www.owohrod.com.

  And although a more credible and probable explanation would have been that a person/s entered the sepulchre and removed the body of the person known as Jesus Christ.  Probably with the intention of denying the people making him a martyr. Notwithstanding the fact that, if that was the intention, it has failed. And how did I get hear; to be in the process of, by analysis, trying to ascertain whether the Jesus Christ of the Bible or Christian faith could have or really existed?  Well, I guess I have arrived here because, I am putting forward the case that, it is very unlikely that, the kind of 'life after death - which is a most paradoxical concept - is so improbable that it really is not going to happen.  And that one of the reasons why it is not going to happen, is that the Biblical account of Christ having come back to life is highly improbable.  And, secondly, that, despite the evidence of billions of people having died since our human species have existed.  There is no evidence

  The most effective way of passing on their messages about what the gods want from humans, was that of empowering the 'gods' to assume human-form. As has been the claim for the personified Jesus Christ.  Whom, we are told, was 'the Son of God', having been born as a result of a brief and illicit encounter between 'god' and Joseph's fiancee, Mary.  Thus was Jesus Christ, if he really existed at all, would have been, at least, in the tradition of the ancient Greeks, a demi-god.  This ability of the gods to  personify themselves seems to be an attribute of all theistic religions, whether it is focused on monotheism or polytheism. In the case of the story about Christ's personification, we could argue that both the account of his 'conception' and his 'burial' and resurrection are mysterious and fraught with moral and practical paradoxes.  For example, the morality of 'God' having a child with another man's wife, and the practical

  In my case, I have learnt that the pain and loss of a broken intimate relationship can be brought to an end, by establishing another relationship and work towards it being successful.  Yes, it does not mean that the pain will not continue to linger on for sometime, but sometime is better than all the time or most of the time.  I would argue that, just as how the past needs to gradually recede into the distant past, so that the present can take root and be nurtured into giving birth to the future.  So must a relationship which has ended, be allowed and encouraged to lose its primacy, the amount of conscious and subconscious space and time it occupies in parties lives/living.  This creates the necessary conditions for each of the primary persons - partners and any children - to make the changes and adjustments to building the different lives they need to establish.  To have new and different structures and functions in their living.  I have learnt that, the sooner we - and probably mos

   Or, in the case of the 'Re-incarnationsists', that 'the hosted spirit' jumps from its host's body, our bodies, at the point of death, and then conveniently finds and occupies the body of a 'soulless' or 'spiritless' newly born human or animal.   Is, in plain and unambiguous language, bunkers; it is not true because it is not logical or feasible. It is something which is truly only tenable in the land of fairy tales. It is the adult's equivalent of a child's ability to imagine that he/she can fly of their own accord.  For all we know, through observations and science, there is no evidence that it is probable, or even possible, that the "me" and the " I " in our ergosumness, ' I think therefore I am and exists ", can be generated and/or exists outside of "our bodies."  " Me " or "I" is not an existentialistic consciousness which floats or is capable of moving about like a cloud or co

  I have learntl that any 'normal' and/or empathetic person who have experienced breaking up - regardless of who initiated the ending - who is confronted with ending an intimate relationship.  One in which they had invested a significant degree of their sense of being, their identities, will be confronted with powerful and potentially destructive emotions.  I have learnt that these emotions are likely to be common to most, if not all persons who have experienced the break-up of a strong intimate relationship, whether it be a marital or non-marital one. I have learnt that these strong emotions are likely to include all or some of the following.  Shock; anger, rage, denial, feelings of being hurt, unbelievability, self-destructive feelings, wanting to hurt the other person and/or others close to them, despair, self-pity. I have learnt that, although some of the negative and destructive feelings are or might be common to all or most people' experiencing the trauma associated w

  And what I have learnt is this.  That, though having children provided me - as it undoubtedly has for others - with moments and times, many moments and times of wonderment, fascination, joy, and happiness.  With self-worth, pleasure, pain, trauma, powerlessness, anger, and strong negative emotions.   With challenges to overcome, and threats to avoid. I have learnt that, ultimately, on a human level, the cost of having children outweighs the benefits.  And, were I to relive my life, which I consider to be an improbability, I would not have children. Why?  Because I have learnt that, ultimately, the most meaningful and powerful reason for having children is to ensure the preservation and survival of our human species.  Reasons such 'to ensure the family lineage', 'to provide family members to keep the family business going', 'to enlarge the tribe and make it more powerful', are all what I would call 'lower order' or 'ipso facto - making sense of our

    For the purpose of this post, my use of the term,  life after death,  to ' a state in which a pre-existing sentient being comes back to life after his/her confirmed death, and retains substantial conscious memories of  events in their previous life.'  And so it seems to me, and, I would argue, that the idea or perception of 'life after death, does not make any sense beyond that; it being an idea or perception.  Death, after all, in its finality, means a state of 'the end of life.' the cessation life.'  The point at which a person's essential organs, heart, lung, liver, kidney and brains cease to function. Stop working and cannot be restarted.  As such, to speak of 'life after death' is not scientifically or biologically feasible or logical state.  Indeed, not only is there no physiological evidence of life, in the sense that we might observe the now deemed dead person inhaling and exhaling.  But, in the due course of time, whether by means of cre