[Closed] God and the Afterlife......?

So the leaders of all the christian denominations which don't call for the death sentence for homosexuality are wrong ?

I'm off to bed, my 'adorable' toddler had me up at 5 this morning to watch Horrid Henry and I'm spent.

i prefer to respect the right ones and disrespect the wrong ones....see also racism.

I was speaking of views related to religion, spirituality and atheism. Not all views Junky.

I am not really sure how else you can interpret that and its not my opinion it is what is written.
I agree that not all religious folk/churches do follow it but i dont think there is much wriggle room as it seems pretty unambiguous and not really open to debate or interpretation

So why are you all so obsessed with what was written in Leviticus? Assuming you think that all Christians must, by default, believe all gay people should be put to death because of a few lines, why do you not quote all the other, far more frequent, bits of the Bible, which state far more positive messages? It often seems to me that it isn't Christians who are worked up about homosexuality, it's the people who are atheist, or at least a vociferous minority.

All the anger, rage, hatred and abuse on here seems to come from just one side of the debate. It doesn't bother or offend me in the least, but it would be great to see more open mindedness. In centuries gone by religion was very guilty of dogmatic intolerance. Today that seems to have flipped 180 degrees.

I am not really sure how else you can interpret that and its not my opinion it is what is written.
I agree that not all religious folk/churches do follow it but i dont think there is much wriggle room as it seems pretty unambiguous and not really open to debate or intepretation

A fair point, but presumably you must also accept that what is written about having love and respect for all your fellow mankind is also not open to debate or interpretation? And there is far more of that in the Bible than a few lines in one book.

I agree that not all religious folk/churches do follow it...

Never mind about "not all", name me one leader of a christian denomination which interprets the bible the way you do, ie, that homosexuals should be put to death.

You're saying, for example, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong in his interpretation of the bible, but that you on the other hand have the correct interpretation.

Let's not decide on what Christians believe based on what [i]you think[/i] they should believe, and instead let's focus on what they say they believe.

So why are you all so obsessed with what was written in Leviticus?

it isn't Christians who are worked up about homosexuality

it would be great to see more open mindedness

HH The movie?

That's the one. Gonna be a roooock star................

he's on FaceJazz.

[img] [/img]

name me one leader of a christian denomination which interprets the bible the way you do ?

you must also accept that what is written about having love and respect for all your fellow mankind is also not open to debate or interpretation? And there is far more of that in the Bible than a few lines in one book.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword

Let's not decide on what Christians believe based on what you think they should believe, and instead let's focus on what they say they believe.

Why don't we just read the books, and sod 'interpretation'? Oh that's right, because the books are both full of 'murder non-believer' type stuff, and you'd all rather pretend that didn't exist.

but if you were to turn up at a church and say "Hi, I'm gay" you'd be welcomed with open arms. I've never met a Christian person in my life who gives two hoots what someone's sexuality is.

I have.
We had a pretty devout Christian at work who when he started working for us was a woman. His church pretty much disowned him when he changed gender. Most of the people he assumed were his Christian friends there turned up to be somewhat fickle on his change of sex. Now happily married to his long standing female partner.

Religion = be nice or we wont let you play on a cloud - unless you say sorry, in which case do whatever you like and then we'll let you off anyway... Once we've rid you of the nastiness you were born with naturally!

I don't need too be threatened by a deity to act in a reasonable way.

“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist.
God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely."

You can google if you like I am sur eyou will get some hits.

OK, you're being deliberately stupid. You know full well that there isn't a christian leader in the world, by that I mean catholic, anglican, orthodox, eastern, etc, which calls for the death sentence to be imposed on homosexuals.

TBH it was pretty stupid of me to engage you, and on a thread about religion no less. I should have known better - there's no excuse really.

Why don't we just read the books, and sod 'interpretation'? Oh that's right, because the books are both full of 'murder non-believer' type stuff, and you'd all rather pretend that didn't exist.

Are you really suggesting taking every verse or chapter literally, without looking at the context (who it was said by, to who, when, where)?

So, taking a completely innocuous verse that doesn't contain anything offensive. This one for example... '[i]But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.'[/i] Are you saying that the only correct interpretation of that is that a man from Samaria passed by another man and took pity on him?

