I guess there are some atheists out there who believe that people of faith are just gritting their teeth and tolerating this nauseating existence before going on to unending glory in the life to come.
But from my perspective as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth (who many people believe is God’s divine Son), atheists and Jesus followers have “life before death” as a common belief.
Let me make this as clear as possible: while life after death is of supreme importance, life BEFORE death is just as significant.
How can I write that? Consider these words of Jesus, recorded in one of the primary source documents about His life: “I came to give life—life that is full and good.”
He’s not talking about life after death; He’s talking about life RIGHT NOW.
So what does that mean?
1. Life becomes full and good because you’ve join a worldwide movement of believers. So you don’t have to make a go of it solo. You can attend a church, read about Jesus, regularly pray with (and for) others and support each other through good times and bad.
2. Life becomes full and good because you have a new power that helps you set aside the meaningless, superficial priorities of our culture and focus on what’s truly important.
So you are put on a path to stop worrying about whether you have a new car, the latest smartphone and the biggest flat-screen TV. You stop looking to your mate or your friends to give you happiness because you realize that happiness comes through following Jesus.
3. Life becomes full and good because you have a pathway to becoming truly generous. It’s no longer about getting a charitable tax break or seeking something in return when you give. It’s about being Jesus’s ambassador in a world most of us are willing to admit isn’t doing very well.
4. Life become full and good when you realize that the 70-odd years most of us spend on this planet is merely a blip in time compared to the eternity Jesus followers have in Heaven with Jesus.
The blessing of that perspective means we no longer have to put so much stake in every good or bad thing that happens to us in this life. We see the bigger picture and it changes everything.
5. Life become full and good because you realize that Jesus died to make up for all the wrong things you’ve done and the right things you’ve failed to do. So the burden of guilt and shame is lifted from you; God sees you as He sees His Son: perfect in every way.
(This blog highlights an amazing example of the power of God’s forgiveness: http://wp.me/p2wzRb-6K.)
Now I’m not going to sugar-coat this and claim followers of Jesus float on a cloud of bliss. Jesus tells His followers “In this world you will have troubles. But be brave! I have defeated the world!”
That means the world doesn’t automatically have the final say on your life. If you decide to follower Jesus, then HE has the final say. And that final say is glorious.
What do you think? Post your thoughts below and let’s have a conversation.
Frank's Cottage 
So does this mean that everyone on this planet who is not a Christian can never live a truly fulfilling and good life and is therefore effectively miserable and leading a meaningless existence?
Not at all. Where on earth did you get such a strange supposition? And what does your supposition have to do with the point of the graphic?
You give the impression that a fulfilled life can only be achieved once one becomes a Christian.
You ever write: ”Life becomes full and good because you’ve join a worldwide movement of believers. So you don’t have to make a go of it solo. You can attend a church, read the Bible, regularly pray with (and for) others and support each other through good times and bad.”
This suggests that one’s life is then less than good if one does not join this movement.
I note that you suggest join a chgurch ye you are always going in about being non religious and simply a follower of the character Jesus of Nazareth, (who all serious historians believe was simply a man)
Why do you believe you lifestyle choice offers a more fulfilling life than a non Christian?
If critics of Christianity want to get that impression, that’s not my problem.
And I don’t understand this reference to what “serious” historians believe. Who are these people and who declared them “serious”? And why does that matter in the context of this essay? I’m kinda puzzled. Can you enlighten me?
Sure. Be glad to enlighten you.
Of course, I’m sue you are aware my reply was a little tongue in cheek response to your continued use of the phrase”serious Christians”, which strikes me as somewhat of a slight on a billion or more self-identifying Christians who as a rule also consider Jesus was the son of your god, Yahweh.
Serious historians:
Any historian who does not have a religious agenda,( for example) all of whom generally dismiss miracle claims out of hand.
As an example, no historian worth his or her salt would consider Julius Caesar to be a god or to have been born of a virgin or any walked on water or other such nonsense, but will, of course, recognise that Caesar was a bona fide historical character – based on evidence.
Most serious historians treat Jesus of Nazareth in a similar light.
Edward Gibbon for one. Or right up to date, Professor Richard Carrier.
The context relates to your mention of Jesus and his utterances.
Ah, you mean the historians who are devoted to secular humanism and have little (if any) use for spirituality. Gotcha.
The same historians you used when you were at school Frank. The ones you learned from about such things as the Romans, other ancient civilizations or maybe the Industrial revolution.
People who, by and large, try to paint as accurate a picture of the past based on as much evidence as they are able to garner. And while they may be liable to a certain amount of speculation if the evidence is extremely thin on the ground, the last thing any genuine (modern)historian will do is give any credence to nonsensical miracle claims.
In other words, not usually the type of scholar to pander to faith based irrelevances that cannot be tested.
Certainly atheists will regard many things that are important to Jesus followers as “faith based irrelevances.” That’s not surprising. Sadly, we’ve gone as far as we can go with this topic, so the discussion is now finished.