Suffering

This is a topic that I don't actually know that much about, because I have little experience involving suffering. I have lived a fairly happy and contented life compared to most. Two loving parents, three siblings(not always so loving), great friends, and pretty awesome relatives who all share my belief in the one true God. So not much controversy, not much turmoil, just the average day to day stress. So when I talk about suffering, I don't speak from experience, this is mere speculation, inquiry, and thought.

We had a debate on campus tonight between Dinesh D'sousa(a Christian Theologian I suppose), and Bart Ehrmann(an Agnostic). The topic of this debate was Theodicy, which I believe they defined as the problem of suffering in the world when there is a God who could prevent it, and by our understanding of His nature, should prevent it.

An issue they did not really address is this: Why is suffering considered such a bad thing? I believe they did not feel this was a particularly controversial question, that everyone generally agreed that suffering is not good. However, I do not think I believe this. Keep in mind that I haven't experienced much suffering, so this belief may change as I mature. Anyway, back to my point. As far as mankind goes, I think suffering is necessary. Without suffering we would have no reason to try and better ourselves, to triumph through trials. Suffering, pain, turmoil, evil, these are all words that express the same necessity of man to overcome what puts him down. When we are oppressed, we are given the opportunity to endure, and to grow from the experience. Can we really say that suffering is such a bad thing? I mean, if growing up I had never burned my finger on the stove, or never fallen off my bike, and experienced that pain and suffering, would I have learned that some things in life hurt? When our bodies go through pain, like a burn or a cut, it grows back stronger. I feel that our minds are the same way. When we suffer, it hurts, but we eventually emerge stronger than we were before.

In addition to this, and I feel many would object to this argument, but without natural disasters and the general self-destructive nature of mankind, this world would be densely over-populated. Since humanity is essentially at the top of the food chain, there is not much to keep our population in check. With this in mind, I view hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other such natural disasters to be a kind of population control. This may sound harsh to some, especially with the view of a loving God watching over us, but think about it. Without war, without genocide, without all the evil in the world that results in the deaths of so many people, and without the natural disasters already mentioned, how many people do you think would be on this earth? Personally, I think all the earth's resources would be depleted and we would all be dead or scavenging for an existence. pproximately 9,000,000 Jews were persecuted and killed during WWII, and that's just the Jewish population. Many many more millions were killed throughout the war. WWI had a similar amount casualties. And in the past, war has snuffed billions of live from this earth. Without these events, without this kind of suffering, the world would end.

There are many scientists and researchers that have concluded that humans, unlike the rest of the aniimal kingdom, have no sense of balance when it comes to population. In the animal kingdom, for the most part different parts of the food chain are kept in check by each other. If the wolves eat too much of their natural prey, there is less to go around and they begin to die of hunger, which allows the population of their prey to grow again. As the prey population grows, there is more food for the wolves, and their population grows again, and the cycle starts again. For humans, we don't participate in this cycle. If one source food begins to run low, we switch to another, grow our population, and expand. But I disagree with these scientists. I think that we do have checks and balances, and the main one is our self-destructive nature. We kill each other, through war, murder, and in some cases by accident. And that is what keeps us from over-populating our planet. So without suffering, humanity would cease to exist, in my opinion at least.

So when Bart and Dinesh were debating, it occurred to my friend Leroy Jenkins that they both agreed that suffering was necessarily a bad thing. And from I just talked about, I have to disagree with them. I think God allows suffering in this world because it is necessary. They talked about how in the prophets' books God causes suffering to try and bring His people back to Him. Bart could not comprehend why this would be. Think about it, if we lived perfectly content lives, with no suffering, no pain, and no loss, why would we ever turn to God? When life is going "as it should" for us, why would we need to rely on God for anything? Why serve Him? And why change anything? Life is going great just the way it is, I don't need God. When we suffer, as I said earlier, we grow from the experience. and I personally have grown from the suffering that I have experienced, such as: burning my finger, accidently cutting myself when I got my first pocket knife, or when I fell out of a tree, or got hit by a swing. What did I learn? That's stovetops are hot, that knives are sharp and shouldn't be pointed towards yourself, that the higher you are, the more it hurts when you fall, and that its never a good idea to walk in front of someone on a swing. These are all important pieces of knowledge, and I never would have learned them if I had nevered the suffered the consequences of my actions.

