Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[ToHoldNothing]

Then what are we talking about. Oblivion is our destiny.

Oblivion implies an end to all things, but simply because self is obliterated in some sense doesn't mean that the potential for new selves coming to be by other people being born doesn't exist. You keep conflating the self as we experience it with the self as we understand it phenomenologically.

What elements other than consecousness and sensations?

The elements of matter, of perceptions, of thoughts, those are the other three

I don't find it logical.

Depends on what kind of logical framework you're working with. And I said it was practical first and foremost, but I don't claim it isn't logically defensible. It can be, but that's another topic entirely, which we've been derailing this thread on for the last few pages

This is a new term for what survives--the fruits of my intentions. I have trouble understanding what that is.

It's like a web of cause and effect. Everything you do effects something else. It's not as if we're able to predict it so much as trust that if we follow basic principles with discernment of situations, that things will work out better than if we hadn't. A better way to formulate it would be that our actions with intention have effects in that they will have effects on other people's perceptions and thoughts and they will act in response to them, like cause and effect as I mentioned before.

This very foggy for me to get my mind around.

That's why it's a metaphor, like Jesus supposedly tries to communicate ideas about the fruit of the spirit through the idea of a fig tree bearing fruit out of season.

I guess actuality is good enough for me.

Then you seem to think that water only exists if it actually exists, instead of the distinct reality that water is all around us, even you yourself are composed of a great deal of water biologically and chemically speaking. To use the cliche I throw around a good amount, you miss the forest for the trees.

But you really don't believe they ever will be put back together do you?

Why would I believe they wouldn't come back together in some sense? A child is born with those skandhas brought back together, though this is not to say we can verify that it was my skandhas, but skandhas in general are important to understand the Buddhist metaphysics.

It sounds like memories and it brings us back to oblivoun does it not?

Our memories are just part of the skandhas, they aren't strictly extant on their own except as people remember them. We retain them only as we are conscious, thinking entities, not when we die. There's no reason to say that a dead person themself has memories, but people have memories of that person, which is what I've heard referred to as virtual immortality.

And you believe nothing survives.

Nothing of what we believe must be permanent. MAtter and energy survive, that's about as far as I can say things survive in a physical sense. The matter and energy of my body will dissolve, similar to the skandhas will after I die in the mental realm.

I

think this is illogical. Self had to exist in order to dissolve.

No one said self didn't exist at all, but it's temporary. It will fade away as the person does, like a flame when it flickers away, to use the flame metaphor again. Of course self exists empirically, but that doesn't mean it has an objective reality we can study as if it survives after the person dies. My personality and consciousness aren't retained in my dead body.

As I have said, the fact that chemicals remain when my body dies is of no comfort to me.

Problem is you are being possessive of your body when, strictly speaking, in both Buddhism and Christianity, no one really possesses their bodies. Albeit in Xianity, God possesses your body by virtue of being its creator, whereas in Buddhism, things are simply a part of nature and are not absolutely possesed by anyone. You'll 'possess' your body in some sense only as long as you survive. Not to say you'll keep it after you die, unless you believe like the Egyptians, for instance.

Perhaps you and the atheist are correct in that we all die and that is the end and there is nothing further and no meaning to it all. But perhaps it is not an inevitable destiny. Perhaps there is the possibility that we exist by design and for a purpose and perhaps there is a destiny of life and not death and of meaning and not meaninglessness.

That's not what the atheist or myself believes. The universe has no purpose, but that doesn't follow logically to our individual lives having no purpose. Just because we understand it over time in living our lives doesn't mean those purposes are less meaningful.

If we exist by design, one would argue, myself included, that our lives have no genuine purpose, but only the same purpose a computer has in that it cannot choose otherwise but to be used like a tool.

I appreciate life also and I look forward to the possibility of an abundant life.

One can appreciate life without looking forward to life everlasting.

Perhaps your are correct. My view is I do understand it is an attempt to avoid the reality of a belief in meaningless oblivion which is a bad thing compared to meaningful life.

'
You keep insisting atheists and Buddhists are nihilists, but that isn't the case. You're asserting things about what they believe without asking them. I don't presume to absolutely know what you believe, but as you tell me it sounds like you want some paradise utopia life after death. But Buddhists don't want oblivion, except that you read their language and beliefs in that way.

But your rebirth is not rebirth of self and my belief in rebirth is the rebirth of me, not someone else.

Rebirth in Buddhism in some sense is neither the belief that a wholly new person is reborn nor that the same person that previously died is reborn. It's a middle path between that. We are all connected, to use Mufasa's line, we are one.

But it is not them that has this chance but someone else. It seems to me you and I both make the assumption that reality is more than what we can perceive and that what we are unable to perceive is important. However you make the assumption it is not important to us but just important I guess to mankind or the universe in general; and I make the assumption whatever is out there that is important is important to me individually.

Everyone has the chance. It is what we do with our lives that makes the difference. You're thinking this is a sequence where only the later parts have the chance for enlightenment, but any life has the chance for enlightenment, which is what makes Buddhism so radical in its claims of equality of all humanity.
Your individual importance is only relevant in comparison to other individuals. You shouldn't be so selfish that only your individual values of importance matter. It's not only selfish, it's intellectually dishonest to discount other people's experiences.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well this brings something very significant to light! C doesn't really say this. Again, what it says is "it does not yet appear what we shall be." Now I'm not saying your preconception here isn't rooted in what many, even most C's profess, but this one small quote is enough to dismiss the notion as false nontheless. (For a Bible believer, that is)

So what survives your death? A new permutation of your personality and consciousness? That only makes vague sense in the notion of Christians being reborn. You're qualifying that the self that survives is not your 'old' self, but nonetheless you are attached to your self. You seem to miss this point entirely in my criticism.

