RM> Many people find it hard to face simple non-existence after death. They
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 RM> must have something to turn to and comfort themselves.  You won't get
 RM> much debate out of me with this, because this is basically all I have to
 RM> say on the matter. ;)
 RM> Oh my dear friend, you will have to show me where I stated that I KNEW
 RM> what happens after death.  I merely said that religion is the result of
 RM> the fear of nothing after death.  Not that there WAS nothing after
 RM> death.
   O.K., Richard, (grin) look at the careted sentence above.  Are you
contending that I should not have understood that as a statement of a known
fact?  If so, then, of course, I misread you.  I believe that if I had stated
such and wanted it to be clearer I would have inserted "possible" between
"face" and "simple."
   There were plenty of religions in the Roman Empire offering immortality.
What could have been the appeal of Christianity in this welter - sheer luck 
f
the draw?  There IS a Christian theology which denies the authenticity of
"saved by his death" and affirms "saved by his life."  If "fullness" only
relates to "life after death" then what greater sense would the Christian
experience of a theophanic event have had over previous ones are even over 
he
Mosaic-Prophetic for that matter?  
   Do you really believe St. Augustine's _Civitis Dei_ was written in order 
o
assure people that the hedonism they might miss here and now could be 
eplaced
in life after death?  
   I surely will not deny the distinct vulgarian appeal of hedonistic
immortality, however.  It can even seem drawn by the most noble and pietistic
of impulses.
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
  
                                                    
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------