to be blunt, terrifying.

What about cases when in didn't result in "evil"? What about when another person turned out to have made the right descion after all? Why do we have leaders, if not for making desicions? There's the extreme example you gave but you don't always put your descion first above everyone else's in life. Sometimes you respect other people's descion even if you don't agree with them otherwise I would not be aguing with simply Zzyxx but arguing in every thread (and probably doing what Zzyxx said about the AA&AC thing too). Not that those who do answer all threads are disrespectful but in my case when I don't it's usually because I figure the people in these threads are more intelligent than me and I should be quiet. Not that I think Zzxx is an idiot or something either........ Just that there's some points when I let other people decide usually and a point when I don't because of someone else I find important.

[Cathar1950]

Don't forget the god with three persons.
I remember reading once that worshipmeant doing what you were created to do.
The myth says we were created to be gardeners.
So plant flowers or trees.
That reminds me I need to trim my bush.

[scorpia]

The myth says we were created to be gardeners.
So plant flowers or trees.
That reminds me I need to trim my bush.

I tried something along those lines in a job once.

I ended up getting fired.

I feel depressed now. It seems I can't do anything right.

[jasonm1848]

So God in his infinite wisdom and compassion created an imperfect being to be held to a perfect moral standard? Am I the only one who believes this to be grossly unjust?

no just grossly inaccurate. humans were created perfect to a perfect standard and based upon that sinned. now the bible tells us that one of the amazing things about god is that he can have dealing with sinful humans (bend that perfect standard and forgive) and remain holy. he knows we are imperfect and he knows we fall short. But seriously though not to pick on catholics but...ya the thought of eternal punishment in the fiery alternative to heaven is freaking retarded as is the thought of an eternal soul. and now they don't even believe in the prior anymore so hopefully the latter will die out soon too. death is like a deep sleep. that woman knows no thought or pain. in death, lesser sins are forgiven. the bible says the tombs will be opened and all will face judgment for their actions. she sounds like a virtuous person and will certainly have her day before god. For right now however, she is just a memory and will stay that way until the day of judgment.