Then this aspect of Buddhism prepares you to embrace the very core of the Gospel, which is also that we are not our own, but bought with a price. Common ground! Curious that you thought this would be divisive

No, we aren't bought like commodities. We are not possessed by something because they pay some debt. We are simply human beings in nature. We are no great entity's possession or playthings. We are ends in ourselves, not means to the end of glorifying some supposed god. You are reading a christian idea into a Buddhist tenet that I formulated in some sense to familiarize you with the notion. but it is not saying we are possessions of somethign greater than us, but that we are impermanent and transient entities, empty of completion in our attachments to things in themselves.

This speaks about things I'm not sure about. EO has the concept of "theosis" that directly refutes what you say here, and I'm pretty sure becomes complete in this life. Anyway, we are not G-d so making that distinction doesn't address the idea of dualism at all. This is where our "3rd arm" analogy came in.

You presume that we both just know what theosis is. the notion as I recall is becoming like God only in general attitude, but not in nature absolutely. Making the distinction is dualism in that you are distinct from God even if you are supposedly made in its image.

The 3rd arm analogy makes no sense, and that you continue with it without realizing I've dropped it is problematic.

But what exactly do these refer to? Obviously a Jewish upbringing would help towards the Biblical understanding, and for the most part what we're conscious of is the soul; emotions etc. But there are times we can become conscious of the spirit as well.

Soul might be said to be our experiential and conscious aspects of self and existence, whereas spirit is more unconscious and basic reflexes and reactions we have to existence, like sneezing or blinking.

Again, the only distinction that matters to our conversation here and recognizing G-d Himself as distinct from our own person, and the chief indicator is His eternal nature - EL. "Life" because we can tap into Him.

Eternity is part of the problem I see with Christianity and systems like it. Tapping into God sounds suspiciously pantheistic, so you'd need to qualify that. But as I said, you'd first have to qualify eternity in some sense that doesn't render the idea of that kind of existence terrible to even imagine, let alone actually 'live' in, if you can call it living anymore.

This soul / spirit distinction does NOT line up w/ our conscious vs sub-conscious. Meditation chiefly brings us in touch w/ our own sub-conscious which is highly valuable, but it is a typical human reaction to conclude that's all there is. I understand that in your experience that may be true, but my presence here speaks to the contrary. (As does the existence of CF. And the Church.)

Subconsciousness is not the original contrast to consciousness, but unconsciousness. Subconsciousness was posited by Freud and Jung, if I'm not mistaken and gets into another ballgame entirely.

Your presence, CF's presence and the Church's presence prove nothing substantial about whether your beliefs are true, but merely that you have allied yourselves together as a group that shares the same interpretations.

This proves nothing of the philosophical claims except when you make some attempt to philosophicaly defend them. This is what tends to divide religious studies and philosophy departments in that religion tends towards interpretative papers and philosophy tends towards substantive papers.

Well obviously this is a divergence between C and the belief systems you embrace more closely. C shows the distinctions btw the natural human spirit vs G-d, who is so Powerful that merely by drawing near Him our very spirits are changed

More jargon that presumes this is the only way to change. I can change from within without tapping into some super human entity like God. I can change my perspective by interacting with nature and with other humans.

While this is a totally unrelated tangent, I truly do not believe you are completely unfamiliar with the "design flaws" found by Ev proponents. These are ALL explained perfectly by a literal fall, which was solid Judeo-Christian doctrine long before we ever conceived of any such things as the current ID / Cr / Ev debates.

Those so called design flaws would only prove evolution more in that they had previous uses but no longer have those uses as we evolved new secondary uses for them. The fact that humans have flaws is not proof of intelligent design or any such thing, but only disproves the notion that God had any decent design to begin with. The notion of the fall is just more unfalsifiable claims that are more sufficiently explained by evolutionary theory in the sense of vestigial traits and such we retain from our shared common ancestors, such as that of ourselves and the great apes.


Try to look past this bias of seeing humanity as flawed and thus somehow less than ideal in our physicality as some spiritual indication and look at things more simply, which would involve at least putting the spiritual ideas aside temporarily.

There is mystery left unexplained in the Bible, that's for sure! If those instances are all you mean by "not completely unified," well then ok. But if one is seeing contradictions, that person shouldn't be sure they understand what any of it means yet. Those contradictions can be sorted out, and must be before the Bible becomes too terribly useful. I hold this to be "the Faith once delivered to the Saints." I've still never referred to that as "absolutely unified," nor what I argue that's an appropriate term.

There are contradictions that are not sufficiently explained in the bible still, unless you start reading your own distinctions into the book that don't necessarily exist in the author's intent. The notion of works and faith comes to mind as well as Jesus' genealogy, which isn't sufficiently explained with the distinction of each parents' genealogy, since they end on names that are not distinguished by surname in any sense.

Some contradictions are more archaic ideas that are in the bible, such as the understanding of the world as flat or as identifying bats in the same category as birds because they both have wings.

My only address of this is that modern C (including CF) emphasizes this entirely too much. Various revelations are intended to help us understand G-d Himself, not to divide.

Except God itself as the Trinitarian doctrine describes it , IS in fact divided in nature, even if they are unified in so called purpose and goals.

I don't think I'd posit that either / or. Right now it's raining, mixed with hail, and about 30 degrees. I could go out in a bathing suit like it was the middle of summer and convince myself it was, but I'd still get pelted and chilled. So our new analogy is "what is this hail stuff like?" (Hypothetically assuming for the moment it was something you'd never seen)

Then this is just getting into epistemology. I can verify the weather by experience, assuming I trust my senses, which I commonly do. Merely because we might be mistaken sometimes is no reason to start positing pure objective ideas like God as if they will solve the problem.