Which brings me to what I will make my last point. Throughout the Bible we see examples of people being judged for the wrongs they have committed. Sin has consequences, and those consequences are not something we will enjoy. The number one consequence is separation from our Creator, which should be enough to convince us to repent. But there are smaller consequences, many of which are dished out by government authority. We have our own laws, many of which are based off of those listed in Deuteronomy.

That's all I really wanted to say, and I hope it has caused you to think about the true nature of suffering, and its purpose in this world. I don't find suffering to be a good thing, by the way, but I don't find it to be a bad thing either, just a necessary thing.

Life

I was asked today when I thought life began. Specifically if it started at conception, since this is one of the biggest debates for/against abortion. As anybody reading this should know, abortion is the removal of the fetus from the mother's womb. The controversy is that if life begins at conception, then abortion is just another word for murder.

I didn't really have an answer for the person who asked me the question, mainly because I knew he would simply ask "Really?" to whatever I said and then laugh a little(not laugh, but kind of chuckle to himself), unless I happened to agree with his point of view, which I don't think I do. So I didn't see a point in giving him an answer.

As to my belief, I have come to the belief that every human life has existed since God created Man in Genesis. This is not to say that we are reincarnated, but rather that our souls don't come into being as we are conceived, but have existed since time began. A kink in my theory here is that some souls would be waiting quite a while, especially at this point. But I'm not focusing on that aspect of life. I mean to say that while the physical manifestation of our life begins at conception, our existence has existed since Genesis. So for me, abortion is murder, a denial of the right to live by those who were not denied that right. In a sense, I believe abortion is a way of saying "It's too bad my parents didn't have an abortion, or I wouldn't have to be going through this right now." Maybe that's a little drastic, I don't know. But if you were't denied the right to live, what gives you the right to deny someone else?

So to sum up what I've been saying, or I guess to restate it, I believe life began with Adam, and we began our existence at the same time he did. Our entrance into this world begins at conception, and thus abortion is equatable with murder. I guess that's all to say, I'll probably write more on the topic of life later this year. So all you people NOT following this blog can look forward to that.

Alienation

So the debate today in philosophy class argued about alienation and if we need to find a cure for it. The two sides are obvious, yes or no. The yes side took a very communist side and argued that all class systems, all divisions among people should be abolished, that everyone deserves an equal chance at doing what they want to do. This side argued that being forced into a certain career or lifestyle took away part of one's humanity, and thus such division should be abolished for the sake of humanity. The other side argued that division was not only necessary, but unavoidable. Man has a proclivity towards people who are similar to him, or have similar ideas or interests. Even in the face of equalization, where everyone has an equal chance, people with similar interests are drawn towards each other, and tend to divide themselves into groups.

People began arguing against the second side based on a larger scale. They seemed to be thinking purely in a governmental sense. The debater argued that natural leaders will always rise above others, and people will follow them. On a large scale this might not be the case, perhaps some natural-born leaders do not have the same opportunities of others to rise above entire countries, but they still tend to rise above the people around them in a local sense. William Wallace managed to rise above the Scottish people as he led them to war and freedom from England. This was a grand scale. He did not go to college, he never took classes on how to lead a revolution, and yet he was able to do so. Martin Luther, George Washington, Charlemagne; these are all people who rose up and led people to some goal. I don't have names, but on a smaller scale, in local settings, there are people who arise everyday in leadership because it is part of their nature. People who notice a problem in their hometown and seek to fix it. People who have a dream, and seek to make it a reality.

I think it is obvious which side I hold to. There will always be divisions among people, you will meet people that you just can't stand or can't comprehend. And then there will be people that you just connect with and understand. We naturally tend toward people who are like us, who share our ideas and hopes and interests. Even with the abolishment of official classes like they had back in Medieval Times, people will spearate themselves into groups, or cliques, and other people will be excluded from these groups. It's natural for humanity to do this, we can't help it. Such is life. The end.

Attractions

What is the basis for attraction between people? I have heard many different theories. I have heard that women are more likely to be attracted to a man that smells similar to her father. This might have been the case at one point, but unfortuantely with deodorants and perfumes and whatnot it is difficult to tell who smells like what. And perhaps this is why there is so much divorce? Women are attracted to a man because he wears the same deodorant as her dad, and it turns out that his real smell is much different. This would be more subconscious, and I don't think it is the case.

I have also heard that the predestination theories. That God predetermined who will be with who. Honestly, I would like to hold to this theory, because it gives me hope that there is someone out there for me, someone that I am meant to be with. However, this is less about attraction and more about predestination, so I don't this theory works either.