Ernie, it took you 6 pages!!!! 😉

Anyway in the words of Dave Allen, "Good night, thank you, and may your God go with you."

you're being deliberately stupid

What by quoting the bible in a religious debate 😕
Do you think you could forgive me the stupidity ?
Perhaps it was by agreeing repeatedly that many do not follow that teaching?

fwiw I found a uk hit on page one and you might want to have a look at Uganda as well then again you may just want to call me deliberately stupid

Because their thoughts often lead to actions, and homophobia, subjugation of woman, torturing of animals, and child genital mutilation are all evil

Good grief, that is not a very bright post I'm afraid.

Belief in God does not necessarily mean following religious doctrine, or being Muslim, Christian etc
Belief in God does not necessarily mean believing in creationism or intelligent design
Belief in God does not necessarily mean believing in an afterlife
Belief in God does not even include the belief that God created the universe at all.
Belief in God does not necessarily mean you are responsible for wars, genocide, and evil; and does not mean you are homophibic and mysoginistic

Let's not get this stuff all mixed up, otherwise your arguments are weak.

Surely building up of the heavier elements is an increase in entropy?

No. Atomic nuclei weigh less than their constituent parts, because some of the mass is converted to binding energy. Iron and nickel have the highest binding energy per nucleon which means they are the most stable and can be considered the lowest potential energy configuration. So large atoms splitting, or small ones combining could be an increase in entropy.

I think, anyway - never really understood entropy properly.

What by quoting the bible in a religious debate 😕

Yes of course, you know that is exactly what I meant.....you're not being stupid at all.

You really come across as an arrogant self-righteous boor on these threads, as you sit in high judgement of others. And yet I'm sure the irony of how defensive you can be of your weirdo vegan views and lifestyle, which most normal sensible sane people reject, is lost on you.

are we still discussing the issue or are you just hurling insults?

I don't think it was ever a discussion JY. Not by any standard I recognise anyway.

Religion = be nice or we wont let you play on a cloud - unless you say sorry, in which case do whatever you like and then we'll let you off anyway... Once we've rid you of the nastiness you were born with naturally!

Apparently there are some relegious folk who believe in an all forgiving being who will let you play on a cloud even if you don't say sorry and all the rest.

I used to know a vicar who believed in "Universal Reconciliation" who followed this line of thought. I think it involved quite a lot ot theological mental gymnastics but made some kind of sense at the time. This was way back when I was a Christian of sorts anyway, but that was a while ago and I can't remember much about the philosophy of it all.

are we still discussing the issue or are you just hurling insults?

In all fairness, it does rather seem that you're solely picking negative bits from the bible in response to any suggestion that there might be other, more positive aspects to it, which must be a bit frustrating.

Like I said how about bible 2.0? Keep the good stuff, lose the silly and nasty stuff. I'm guessing the trouble is, that to edit out leviticus or to say gods word was wrong, or even just say "the bloke who wrote it must have been smoking a lot of crack so lets just ignore it", well it undermines the religions based on it and a lot of the more fervent believers are going to get a bit stroppy.

A company I used to work for told us not to worry about all the extra work hours because there'd be a massive bonus at the end of the project. Turned out there wasn't.

Just saying 🙂

Like I said how about bible 2.0? Keep the good stuff, lose the silly and nasty stuff. I'm guessing the trouble is to edit out leviticus or to say gods word was wrong, or even just say "the bloke who wrote it must have been smoking a lot of crack so lets just ignore it", well it undermines the religions based on it and a lot of the more fervent believers are going to get a bit stroppy.

Oh I don't know, when the Chistians came along they basically wrote Bible 2.0 as the new testament (NT). If you compare the vengeful, angry god of the old testament wih the forgiving and self sacrificing (holy trinity assumptions of course) god of the NT it's a pretty dramatic difference.

Just remembered that TV mini series "Second Coming" I think it was called, had Christopher Eccleston in it. The ending of that was that humanity needed to write it's own third testament: Bible 3.0...

it's a pretty dramatic difference.