Again, understanding the answer to your main question of the thread in no way implies consent, acceptance, or anything else besides understanding the concept.

Fair enough. I can understand lots of religious concepts as a religion major, but this doesn't mean I have to assent to them. It's the interpretative/substantive distinction again.

C is transforming dormant potentiality into an actual difference in this world. This is what it means to "live a C life," but now we're WAY ahead of ourselves!
Does this language make it any easier for you to grasp?

Buddhist meditation can be said to change our potential for enlightenment into actual enlightenment and we start encountering the difficulty you had with salvation versus liberation.

Now THIS is a profitable new line of questioning!

Refuge fits in perfectly with Scriptural ideas, a la Psalm 91:


Attachment and cling are also acceptable, but notice it is not to ourselves. "He must increase, and I must decrease."

I wasn't unfamiliar with ideas of refuse in Christianity, I have read the text in some detail at times.

You have failed to explain why attachment and clinging, which are distinct in nature from taking refuge in something, are also good. taking refuge in something means you have tested it more generally. Attachment and clinging are based in particular experiences.

So to address your question of "why do I feel the need to?" The fact is this is not natural at all. And I don't like the idea of G-d "calling" some, while not calling others. Even the called don't naturally feel this, but are naturally much more inclined to respond to the flesh.

But then again, why are interested in Spirituality at all? So I say yes there is common ground ...

I didn't say it was natural to feel this, I'm saying there is some causation for your feeling this way, whether it's natural or insane, or something inbetween. This whole notion of the elect and non elect seems to be a matter of psychological disposition. Some people just aren't wired to feel God in any sense, and there are those that are more susceptible or even highly susceptible, we might say.

Spirituality in the general sense does not mean I have to posit supernatural things, but merely that I consider my experience of phenomena in relation to myself and my relationship to phenomena. Spirituality can be said to be very psychological in nature, or phenomenological to use terms more in my field.

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, here's something I came across in an entirely different sub-forum, that I think might point you back in the right direction towards understanding what EL is:

"the virtue of Faith is not something that we do, it is something that God infuses into us when we are Justified (at Baptism or restoring a loss of Faith through repentance). Faith, Hope and Charity are Theological Virtues -- their origin is God alone and their end is God alone."

Now obviously this does not apply to anything that the English language can mean by "love," but is a very specific type of Love; specifically, the Love from G-d Himself. (The same applies to Hope and Faith.) And a chief indicator of it is loving G-d and the things of G-d. Now I know you aren't willing to admit you don't have a relationship w/ G-d because you prefer the semantics of saying you don't think He exists, (which still says the same thing) but can you admit you don't love God?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

"the virtue of Faith is not something that we do, it is something that God infuses into us when we are Justified (at Baptism or restoring a loss of Faith through repentance). Faith, Hope and Charity are Theological Virtues -- their origin is God alone and their end is God alone."

I can understand this conceptually, but I cannot say I find a need to be justified through God, nor do I find faith or hope in the Christian sense virtues in much of any sense they convey. Charity/Love I can agree is a virtue, though not originating from God in any way that makes sense

Now obviously this does not apply to anything that the English language can mean by "love," but is a very specific type of Love; specifically, the Love from G-d Himself. (The same applies to Hope and Faith.) And a chief indicator of it is loving G-d and the things of G-d. Now I know you aren't willing to admit you don't have a relationship w/ G-d because you prefer the semantics of saying you don't think He exists, (which still says the same thing) but can you admit you don't love God?

Agape love, I'm not unfamiliar with the idea, though I think it's ideal, it's idealistic as well to think everyone can realize it.

You fail to qualify what God is, as well as what the things of God are.

Saying I don't have a relationship with God is obviously not the same as saying I don't think God exists. As I said before, I can believe in God as a concept, but this does not require me to have any relationship to it in the sense you're implying. At best, it's the relationship with have with ideas in general.

But I neither have a relationship with God nor do I love or hate God, because that would be as absurd as hating or loving any concept. If you believe God is real, that makes it qualitatively different in terms of talking about having a relationship or loving or hating anything, be it a person, a super person, or ideas in action, for an idea that crosses the boundary.

So yes, I can admit I don't love God, just as I can admit I don't hate it, and I can very well admit I don't have a relationship with God, because it would be as absurd as you saying you have a relationship or hate Odin or Krishna or The Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[razeontherock]

I can understand this conceptually, but I cannot say I find a need to be justified through God

It would be rather strange if you felt the need to be justified through G-d, considering you don't think He exists! Since you say you understand this conceptually, let me just make it really clear that the virtues of Faith Hope and Love (or whatever you might like to term them other than virtues) are part of EL in that they're not dependent upon us, nor are they temporal. A C can very well live w/o those, but they are not really experiencing EL to any degree. While we've touched on a great variety of theological concepts that I haven't been to keen on opining about, I do fathom partaking of the Divine Nature. It's rather like drinking water when you're thirsty And I do think all forms of human Spirituality at least have this same thing as a goal ...

nor do I find faith or hope in the Christian sense virtues in much of any sense they convey.

Perhaps we should explore what sense these 2 terms convey to you?

Charity/Love I can agree is a virtue, though not originating from God in any way that makes sense

Again, it would be strange if you thought Love originated from someone you don't think exists!

You fail to qualify what God is, as well as what the things of God are.

Well I guess this would be on topic, and will need to be addressed sooner or later. We've really never participated in a discussion where I spell out my concept of the essence of G-d?

Saying I don't have a relationship with God is obviously not the same as saying I don't think God exists. As I said before, I can believe in God as a concept, but this does not require me to have any relationship to it in the sense you're implying. At best, it's the relationship with have with ideas in general.

Hey, I can work with that.