Personally, I have felt attracted to many different girls, and as far as I can consciously tell, they do not all have one particular thing in common. I have noticed that even with those crushes, the attraction would change based heavily on appearance. Maybe not looks, but clothing choice, hair styles, that kind of thing. I have noticed that I prefer pony tails(I don't know why, I just do), the same goes with flannel shirts, sweat shirts, bathing suits(who doesn't like bathing suits?), and this is all clothing choice(with the exception of the pony tails). This is what brought me to this subject. What do we base our attractions on? Are there more than one kind of attraction? I think so.

I think there are at least 2 kinds of attraction. Physical and emotional. With physical attraction, I am attracted to a pretty face, a hot body, smell, sound, etc. This can also take the form of the actions of another person, or the amount of time spent with them. This last somewhat transfers into the other kind of attraction, emotional. With emotional attraction, I see it as an attraction to the spirit, ideas, or emotions of another person. In this case, the more time you spend someone(typically of the opposite gender, I don't want to go into homosexuality in this post) the more likely you are to be attracted to them. At the same time, if you are already attracted to the person, you are more likely to become more attracted to them. This is not always the case, but it seems to hold true in most situations.

So with the physical attraction, how we get those predispositions to certain hair styles or clothing choices? Why do I like pony tails more than wearing hair down? Why do I like flannel shirts instead of T-shirts? I mean, you could make some deductions from those, but I know people who hate flannel-wearing people. So where do we get these attractions?

I still don't know, but I'm going to continue to ask the question until I find an answer, either within myself or from someone else or somewhere. Hopefully I have left you with some questions, because I don't want you to follow this blog, and I figure if I confuse you, you will stop reading my posts...

SiCk..... =(

So I was sick all of last week... Had an amazing quad break and got to see most of my friends and all of my family, had loads of fun and plenty of sleep... Unfortunately, before leaving on Monday, I gave my little sister a hug goodbye. This wasn't a bad thing in and of itself, however, she happened to be sick. She didn't feel well and told me I didn't have to hug her because she didn't want to get me sick, but I hugged her anyways, and am glad for it. On the downside, it made the rest of my week crap. Sniffles, sinus pressure and headaches, physical exhaustion, and as a result of the sniffles, chapped lips and a dry nose... Luckily, I didn't have any exams this week, so I didn't have to worry about that. However, I did have a presentation in guess what? That's right, felafelsy class(Think about how you would say that and it will come to you). The other two guys in my group helped a lot, but in the end, it sucked having to argue a position that I didn't hold when I could barely speak clearly. It worked out though and I don't think we did too bad.

I had to work at Chester's too, a late shift on Thursday night. Oh my gosh, that sucked beyond imagining. I prayed before-hand that God would either give me an easy shift, or at least the strength to get through it. Well, through the first half, He gave me the latter. Then, around 1 am, my two bosses showed up and took over for me, allowing me to go back to my room and sleep. How many of you non-followers can say that your boss(es) is/are that awesome? I doubt many if any.

On Death and Dying

What is it like to die?

I ask this because earlier today in my reative Class we saw a clip from Resevoir Dogs in which all but one of the characters died. And it got me to thinking what it would be like to die. Hollywood likes to portray it as an elongated experience in which one(typically a main character or a villain) is able to deliver one final, epic speech.Or its the opposite, life is snuffed out in the fraction of a second it takes to pull a trigger. Or even worse, the strangling. I've begun to wonder how it feels to die. In some cases, there seems to be no pain at all, and in others the pain is unbearable. What is it like, really? I cannot trust the media to portray an accurate description, so how would I know without experiencing it myself? This of course, is a possibility, but I think I would rather know and be able to relate the feeling without actually dying, which is not a likely possibility.

But really, what does it mean to die? What is it like, what does it entail? I think death is the result of bodily shutdown. Like a computer, there are 3 basic ways to die. 1. You go through the process of shutting down, you log off, shut down all systems, and turn off. 2. You are manually shutdown(via the button), forced to turn off because of some outside force(murder, fall off a cliff, drown in the ocean). 3. Run out of power/die of old age. Sometimes it's unexpected and sometimes you can see it coming so you try to take advantage of how much power you have left.

