http://i.imgur.com/EVH3MKn.jpg

Today I read two well delivered views of what may happen after we die. I recommend giving them a read.

The first by @sykochica looks at different religious views on the matter:
https://steemit.com/showerthoughts/@sykochica/what-happens-when-we-die

The second by @creatr looks at a more specific biblical scripture view:
https://steemit.com/life/@creatr/what-happens-when-we-die-my-response-to-sykochika

http://i.imgur.com/ksyjXB7.jpg

My question to both is: ***What does it matter?***

I don't say this lightly and @sykochica did mention

>The only way to not die is to not live...and personally I'd rather have lived and this makes mortality an acceptable consequence.

Firstly, if there is a God like figure that created all in the universe, where is the benefit in playing a reward game with his creations where they must pass a series of tests in order to ascend to a place where life is all good. Literally.

So then free choice comes into it where if one chooses not to follow the rules, they get sent at death to another place where all life is bad. Literally.

Yet, both of these places are creations of the creator. 

This leaves free choice for the human to save or imprison their future soul in the game of life yet the rules are conflicting at best. Not just across different religions but within the same. Much of the points system is left to human interpretation with each perspective of the same subject believing they are the ones to have the rules understood correctly.

Since there are so many variations in view, the actual chance of being in the group that has it completely right is small, if not impossible since the laws of a god are likely unknowable to the minds of a human.

http://i.imgur.com/6Q9ZqyH.jpg

Heaven would be the place of perfection and if we carry our past selves through and we made one error along the way, we are imperfect and having carried it through the pearly gates, tainted heaven. The chance of not making errors is slim. Therefore, holding a flawed soul is impossible in heaven which means it can't be carried forward into heaven.

However, at the pearly gates or equivalent, we could be cleansed of our sins and enter clean. But in this case, if sins can be cleansed in such a way, all sins can be cleansed similarly. Where is the cut off for non-cleansable sins?

And when God punishes the non-believers does this mean believers that got it completely wrong too? After all, they did believe but translated the rules poorly.

http://i.imgur.com/kKKbOdb.jpg

When it comes to karma, burdens and reincarnation, what is the point in being punished for past actions if the past actions are unremembered and the punishment unknown. If one comes back as a human, the punishment must be to repeat the game. So we are all punished souls returned to repeat. This raises questions about our ever climbing population.

If one comes back as an animal or other, where is the shame in that? Is that punishment or reward? An animal acts purely until the rule of man trains it to do otherwise and nature itself is gods most pure creation (evolution is always pure) so coming back as a leaf or a tree or any other living organism would be a reward of absolute innocence.

But then, if we carry karma or something with us in our soul and can come back as any living thing. That means all living things have a soul and therefore potentially makes eating quite awkward. Is that a punishable sin also?

The atheist view of fade to black doesn't completely sit well either. Many atheists are scientific minds and would regard energy as a constant. We are made up of said energy and all that was, is and will be. Which means regardless of the presence of consciousness, what makes us, us, travels on in the universe.

http://i.imgur.com/IDbuTPB.jpg

**My position.**

Which leads me finally to where I may stand (I say may as I might rethink this in 30 seconds and shift again). No matter what one believes, nature/god must have a singular plan, even a randomised one. We are all too similar to be divided by ideology and perspective. The difference that divides us from the tree (in our general opinion) is we have consciousness and the only thing that I can know, is that I am conscious. Yet the I may not be me at all since that is a representation, how I see myself. That means the real *I* is consciousness itself.

This also means that there is only one action I can make in regards to others and that is to take responsibility for myself and not worry about anyone else as I cannot ever know if they themselves are actually conscious. Therefore, I cannot concern myself with their journey at all. I will get to causing harm in a moment.

The responsibility I take is to find out what I *is* which solves both views concurrently. In order to find out what I is, all that is not, must be removed. All culture, ideals, all thoughts and habits. Anything that has been instilled into me from parents or friends. Any pains I associate with, any pleasures. I must peel away all of the layers until all that remains is me, which is likely my consciousness itself. This leaves me pure. Definitely heaven material if needs be as I have systematically removed all potential sins.

When it comes to my actions, I have to find a way to move seamlessly therefore at one with the universe and all within. This means removing all conflicts and answering all questions both internal and external. To do so takes a peaceful, curious and understanding approach. An approach that will aim to not create more conflicts.

This path protects the universal rights of all and allows them to take their journey also but questions the earthly laws that create division, inequality and persecution. It will conflict with the perspectives of many but in time can unify all to approach a singular.

It solves both general views for if we are indeed made in the image of god, what we find at our core is god itself. And, if we are indeed just a randomised event in time, what we find is the answer to all existence. 

The Truth is in the now and completely within therefore what happens in a moment, day, year or in death, is not it. Nor is any event in the past.

So, what does it matter?

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]

http://i.imgur.com/7eUC4Ys.jpg

It is interesting to think about though if it allows one to remove conflicts. Especially, if the conflict is worrying about the past and future while pretending to live in the present. I wrote this off the cuff so excuse the juttering prose, potential loose ends and unaddressed issues.

***Thank you @sykochica and @creatr for getting me thinking this morning.***