But I neither have a relationship with God nor do I love or hate God, because that would be as absurd as hating or loving any concept.

To me music is a concept, and there is music that I both love and hate.

So yes, I can admit I don't love God, just as I can admit I don't hate it, and I can very well admit I don't have a relationship with God

Thanks

because it would be as absurd as you saying you have a relationship or hate Odin

Funny you mention that. I'm not about to say I know Odin exists, but I know some Asatru that definitely tap into Spiritual / supernatural power. And I would say it is NOT the Holy Spirit. (That doesn't mean it's Odin though)

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It would be rather strange if you felt the need to be justified through G-d, considering you don't think He exists! Since you say you understand this conceptually, let me just make it really clear that the virtues of Faith Hope and Love (or whatever you might like to term them other than virtues) are part of EL in that they're not dependent upon us, nor are they temporal. A C can very well live w/o those, but they are not really experiencing EL to any degree. While we've touched on a great variety of theological concepts that I haven't been to keen on opining about, I do fathom partaking of the Divine Nature. It's rather like drinking water when you're thirsty And I do think all forms of human Spirituality at least have this same thing as a goal ...

You seem to forget that I only don't think God exists in reality, but as a mental concept that people have. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to say I believe in numbers, since they are a similar thing, except they're far more useful. Trust, Optimism and Love are virtues, not necessarily faith and hope, particularly in the Christian sense.

So from what you told me, it seems you believe in Platonic forms of love, hope and faith that exist regardless of if we believe in them or not. Somewhat suspicious.

And drinking water because I'm thirsty isn't some spiritually enlightening thing except in the most basic sense that it comes naturally to us. It's mostly just a biological fact that we need water to survive.

Perhaps we should explore what sense these 2 terms convey to you?

Apart from Christianity or within Christianity? Because that's two different sets of answers. I'll start apart from Christianity. Faith can be better understood as trust in that we experience something and it has practical applications. I trust in logic and the like, not in that I worship them, like one would if they had faith in something, for a distinction. I trust logic and such axiomatically; they make life sensible. And hope can be understood as optimism, though not gullible optimism, but realistic consideration that things can be improved. Hope seems a bit too far in its scope, looking way into the future.

Again, it would be strange if you thought Love originated from someone you don't think exists!

Assuming you mean i don't think it exists actually, this doesn't make sense, yes. Love is love. God is God. Why confuse or equate the two, I continue to wonder.

Well I guess this would be on topic, and will need to be addressed sooner or later. We've really never participated in a discussion where I spell out my concept of the essence of G-d?

Well, it's one thing for you to speak about the essence of God, which seems theologically impossible, since that would imply you know God in itself. But if you were to tell me what you think is the revelation of God, that would be closer to the theologically accurate thing to do, since that's where you really get any significant knowledge of God. Though of course there's the argument that you can know some things about God through reason, but that always seems questionable when you make God thoroughly above reason and above any falsification.

Hey, I can work with that.

And just in case you didn't understand, I gave another explanation in this post, as you can see.

To me music is a concept, and there is music that I both love and hate.

Now we're getting into aesthetics more than general emotions in the sense we direct towards things. Though I suppose they could be equated, there is a difference between finding music that you don't really like but could listen to and music you outright hate. Music isn't really a concept though, since it has clear manifestations in the physical world, sounds. Our interpretation of it is what we call music, as well as our ordering and structuring of those sounds into notes, etc. But music isn't a concept so much as say...anything that is basically without any manifestation in the physical world, but yet still has relevance. Goodness or badness, for example.

Thanks

As long as we're clear that this means I also don't hate God, that's fine for now.

Funny you mention that. I'm not about to say I know Odin exists, but I know some Asatru that definitely tap into Spiritual / supernatural power. And I would say it is NOT the Holy Spirit. (That doesn't mean it's Odin though)

So basically you're surprisingly agnostic about whether we can know whether the spiritual powers non Christians tap into are actually knowable as any particular god or goddess or spirit? Odd, considering you think you can know with some certainty the identity of God, as if there aren't supposedly revelations from these lesser beings to humans that were written down. Or do you think they'd necessarily be imperfect because these are in reality fallen angels or demons or some such thing?

I'm not even gonna get into the notion of proving anything about supposed supernatural powers or events...

 

[elman]

As I have said, the fact that chemicals remain when my body dies is of no comfort to me.

Problem is you are being possessive of your body when, strictly speaking, in both Buddhism and Christianity, no one really possesses their bodies. Albeit in Xianity, God possesses your body by virtue of being its creator, whereas in Buddhism, things are simply a part of nature and are not absolutely possesed by anyone. You'll 'possess' your body in some sense only as long as you survive. Not to say you'll keep it after you die, unless you believe like the Egyptians, for instance.

I agree I possess my body in some sense as long as I am alive and no longer. That is why there being chemicals remaining after I die, because of my body desolving is of no comfort or any reason to discuss in any positive manner.

Perhaps you and the atheist are correct in that we all die and that is the end and there is nothing further and no meaning to it all. But perhaps it is not an inevitable destiny. Perhaps there is the possibility that we exist by design and for a purpose and perhaps there is a destiny of life and not death and of meaning and not meaninglessness.

That's not what the atheist or myself believes.

The universe has no purpose, but that doesn't follow logically to our individual lives having no purpose. Just because we understand it over time in living our lives doesn't mean those purposes are less meaningful.

No purpose for the universe is ultimately no purpose for those in the universe and no purpose is ultimately no meaning. After all humans are extinct, it will not matter to anyone we ever lived. No meaning is less meaningful than meaning. Life however carries the potential of meaning. If there is life, there can be meaning because meaning involves someone alive caring about somthing.