And the OT is still wheeled out in a lot of church services, it's not been shelved so still up for criticism shirley?

in all fairness if people are going to paraphrase "be excellent to each other" from a big book that also contains genocide and a list of benign activities that'll qualify you for a death warrant or an eternity in hell, it'd be kinda naive of them to think they won't be pulled up on that bad stuff.

Like I said how about bible 2.0? Keep the good stuff, lose the silly and nasty stuff. I'm guessing the trouble is, that to edit out leviticus or to say gods word was wrong, or even just say "the bloke who wrote it must have been smoking a lot of crack so lets just ignore it", well it undermines the religions based on it and a lot of the more fervent believers are going to get a bit stroppy.

A company I used to work for told us not to worry about all the extra work hours because there'd be a massive bonus at the end of the project. Turned out there wasn't.

And the OT is still wheeled out in a lot of church services, it's not been shelved so still up for criticism shirley?

Yeah that's true. I've still got a laptop that runs on Windows 3.1...

Christianty seems to be quite a nice religion for the most part.

Let's see now...

This christian god's creations existed on the planet for approximately 200,000 years living short lives of miserable scratching for existence, dying in pain and agony from diseases they didn't know how to cure. Also injuries they didn't know how to fix and from rotten teeth they couldn't mend.

What did this god thing decide to do to make it better? For 199,980 of those years it sat, arms folded, watching it's creatures suffer and then decided to help them by becoming human and having itself tortured to death to "absolve" humanity of sins which it hadn't even committed in the first place. Humans had to wait for another 2,000 years or thereabouts until it had discovered how to adjust all this suffering by inventing medical science.

Yeah. Nice.

Personally I reckon it's possibly OK to follow a "nice" religion (if that's your thing) and ignore some of the weirder stuff like the diet, do what you want, but it seems a bizarre situation that people are fine to identify themselves with X religion whose doctrine has passages containing stuff they themselves are diametrically opposed to and say "yeah but we just interpret that a bit different" when other more loopy sects of that religion can still quote it as that same god's word to justify their hateful views.

Personally I reckon it's possibly OK to follow a "nice" religion (if that's your thing) and ignore some of the weirder stuff like the diet, do what you want, but it seems a bizarre situation that people are fine to identify themselves with X religion whose doctrine has passages containing stuff they themselves are diametrically opposed to and say "yeah but we just interpret that a bit different" when other more loopy sects of that religion can still quote it as that same god's word to justify their hateful views.

That's lovely that is Mr Woppit, a beautifully succinct appraisal that perfectly illustrates the root cause behind our dear nation's generally schizophrenic sociopathic personality..

It's actually pretty scary when you put it down so clearly, rendering all of our upbringings tantamount to cruel and unusual psychological abuse..

100% agree on Bible 2.0

[url=

2.0[/url]

Surely the most useful The Bible 2.0 would simply be a small business card, or maybe even more fitting, a tattoo on your forehead that just says STOP BEING A ****..

Oh I don't know, when the Chistians came along they basically wrote Bible 2.0 as the new testament (NT). If you compare the vengeful, angry god of the old testament wih the forgiving and self sacrificing (holy trinity assumptions of course) god of the NT it's a pretty dramatic difference.

The NT also contains quite a lot which today's (liberal) Christians choose to ignore.

Jesus specifically said that anyone who remarries after getting a divorce is committing adultery. I know a local priest who has remarried after divorce.

In the letters, it is specifically stated that women shouldn't speak in church. The local priest who remarried is a woman. This verse forms part of the reasoning behind not allowing women bishops in the CofE.

There's a lot more too. As a modern, wooly, liberal Christian, you get to pick and choose which parts to follow.

Interestingly, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible ]Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the bible[/url] which excluded all mentions of the supernatural and just contains passages from the four gospels, arranged in chronological order. It's considerably thinner than the usual bible.

a tattoo that just says STOP BEING A ****

In all fairness, it does rather seem that you're solely picking negative bits from the bible in response to any suggestion that there might be other, more positive aspects to it, which must be a bit frustrating.

Its also fair to say that the new testament is a lot less fire and brimstone and much more based on brotherly love that the OT is. it is a New Testament clearly.