I've often thought about how I want to die, and I've noticed that it has changed over the years. When I was little I just didn't want to die at all, it wasn't going to happen. Then, as I became more realistic, I wanted to die in my sleep because that would be painless and I wouldn't really experience anything. Then I wanted it to be quick, like a bullet or something. And now, after thinking it through today, I would prefer to die slowly. Not slowly in that I'm being tortured or something, but slowly in that I have time to talk to someone, time to say what needs to be said(like in the movies). And I definitely don't want to be alone, I want to die in the presence of someone I know and love, whether that's a family member, a best friend, or that special someone. All I know is that if I am going to experience something as unique as death, I want to fully experience it, not go in my sleep or in some quick and easy way.

So back to the original question, what would it be like to die? I guess I've come to the conclusion that it's not possible to know without actually experiencing it. Conjecturing won't get you anywhere. And I've also come to the conclusion that death makes life all the more precious, so we should cherish it while we have it: Experience everything to the fullest. The challenge is actually living this way.

Weekends

Yesterday was a really weird, but I guess I can start at the beginning of the weekend. So Friday we had our Scientific Enterprise exam(which was much easier than the first one, or at least followed the study guide better); however, instead of taking the exam and leaving for the day(like most college exams), we had to stay for an hour afterward for class. Mad lame. Although I considered leaving anyway, I couldn't leave The Rebellious One there by herself(friendless). So I stayed and we did some experiment involving Global Warming, or the greenhouse effect. No grade involved, not worth staying. But oh well...

Later that day I sent out one of my famous mass texts inviting everyone to dinner, but when I got there, I didn't even sit with them. This was more because of Leroy Jenkins than anything else. He doesn't like sitting outside(which they were) because he can't eat his food properly out there. So we sat in Chester's as usual with his roommate C4. And, since my work schedule had changed, I didn't have to work that night. So we scouted out a place to watch a movie(which turned out to be Jenks), and then played some MW2 while we waited for people to finish with a dance thing. Watched Master and Commander after sneaking into the mostly locked Jenks building and made it to bed around 4 in the morning.

So of course, as this always goes, I did not awaken until afternoon(although before 2, which is a big deal for me). Saturday was a weird day, as I said before. I got up and immediately knew something didn't feel right. I went over to the Quad to check out the events going on, and also to see if Leroy Jenkins needed lunch still(he had asked me to get him some earlier, since he was helping out with the events). He didn't, but we got food anyway(hotdogs are amazing). Most of the rest of the day was spent avoiding social interaction. I don't know why, but every now and then I get into this really apathetic mood where I don't want to hang out or interact in any way. So I mostly played MW2 and played around Facebook, with constant disturbance from other Ferrinites. It's one of the lesser aspects of being the RA's roommate.

I had to work last night, but it was one of the fastest shifts i have ever had. Granted, it was only 3 hours, but it went by so fast. I was glad to have helping friends there to keep me company(despite my mood), I guess they managed to pull me out of it. At the end we talked about Right/Left-handedness and brain functions. We(I) decided that being right-handed is sinful, and that it was a direct result of the Fall. This meant that Left-handed people were more righteous than Right-handed people, and that we were just better. I was kidding of course, but some people didn't get it.

And though the weekend isn't quite over yet, especially for me since I don't have class on Mondays, that was my weekend. Now begins the studying for two exams on Tuesday, well, the attempt to study for two exams on Tuesday. I highly doubt that I will be able to focus very hard on this. By the way, happy 10/10/2010!! Fare thee well non-followers.

Me? Sleep? Noooooo....

Sleeping is a problem, and I indulge in it too much. I think I should add it to my interests, I sleep that often. The reason for sleep is to process thoughts, heal the body, and I guess you could say it helps pass the time. What if we could go our entire lives without sleeping? What would we be able to do? I ask this under the assumption that we would have no need to sleep, that our minds and bodies needed no period of rest to recover from our daily ventures.

For one I think we would be better suited to view all the beauty in the world around us. Half of the people in this world(actually probably a lot more than half) get up early and are allowed to witness the beauty of a morning, but they must also go to bed within a reaosnable time so as to get sufficient sleep. Whereas the other "half" stays up late into the night and is able to witness the beauty of the stars and the moonlit night as the city lights go out and clear up the sky. If we didn't have to sleep, we could witness all of this unhindered. Another benefit to no sleep is that we would never oversleep, never be late to class or work or church because our alarm didn't go off to wake us up.

On the downside, we would never have an excuse to be late. We would have to be awake, conscious, when we are injured. Think of all the medical procedures that require putting the patient to sleep, we would be conscious through all of that. And while the doctor could probably make it painless with various drugs, we could still see(and imagine) what is happening as it is happening. And on a similar note, we would be awake when we die, no going in our sleep.