If we exist by design, one would argue, myself included, that our lives have no genuine purpose, but only the same purpose a computer has in that it cannot choose otherwise but to be used like a tool.

You could argue that but it would be a argument based on invalid assumptions. You would be assuming the Creator that did not give us free will. Some Christians have this error in their theology also. Yes that would take aways meaning. But having the ability to love others and the ability to become a loving being, would be meaningful, unlike simply being a robot of a computer.

I appreciate life also and I look forward to the possibility of an abundant life.

One can appreciate life without looking forward to life everlasting.

It would less appreciation of life and you indicated everlasting life is not to be desired--that is not much appreciation of life.

Perhaps your are correct. My view is I do understand it is an attempt to avoid the reality of a belief in meaningless oblivion which is a bad thing compared to meaningful life.

'
You keep insisting atheists and Buddhists are nihilists, but that isn't the case.

Yes it is the case in spite of your denials. You avoid it, or try to avoid it by saying meaningless things like we survive in some sense, but then you circle back to nothing surviving.

You're asserting things about what they believe without asking them.

I have ask many times and I have ask you, and I have received the same meaningless respones--but no responses that do not indicate both of you believe in the annihilation of self.

I don't presume to absolutely know what you believe, but as you tell me it sounds like you want some paradise utopia life after death. But Buddhists don't want oblivion, except that you read their language and beliefs in that way.

On close analization I believe there is no other way to read their language. Yes I look forward to a better life than this one. I find it unacceptable to assume no life is better than life, unles one is talking about a life dominated by suffering.

But your rebirth is not rebirth of self and my belief in rebirth is the rebirth of me, not someone else.

Rebirth in Buddhism in some sense is neither the belief that a wholly new person is reborn nor that the same person that previously died is reborn. It's a middle path between that. We are all connected, to use Mufasa's line, we are one.

No you say it is a middle path and I assume you believe it to be that, but there is no middle path between life and death of self; and Buddhism clearly teaches the non survival of self. Being connected to each other is not the same as being one. A drop of water merging with the ocean results in the ocean existing, but not the drop of water, in any recognizable or meaningful sense. The theology that everything is god results in nothing being God or another way of expressing it--no thing being God.

But it is not them that has this chance but someone else. It seems to me you and I both make the assumption that reality is more than what we can perceive and that what we are unable to perceive is important. However you make the assumption it is not important to us but just important I guess to mankind or the universe in general; and I make the assumption whatever is out there that is important is important to me individually.

Everyone has the chance. It is what we do with our lives that makes the difference.

I agree it is what we do with our lives that makes the difference, but if Buddhism or Atheism is correct there will come a time when there will be no one to whom it matters what I did with my life.

You're thinking this is a sequence where only the later parts have the chance for enlightenment, but any life has the chance for enlightenment, which is what makes Buddhism so radical in its claims of equality of all humanity.

Enlightenment is Self gone--no more self in existence.

Your individual importance is only relevant in comparison to other individuals. You shouldn't be so selfish that only your individual values of importance matter. It's not only selfish, it's intellectually dishonest to discount other people's experiences.

First of all it is not selfish to desire abundant life over oblivion. Secondly my belief is such that one only achieves life after death if we love others; which is not discounting other people's experiences in any sense. I wish for you and other people an abundant existence, both here and now and forever. It is you that is comfortable with everyone being obliterated and ultimatly it mattering to no one that they ever existed.
__________________

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I agree I possess my body in some sense as long as I am alive and no longer. That is why there being chemicals remaining after I die, because of my body desolving is of no comfort or any reason to discuss in any positive manner.

I didn't say we should discuss it in a purely positive manner, because at that point, you don't exist any more, so you wouldn't technically get comfort or discomfort from it; you'd already have ceased to be in any experiential sense.

No purpose for the universe is ultimately no purpose for those in the universe and no purpose is ultimately no meaning. After all humans are extinct, it will not matter to anyone we ever lived. No meaning is less meaningful than meaning. Life however carries the potential of meaning. If there is life, there can be meaning because meaning involves someone alive caring about somthing.

Just because the universe has no purpose doesn't mean that humans don't have the basic capacity to make value judgments and find meaning in living life

Meaning is contingent on the individual, but that doesn't mean that the simple existence of death means that there ceases to be meaning for still living individuals is absurd. I don't lose my meaning in life that I seek out just because my cat dies, or because anyone near me dies. No more than my future marriage to a woman will be negated just because two women or two men happen to also get the title of marriage.

You could argue that but it would be a argument based on invalid assumptions. You would be assuming the Creator that did not give us free will. Some Christians have this error in their theology also. Yes that would take aways meaning. But having the ability to love others and the ability to become a loving being, would be meaningful, unlike simply being a robot of a computer.

Part of it depends on the distinction between free will and volition. Volition would be admitted by even Calvinists, probably, but not free will in the sense of being able to choose your spiritual fate.Problem with your claim is that love is not by necessity required to be understood as some design we have, but simply a natural response and result of evolution over time.

It would less appreciation of life and you indicated everlasting life is not to be desired--that is not much appreciation of life.

You're making a mistaken claim in saying we have to believe life is eternal in some sense in order to value it. I can just as much value life, if not moreso, because I realize that life is fleeting and when we die that's essentially it. You don't value something more because it's permanent, you value it because it's impermanent. It really doesn't work the other way, unless you see a value in clinging and attachment, which I don't.

Yes it is the case in spite of your denials. You avoid it, or try to avoid it by saying meaningless things like we survive in some sense, but then you circle back to nothing surviving.

We survive in memories, we don't survive in experience ourselves. The matter and energy that composed our body and mind in some sense survive, but not our mind as we experience it. I think this is qualification enough that I am not being contradictory.