Re christians I am not arguing that many christians are wandering around wanting to kill gays but look at their reaction [ or the reaction of some leaders for complete accuracy] to gay adoption and gay marriage and you can see that they are not,all, for treating them equally either.
As for doing a new version it is just like the American Constitution. It made sense at the time frame in which it was written , right to bear arms, but it is outdated for modern life.
However the problem is as they say it is the word of god how do the update or modernise it without a prophet or messenger of god?

Christianty seems to be quite a nice religion for the most part.

On an individual basis most religious folk are pretty decent just like atheists but the history of religion is not the history of tolerance and respect for dissenting voices, even when they come from within their own faith

As a modern, wooly, liberal Christian, you get to pick and choose which parts to follow.

I should have added: though your bishops (if you're an Anglican) will [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/jun/18/john-sentamu-church-of-england-gay-marriage ]use their unelected position in the House of lords to vote against marriage equality[/url] and some priests will place petitions against it in their churches for their congregations to sign.

Oh I don't know, when the Chistians came along they basically wrote Bible 2.0 as the new testament (NT). If you compare the vengeful, angry god of the old testament wih the forgiving and self sacrificing (holy trinity assumptions of course) god of the NT it's a pretty dramatic difference.

Can I just point out that the New Testament isn't a replacement for the Old Testament, merely an addition. Nowhere in the NT does it say 'ignore that last book'. In fact, the character 'Jesus' actually says that the character 'God's' word is the law' (or something along those lines) somewhere in the NT (I'll Google it if you're too lazy).

Good grief, that is not a very bright post I'm afraid.

Belief in God does not necessarily mean following religious doctrine, or being Muslim, Christian etc
Belief in God does not necessarily mean believing in creationism or intelligent design

It's irrelevant. Just believing in nonsense allows the other people who believe in the same (or similar) nonsense AND DO follow religious doctrine to get away with what they do.

How many would actually believe the nonsense if no one else did? Very few I suggest. How many would believe in science? A great many I think, because it's there staring you in the face day to day.

The Bible is a tough book to get to grips with and I really should have a better handle on it. I try to live my life, NOW, how I think God wants me to. A lot of that comes from the Bible and a fair bit from how I think God is answering my prayers and the occasional hedging my bets when I'm not sure.

Defending the whole Bible, literally, is a tough gig and I don't know how to interpret a lot of the Leviticus stuff etc. There's plenty of stuff online that helps argue one way or the other but as this thread shows, nothing definitive. Incidentally I do cut the sides of my hair and trim the corners of my beard and have a tattoo, all of which is potentially dodgy ground. I also 'sin' on a regular basis, (whilst trying not to) so am in no position to be casting stones, as it were.

My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence, but will hold little water with most other people, I accept. I guess that's what faith is though, isn't it.

Incidentally I wouldn't call a scientifically based atheism 'stupid' as someone suggested I might. I actually think it makes a lot of sense and is far from stupid; but for me it doesn't make as much sense as there being a god.

As for doing a new version it is just like the American Constitution. It made sense at the time frame in which it was written , right to bear arms, but it is outdated for modern life.
However the problem is as they say it is the word of god how do the update or modernise it without a prophet or messenger of god?

Both yes and no - the basis message of Jesus - loy thy enemeny as thy self, do unto others as you would have done on to you, turn the other cheek etc are all excellent maxims for life and the central message is a good one. however what they have actually done is less nice.

... but the history of religion is not the history of tolerance and respect for dissenting voices, even when they come from within their own faith

This thread... 😯

That is all.

#faithinreasonisaformofmysticismafterall

How many would actually believe the nonsense if no one else did? Very few I suggest.

Went to church a couple of weekends ago, and the vicar related the story of a dinner party he was at where they were discussing the afterlife, and one of the other guests said "but how do we know? No-one's ever come back to say?" And the vicar said "one person has!" I'd have been interested to see how the rest of that panned out. 🙂

The thing is, I've got no doubt that the vicar (who is, can I add, an exceedingly nice man) is absolutely, positively 100% convinced that Jesus came back from the dead. I'm also reasonably sure that Tucker for example is pretty convinced that he didn't. I don't know if it can be proved either way, so who can say who's right? (I don't think he came back from the dead, FWIW 🙂 )

Kind of wondered how it works though, as I'm pretty sure there's a few different versions of the bible

How many would actually believe the nonsense if no one else did?