We could keep working through the night, we wouldn't have to worry about getting to sleep before an exam, we could study right up to the time we have to take it. And on the downside to that, the Go-Po wouldn't have to sleep, so they would be ever vigilant in theit search for hooligans in the night(not that I am one of those hooligans ;)).

So I sleep too much, but I don't like to go to bed. I'm a night person, I like to stay up as late as possible, and sleep in as late as possible. I guess you could say I'm a late person, because I am late to virtually everything, its in my nature. And oddly enough, its a part of my nature that I like about myself. But back to sleep, it doesn't matter how much I sleep, I'm always tired when I wake up, anybody else feel like that? And this last paragraph has been more of a ramble, so since I have little else to say, I'll end here.

Thoughts for the Future

Well, here we go, I'm not in that philosophy class today. Not really sure what I want to talk about, but I've got this nasty headache that I seem to always get in Scientific Enterprise class. I think it's the professor's voice, it agitates my molecules...

But anyway,  don't really want to talk about the class, since that's essentially what I have done in my other posts. The good thing about The Examined Life is that it makes me think. Typically I'll go through my day without really thinking about much, nothing deep anyway. I guess you could say I lead somewhat of a shallow life. But I've never felt like I have. Back in high school I would think about all sorts of deep topics, mainly within Theology and biblical controversies. I think that may have had to do with my more constant contact with the Bible and Bible lessons(Bible class in school, youth group, and sermons/sunday school lessons in church). Here at Gordon, I don't get that kind of everyday exposure forced on me, and I guess that has effected how much I think about it. If I'm not forced to, I won't usually delve into the Bible anymore, and that has become a problem. My spiritual life is waning, and that's especially bad if I want to pursue a life in ministry. Ever since my junior year of high school, I have felt God pushing me towards youth ministry, so that is what I have majored in. Throughout high school I tried to be as involved as I could be with my youth group and church, exposing myself to different areas of ministry(V.B.S. as a leader and a helper, junior high camp counselor, etc.) and from that I felt more inclined towards youth ministry. I believe God calls us to serve Him in ways that we will enjoy, and I have found that I enjoy youth ministry, and so I continue to pursue a career in that field. However, if I cannot bring myself to continue in my spiritual walk with the Lord, how can I be a light to young people, shining for Him? Something needs to change, and that much I know, but it is making that change that I find to be the most difficult. I don't like change, I don't think I ever have, and so forcing it upon myself is not something I am naturally inclined to do. I guess all I can do is pray for the strength to do so, and I ask that those who read this(even though I would rather you didn't) would pray for me too.

That's all for now, I might post more later today if I have more to say. Otherwise, fare thee well.

Butterflies

First off, I need to try writing one of these outside of philosophy class.

Anyway, butterflies, and animals in general, have such boring and fleeting lives. They exist to eat, mate, and die. Why do we exist? What purpose do we serve except to eat(survive), mate(continue our bloodline), and die(let the next generation take over)? I mean, yes, we do a little more than animals. The main part of that being that we can think; we can rationalize(or try to rationalize) our own existence. But is there something more, something of substance that we contribute to the world?

I don't think so. Not to this world. All we have done thus far is pollute and mess up the Earth. Even now we're trying to stem to destructive tide of human behavior; the results of this tide being: Global Warming(more or less), loss of species(both plant and animal), loss of resource/energy, and due to nuclear weaponry, loss of land. In a physical sense, our existence is detrimental to the existence of other things, and nothing we can do can fully change that.

However, on a spiritual level, for those who believe in the spiritual realm of existence, perhaps there is more for us there. If you believe that you were created by a supreme being, God, and that He gifted you with the breath of life, then you must believe that you have a spiritual existence. The rational part of our mind is the manifestation of the breath of life(so I believe), and this rationality stems from the spirit(or soul). So under the belief that we have a soul/spirit, then we must have some purpose to fulfill spiritually. According to the Bible, this purpose would be to follow after and worship God, our Creator, and give Him glory. So in that sense, we have a purpose. And if we believe that we have this purpose, then we can add a purpose to our physical lives, and that would manifest itself in the form of evangelism. Because if we believe that it is our purpose to glorify God, then naturally it would be our desire to enlighten others to this purpose, so that they too can glorify God.

For someone who does not believe in God, or does not believe they have a spirit/soul, I don't see how they could substantiate their existence. And if you can't substantiate your own existence, why should you continue to exist? If there is no purpose for you in life, why live? This is why I find it hard to believe people who say that there is no purpose in life. If they truly believed that, I mean really believed it, I think they would kill themselves.