You,on the other hand, are asserting something without any support or proof of those assertions. You've failed to qualify what atheism is, what Buddhism is, and what nihilism is. And even if you qualified nihilism, you continually fail to grasp the basics of atheism or Buddhism because you read them through this ridiculous Christian-centric filter. You can't try to understand them from the perspective of an atheist or Buddhist, you insist on reading your own Christian preconceptions into them, which is intellectually dishonest.

I have ask many times and I have ask you, and I have received the same meaningless respones--but no responses that do not indicate both of you believe in the annihilation of self.

Buddhists and atheists would differ in some sense, albeit they'd probably agree on a great deal of thigns regardless. At best,they'd disagree about the nature of karma or its relevance to ethics. But beyond that, they agree that our self is annihilated. But that in NO way implies that they believe in the annihilation of everything,because it doesn't follow logically anyway. Just because I happen to die in terms of body and self in terms of experience doesn't mean my surviving family will just disappear. It doesn't work that way.

On close analization I believe there is no other way to read their language. Yes I look forward to a better life than this one. I find it unacceptable to assume no life is better than life, unles one is talking about a life dominated by suffering.

I never said a lack of life is better than life. What makes a better life is how you personally approach life. Life can be crappy or awesome, but it's not because it is crappy or awesome in and of itself; it's simply benign. Tsunamis and earthquakes happen, childbirth and recovery from disease happen, but these don't make the universe a good or bad thing, because people can be so pessimistic that they even view childbirth and recovery from disease as bad things. But you can equally and more justifiably view them as good things. And even someone dying can be seen as a good thing in that they are relieved from future suffering, but also in that their friends and family can find closure in coming to accept that person's death.

The problem here is that you're reading things into it that betray your own Christian preconceptions, instead of trying to understand Buddhist language in a Buddhist context.

No you say it is a middle path and I assume you believe it to be that, but there is no middle path between life and death of self; and Buddhism clearly teaches the non survival of self. Being connected to each other is not the same as being one. A drop of water merging with the ocean results in the ocean existing, but not the drop of water, in any recognizable or meaningful sense. The theology that everything is god results in nothing being God or another way of expressing it--no thing being God.

buddhism teaches the impermanence of the self, but not the non survival of the self in general. We clearly experience our self, so it does survive as long as we're alive. But just because we die does not mean self in general ceases to be. Our own individual self, perhaps, but not self in general as a phenomenological experience of all humans.

And pantheism doesn't result in nothing being God, because that would be a contradiction in terms. Just because they say everything is God, it does not follow that nothing is God, but no thing being God is not the same as nothing being God. You're creating an artificial idea of what God must be in order to discredit pantheism

I agree it is what we do with our lives that makes the difference, but if Buddhism or Atheism is correct there will come a time when there will be no one to whom it matters what I did with my life.

All the more reason to focus on the now instead of worrying about the future. If you keep looking too far ahead you're going to worry yourself to no end and get entangledin speculation and pessimism. It's no wonder you read all this into it, because you're still stuck in the notion that we have to have some prescribed end for things, when that doesn't have to be the case for life to be meaningful. Meaning is found in the present.

Enlightenment is Self gone--no more self in existence.

No more individual self in existence, but not a negation of every self in existence. You're making a large leap in logic. Just because the Buddha's self disappeared after his death does not mean everyone's self disappeared. But even if all self disappeared, that would not mean life was pointless, but only that life went through its natural course.

First of all it is not selfish to desire abundant life over oblivion. Secondly my belief is such that one only achieves life after death if we love others; which is not discounting other people's experiences in any sense. I wish for you and other people an abundant existence, both here and now and forever. It is you that is comfortable with everyone being obliterated and ultimatly it mattering to no one that they ever existed.

That's ridiculous. Of course I believe it matters to people that other people die. It mattered to my mother when our tabby died, it mattered to me when my friend's stepfather died. Just because I believe that they cease to existin some sense does not mean I should say that they cease to exist in people's memories. My friend and her family still miss that man who might as well have been her real father from an outsider perspective. My mom still misses that cat that purred so loud but was usually so quiet in general, very rarely peeping except for getting slight attention.

And your belief that loving others is the only way to get eternal life is absurd. Just because I happen to love people doesn't mean they'll keep existing as full people when they die. You can't prove or even demonstrate why this must be the case, except that you seem to want everything to stay the same in some sense, which is just more clinging. People die and the response you have reflects your perspective on your valuation of life. You can value life too much, that much can be proven relatively easily. But you can deny it all you want and I can't convince you otherwise.

Like I said above, when something or someone dies, it doesn't mean a Buddhist believes everything about them isobliterated. Neither the matter and energy that composed them nor the memories people have of them are gone. Simply their self in the experiential sense is gone. That's a very simple explanation, but you insist on complicating it and exacerbating it to extend to saying everything dies.

Buddhism in the general sense can't say that in good conscience, because even if every self dissolves, matter and energy still exist. Of course this is different than the issue of meaning in life, but that's another topic entirely that we keep derailing this thread in doing so.

 

[razeontherock]

You seem to forget that I only don't think God exists in reality, but as a mental concept that people have.

Why would it seem that way to you? It's a really simple concept.

So from what you told me, it seems you believe in Platonic forms of love, hope and faith that exist regardless of if we believe in them or not. Somewhat suspicious.

I have no idea of what you're suspecting

And drinking water because I'm thirsty isn't some spiritually enlightening thing except in the most basic sense that it comes naturally to us. It's mostly just a biological fact that we need water to survive.

Ok this tells me what I said about partaking of the Divine Nature said nothing to you.

Apart from Christianity or within Christianity? Because that's two different sets of answers. I'll start apart from Christianity.