*I'm not sure of the threshold.

and the vicar related the story of a dinner party he was at where they were discussing the afterlife, and one of the other guests said "but how do we know? No-one's ever come back to say?" And the vicar said "one person has!"

Well that vicar doesn't have a very good knowledge of the bible as he clearly forgot about Lazarus!

My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence,

This is called "Having a hallucination."

the Westboro Baptist Church parading outside the funeral of an American soldier with placards saying that god killed him because he was a fag, and I don't see it as a fair statement to blame the bible (or christianity) on their behaviour.

I should have added: though your bishops (if you're an Anglican) will use their unelected position in the House of lords to vote against marriage equality and some priests will place petitions against it in their churches for their congregations to sign

This is where I think the CofE has a particularly difficult job. They are involved in culture and politics. People expect them to have a voice on incredibly difficult and complex issues. I don't think our laws should enforce Christian doctrine but equally I don't think a church should be made to marry people if it doesn't think it's right. I know of some vicars who won't marry divorcees for example.....at least I think that's what I think.

...christianity as a whole not renouncing that nasty stuff enables the situation to continue.

But it doesn't matter if they DO renounce it.

'We've altered our make-belief stuff now' doesn't alter the fact that's it's make-belief stuff, which in itself is a bit worrying, but of course gives other peoples 'make-belief stuff' validity (to some).

Well that vicar doesn't have a very good knowledge of the bible as he clearly forgot about Lazarus!

I think my argument here is that you can't really blame the bible (or christianity? Hmm, need to think on that one!) if people read something into it that's different from the core message.

I'm not sure if that's limited to prople of faith, though.

faithinreasonisaformofmysticismafterall

that's exactly the point. The westboro baptists can simply point to leviticus and say we're sending gods message here, the bible is where they get their authority from and christianity as a whole not renouncing that nasty stuff enables the situation to continue.

I dunno - this all made sense about half an hour ago, and now I'm all confuzzed. 😕

My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence

This is called "Having a hallucination."

It's quite a good one!

It may well be bit the question is whether it is an accurate one!

My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence,

I like the fact the catholic church all pray to god for guidance on the new pope and then they have to have a vote - WHY? if they have a chat surely god says the same thing to them all so why the need for a vote?

It may well be bit the question is whether it is an accurate one!

My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence,

Well, in simplistic terms, we'll either find out it is or it isn't or we still don't know when we/I die. Until then I'm happy believing it's real. What I can say is that it shapes my thoughts and actions such that I am more honest, generous, thoughtful and tolerant than if I didn't...I think.

I like the fact the catholic church all pray to god for guidance on the new pope and then they have to have a vote - WHY? if they have a chat surely god says the same thing to them all so why the need for a vote?

Democratic voting is a key biblical principle.... 😕

and the vicar related the story of a dinner party he was at where they were discussing the afterlife, and one of the other guests said "but how do we know? No-one's ever come back to say?" And the vicar said "one person has!"

Well that vicar doesn't have a very good knowledge of the bible as he clearly forgot about Lazarus!

As I understand it, the Christian afterlife isn't actually about going up to heaven after you die (pearly gates and all that), it's about a bodily resurrection and a new kingdom on Earth. So, Jesus and Lazarus didn't go to heaven or experience an afterlife and then come back, they died and were dead for a number of days and then came back to life.

No heaven, no afterlife. Dead.

It's only in the times described in Revelation that people come back from the dead, to live on Earth in a new Jerusalem.

Your dead grannie isn't watching over you, she's in a hole in the ground until Jesus comes back.

There are lots of possible interpretations of what heaven is. Jesus did actually say I am going to be with my father, so interpret that as you will.

My take on it is that heaven is being with God and Hell is not. I don't much care for the detail; it doesn't make a lot of difference now.

Jesus did actually say I am going to be with my father, so interpret that as you will.

That was after his resurrection and before his ascension wasn't it? Not before his death.

Heaven is where Jesus and God and the angels are. After the second coming, heaven will be on Earth.

Democratic voting is a key biblical principle..

But it doesn't matter if they DO renounce it.

But how can that be reconciled with "do unto others" and all that gubbins?