So the question I would like to leave you with is this: Do you believe you are a butterfly?

Zombie Souls

Well, I don't usually have such an interest in zombies, they're kind of a dumb concept. However, after having watched Zombieland with Lee (a.k.a. Leroy Jenkins) and his roommate Ben (a.k.a. C4), I haven't been able to get my mind(or my brain) off the subject... But anyway, on to the reason for the name of this post, I'm back in Glenney's class today and the group presenting spoke about Descartes' Mind-Body problem. This is interesting because that is what I wrote my scheme about. Anyway again, one of the questions led Glenney to go off on a spiel about zombie souls(mindless souls). What would a mindless soul do? In what way could it be "me"? I just found this interesting, sorry if this bored you, but its not like you're following me, so whatevs.

After missing my first class this morning, I decided to sleep in a bit(too long), and almost missed this one too. But I got here(after almost forgetting my scheme paper), just before the group started. woohoo. yeah. Last night, Leroy and C4 convinced me to stay up later than I should have to watch a movie with them. Wednesday nights are Leroy's only free night, so we watched The Time Machine. I thought it was good, even though I had seen it before, and C4 agreed. But of course Lee hated it, there's something about movies based off of books (especially ones about science fiction) that doesn't sit well with him. He over-analyzes the science behind everything. Onward and upward, because we watched the movie, I didn't get to sleep until about 2 am(which isn't abnormal for me, in fact its rather early, but not when I have an 8 am class to get to). And instead of trying to think of more to say, I'll end with that...

Shortness

1. I have a shortness of breath problem

2. This is going to be a short post, I survived a long day of dreading papers... First I had to finish a 10-page dialogue(which I twisted into a zombie apocalypse on Gordon campus from a short dialogue in Claymore), then I had to write a scheme for a philosophy paper that I had no clue what to write about. I ended up writing about Descartes' Mind-Body argument, which basically states that the mind and body are separated. Its a dualistic dilemma of drastic dreadfulness. That's all I felt like saying, just giving the short blog a try (I might as well experiment with this, right?)

P.S. You better not be following me, that's just creepy.

New Beginnings

I've never written a journal before, or anything similar to one, so I don't know what will come of this. I don't expect or want followers, people reading my thoughts is just weird to think about. So I don't even know why I'm writing this out here, maybe its better to write a journal. Nah.

So I started this blog in the middle of The Examined Life with Brian Glenney, and we are talking about souls and what happens after we die. The theories he has are as follows: Floaty Soul, Gappy Soul, Non-gappy Soul, and Body-Snatcher Soul. The Floaty Soul theory is that when you die, your soul leaves your body and just floats around in a purely spiritual existence. The Gappy Soul theory follows Jesus' death and resurrection, that when we die our souls go somewhere for a while, and then receive a new body(spiritual or physical). The Non-Gappy Soul theory just shortens the Gappy Soul theory, so that we jump from one body immediately to a new one when we die. And then there is the Body-Snatcher Soul theory, which I interpret as when we die, God snatches our souls from our bodies and places them in a new one. This is similar to the Non-Gappy Soul theory, with the exception that God is moving your soul, not your soul itself moving. I started writing as he was explaining this last one, so I missed part of the explanation. Whatever.

I believe that when we die, our souls are brought directly to the gates of Heaven, and to us this appears to be an immediate thing. I say "to us" because time is a relative thing. Its a measurement of the length of life, the length of the universe. So when we die, I believe that we are taken out of time, and brought before God for judgement. In the several cases in the Bible where Jesus Christ brought people back from the dead, he says they are merely sleeping. I don't think these people fully died when he raised them. And in the case of Samuel's ghost speaking to Saul in the Old Testament, I don't see why God couldn't allow Samuel to return to Earth for a short while. And when the end of the world comes, and there is the "resurrection of the dead," we return to Earth to serve our purpose there. Back to the souls, once pass judgement, those who go to Heaven are given their new and perfect bodies, and I'm not sure whether those that go to Hell receive new bodies or remain as tormented souls. I think the worst possible torment is to behold the glories of ultimate perfection, and be denied entrance.

I don't know if that was coherent enough for you non-followers, I lost my train of thought near the end because Glenney had us all harmonize with him. He's a very random professor. So I guess this is good enough for my first blog post, I tried to interpret my scatter-brained thoughts, and hopefully I will get better at this as time wears on.