I don't see you go on to what you perceive Faith and Hope mean within C, but I tell you the way you describe Faith applies to C well enough and needs no modification. Here it is to preserve context:

Faith can be better understood as trust in that we experience something and it has practical applications. I trust in logic and the like, not in that I worship them, like one would if they had faith in something, for a distinction. I trust logic and such axiomatically; they make life sensible. And hope can be understood as optimism, though not gullible optimism, but realistic consideration that things can be improved. Hope seems a bit too far in its scope, looking way into the future.

C's don't worship Faith. I can't tell what you're saying about hope. Are you saying you have none? I would say most C's I've spoken with IRL don't fathom Hope.

Love is love. God is God. Why confuse or equate the two, I continue to wonder.

God is Love! Just so there's no confusion.

Well, it's one thing for you to speak about the essence of God, which seems theologically impossible, since that would imply you know God in itself.

No need to pussyfoot around with puny little implications; I've said repeatedly I KNOW G-d Himself. Just in this one thread, too.

But if you were to tell me what you think is the revelation of God, that would be closer to the theologically accurate thing to do, since that's where you really get any significant knowledge of God.

"The" revelation? A very problematic combination of words ...

Music isn't really a concept though, since it has clear manifestations in the physical world, sounds. Our interpretation of it is what we call music, as well as our ordering and structuring of those sounds into notes, etc. But music isn't a concept so much as say...anything that is basically without any manifestation in the physical world, but yet still has relevance. Goodness or badness, for example.

You're inconsistent with your terms: good and bad are THE clearest manifestations, and it's more evident in music than anything else. At least to me.

So basically you're surprisingly agnostic about whether we can know whether the spiritual powers non Christians tap into are actually knowable as any particular god or goddess or spirit? Odd, considering you think you can know with some certainty the identity of God, as if there aren't supposedly revelations from these lesser beings to humans that were written down.

I don't see why you have difficulty grasping that I know G-d, but not Odin nor other entities. Anyway, very little of this promotes a working definition of EL which is what we're presumably trying to do, so we can then move on to why "it" might be desirable.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Why would it seem that way to you? It's a really simple concept.

A thousand times no, God is anything but simple conceptually except in the minds of people who have selectively eliminated other concepts of God as valid in their minds. But if you look at all the concepts of God as a singular entity, you have contradictions and conflicts all over the place. God is anything but a simple concept to wrap your head around.

I have no idea of what you're suspecting

That you believe in Plato's ideas instead of Christian ones, which honestly don't really speak about ideal forms at all. It's like you fill in the blanks of Christian philosophy with Greek philosophy. Just kind of funny

Ok this tells me what I said about partaking of the Divine Nature said nothing to you.

The Divine Nature is not demonstrably something we need to feel fulfilled. Water, on the other hand, is.

I don't see you go on to what you perceive Faith and Hope mean within C, but I tell you the way you describe Faith applies to C well enough and needs no modification.

C's don't worship Faith. I can't tell what you're saying about hope. Are you saying you have none? I would say most C's I've spoken with IRL don't fathom Hope.

I never said you worshipped faith, but it is your psychosis of fixation and connection of unrelated events together to make some sense. And I have no hope in the sense of unrealistic optimism and future ideas. I have optimism, which can be altered with events as they progress.

God is Love! Just so there's no confusion.

Then logically, love is God, so anytime I love someone, I am utilizing God. The logic falls apart unless you qualify the statement further.

No need to pussyfoot around with puny little implications; I've said repeatedly I KNOW G-d Himself. Just in this one thread, too.

You know nothing, you only believe what you feel are revelations. That is not the same thing as knowing gravity or chemistry as facts. Faith based 'knowledge' is essentially beliefs cloaked in some philosophical veil to seem more authoritative than they really are.

"The" revelation? A very problematic combination of words ...

A revelation can be a better qualification, fair enough. The point would still stand if you altered the words ever so slightly

You're inconsistent with your terms: good and bad are THE clearest manifestations, and it's more evident in music than anything else. At least to me.

Good and bad are only clear when you view the world in black and white terms with no shades of gray. And not everyone likes music to the same degree. Some people are even tone deaf or literally deaf, so they can no longer appreciate music the same way as people who can hear.

I don't see why you have difficulty grasping that I know G-d, but not Odin nor other entities. Anyway, very little of this promotes a working definition of EL which is what we're presumably trying to do, so we can then move on to why "it" might be desirable.

If you'd admit that you don't truly know in the classic sense of that word, then the conversation could really move on. You have a subjective experience and by your faith in what that experience means, you develop an answer to what that experience means and where it comes from.

You make connections to this source by your supposed direct revelations and then say that this constitutes knowledge, when it sounds no different than if I was making up my own universe and was able to imagine what people in the universe would say about the universe and pieced it together that way. You're the author of your own faith, personalized and everything by your disposition.

 

[razeontherock]

A thousand times no, God is anything but simple

This completely ignores the context in which I said what I said that you thought you were responding to. In other words, this isn't responsive in the least.

That you believe in Plato's ideas instead of Christian ones, which honestly don't really speak about ideal forms at all. It's like you fill in the blanks of Christian philosophy with Greek philosophy. Just kind of funny

This is nothing more than misunderstanding on your part, and it's due to closure. Following that path we are moving farther away from understanding, which makes me wonder what it is you truly seek.

The Divine Nature is not demonstrably something we need to feel fulfilled. Water, on the other hand, is.

1) Feeling fulfilled is not the goal.

2) Feelings are almost completely irrelevant.

3) The Holy Spirit changes this so that what I was talking about is actually more necessary than food and water.

I never said you worshipped faith, but it is your psychosis of fixation and connection of unrelated events together to make some sense.

My sister is one of the top PhD's in psychology and realizes she is not qualified to make such a diagnosis online like you just did. You might take a hint there. Last warning - this is blatant flaming.