I'm equally as convinced that their interpretation of the bible is incorrect.

I don't know if it can be proved either way, so who can say who's right?

Also applies to:

You owing me £1,000,000
Me being a time traveller
Unicorns
Mermaids
Etc, etc.

Something either has concrete peer reviewed court admissible evidence to support it, or it doesn't. In the later case in can safely be dismissed as false.

Jesus did actually say I am going to be with my father, so interpret that as you will.

The character Jesus supposedly said...

Just saying.

Don't ever become a Policeman. 😉

It's only in the times described in Revelation that people come back from the dead, to live on Earth in a new Jerusalem.

Jesus did actually say I am going to be with my father, so interpret that as you will.

In [url= http://biblehub.com/john/20-17.htm ]John 20:17[/url]:

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

This was after the resurrection, so while he was dead he wasn't in the afterlife or in heaven. Nobody who lived has been to heaven and then come back.

The priest at the dinner party who said at least one person had is clearly wrong, even within the self-contained logic/reality of the bible and their beliefs.

Well, that'll do, won't it?

As above, the vicar at the dinner party was wrong.

DONK is correct re the vote point

The character Jesus supposedly said...

Just saying.

Don't ever become a Policeman.

Ha ha, fair point.

I'm not religious (did you guess? ) so not my problem, it's upto the religion itself to make sense of the contradictory pile of books that have been (mis)remembered, passed on verbally, written, translated, rewritten and translated a bit more over the years... interpreting the bible as a whole is a hell of an undertaking, interpreting that verse in leviticus as junkyard points out seems to be very cut and dried, but as noted, lots of people just ignore it

I think what I'm trying to say (in a very roundabout, barely coherent kind of way) is that it's a bit harsh to tag a religion with all the bad things that have been done in it's name, when that might not necessarily be what said religion actually teaches. I think.

Something either has concrete peer reviewed court admissible evidence to support it, or it doesn't. In the later case in can safely be dismissed as false.

I have yet to see any concrete, peer-reviewed court-admissable evidence that the resurrection of Lazarus did not happen. I'm playing devil's advocate, of course, but live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.

You are Bertrand Russel and I claim my orbiting teapot.

the majority of [s]Christians[/s] [i]people[/i] seem to be decent, honest and generous people, living in an entirely commendable way

Fixed that for you.

Correlation/causation, etc.

The priest at the dinner party who said at least one person had is clearly wrong, even within the self-contained logic/reality of the bible and their beliefs.

I have yet to see any concrete, peer-reviewed court-admissable evidence that the resurrection of Lazarus did not happen. I'm playing devil's advocate, of course, but live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something happened or exists.

Woppit:

This christian god's creations existed on the planet for approximately 200,000 years living short lives of miserable scratching for existence, dying in pain and agony from diseases they didn't know how to cure. Also injuries they didn't know how to fix and from rotten teeth they couldn't mend.

What did this god thing decide to do to make it better? For 199,980 of those years it sat, arms folded, watching it's creatures suffer and then decided to help them by becoming human and having itself tortured to death to "absolve" humanity of sins which it hadn't even committed in the first place. Humans had to wait for another 2,000 years or thereabouts until it had discovered how to adjust all this suffering by inventing medical science.

I agree 100%. I am a devout atheist and love reading these threads but please, if you plagiarise someone else's words at least acknowledge that when you quote him.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572150/quotes

Fixed that for you.

Correlation/causation, etc.

I think the conversation as reported was along the lines of -
"Is there an afterlife?"
"No-one's ever come back from the dead to be able to say"
"Someone has"
If there are inconsistencies or inaccuracies with that, I have faith that it'll be down to me and not what the vicar said. The chances of it happening are pretty slim, I would imagine, but I'd be interested to listen to you and him debate it.

Presumably his "someone has" referred to Jesus. According to the bible, Jesus hasn't come back from heaven.

(Unless you believe [url= http://www.aj-miller.com/ ]the Australian chap who claims to be the second coming of Christ[/url], and I have yet to see any concrete, peer-reviewed court-admissible evidence that he isn't.)

Unless the conversation went:

"Is there an afterlife?"
"No-one's ever come back from the dead to be able to say"
"You're right"