Again you are grasping at straws to arrive at conclusions w/ no basis; "closure."

Then logically, love is God, so anytime I love someone, I am utilizing God. The logic falls apart unless you qualify the statement further.

It already has been qualified, and WAY further than the way you just used it. This is why you should FOCUS; your memory simply isn't good enough to keep track of all the tangents you continually raise.

The singular focus is to be:

Why is EL desirable? (Also why is immortality desirable, but I haven't even begun to broach that 1/2 of your original question)

Before that can be addressed, you have to have a working knowledge of what EL is, within C. This would concentrate primarily on non-temporal things including Love, which you should be able to do readily, simply by virtue of dealing with them as CONCEPTS.

Love (w/ a capital l) is identifiable primarily by Love for G-d Himself, and the things of G-d. Not puppies, bubble gum and your hot girlfriend.

You know nothing, you only believe what you feel are revelations. That is not the same thing as knowing gravity or chemistry as facts. Faith based 'knowledge' is essentially beliefs cloaked in some philosophical veil to seem more authoritative than they really are.

You are completely talking through your hat.

Good and bad are only clear when you view the world in black and white terms with no shades of gray.

Not true at all, unless you are trying to lump everything into those 2 categories. There are many things we can clearly define as either one, from the human POV.

If you'd admit that you don't truly know in the classic sense of that word, then the conversation could really move on. You have a subjective experience and by your faith in what that experience means, you develop an answer to what that experience means and where it comes from.

Again you're talking through your hat. You could say that by your experience or rather lack thereof, you see no way of knowing. Plugging that into the rest of your statement could render it true, but you really should resist your urge to speak on my behalf. I don't see why you find that so tempting?

Your statement here reads like what a good many torturers have said to C's when trying to get them to renounce their Faith.

You make connections to this source by your supposed direct revelations and then say that this constitutes knowledge, when it sounds no different than if I was making up my own universe and was able to imagine what people in the universe would say about the universe and pieced it together that way. You're the author of your own faith, personalized and everything by your disposition.

Your false accusations really put you on dangerous ground! Other than that this would be really comical. If anything were "personalized by my disposition," I assure you things would be VERY different!!

Feel free to address the thread topic any time.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This completely ignores the context in which I said what I said that you thought you were responding to. In other words, this isn't responsive in the least.

What did you think I was responding to? You seemed to say that God was a simple mental concept, which I contested was not. How is this complex?

This is nothing more than misunderstanding on your part, and it's due to closure. Following that path we are moving farther away from understanding, which makes me wonder what it is you truly seek.

If you would be clear in what you are saying, I wouldn't misunderstand and appropriate ideas that conform to what you appear to be saying into your philosophy and beliefs.

1) Feeling fulfilled is not the goal.

2) Feelings are almost completely irrelevant.

3) The Holy Spirit changes this so that what I was talking about is actually more necessary than food and water.

1)Why is feeling fulfilled not the goal? Fulfillment is where we derive purpose and meaning, so for you to say you have found any meaning in life and yet are not fulfilled seems a contradiction in terms.

2) Feelings are a complement to our intellect. Not to say they are less or more, but a complement, as shadow complements light, etc.

3) This is a matter of perspective. Whatever you intuit to be more necessary than food and water is not necessarily what others would experience to be so

My sister is one of the top PhD's in psychology and realizes she is not qualified to make such a diagnosis online like you just did. You might take a hint there. Last warning - this is blatant flaming.

Again you are grasping at straws to arrive at conclusions w/ no basis; "closure."

By no means am I presuming I have reached closure on what your beliefs are. I'm simply tentatively analyzing and reaching provisional conclusions about what your beliefs appear to be. If you choose not to aid in qualification and clarification, then you really have no one else but yourself to blame in the misunderstandings people have in communications with you.

It already has been qualified, and WAY further than the way you just used it. This is why you should FOCUS; your memory simply isn't good enough to keep track of all the tangents you continually raise.

With such a thing as your statement, God is love, it would behoove you to qualify WHY the converse of the statement does not hold. Otherwise people will basically idolize love and justify it by saying that it logically holds in their initial interpretation.

The singular focus is to be:

Why is EL desirable? (Also why is immortality desirable, but I haven't even begun to broach that 1/2 of your original question)

Before that can be addressed, you have to have a working knowledge of what EL is, within C. This would concentrate primarily on non-temporal things including Love, which you should be able to do readily, simply by virtue of dealing with them as CONCEPTS.

Love (w/ a capital l) is identifiable primarily by Love for G-d Himself, and the things of G-d. Not puppies, bubble gum and your hot girlfriend.

Love in the sense of agape is, indeed, distinguished philosophically and qualitatively from eros or philia or storge love, for the 3 other commonly formulated types of love. How does this agape love relate to this supposed EL that you're trying to explain?

Not to mention agape love doesn't have to include God, but I suppose for the sake of discussion I should also ask what you mean by God itself and the things thereof. It seems questionable to love God itself except as you hope for it, and the thigns of God will need to be qualified, otherwise you could be said to love everything as being created by God and consider it agape love, which seems flatly contradictory on its face.

You are completely talking through your hat.

Am I? You don't seem to understand a basic distinction between strongly held beliefs and convictions and justified knowledge that conforms with facts independent of individual biases. You cannot philosophically claim with any honesty that you know anything about God, except in the loosest sense of holding a strong belief. Your beliefs are not shared by everyone, nor are they even agreed upon fully in terms of other people that share a basic metaphysical thesis of God's existence (e.g. Muslims)

Not true at all, unless you are trying to lump everything into those 2 categories. There are many things we can clearly define as either one, from the human POV.

I never said we couldn't understand things in other categories, like beautiful/ugly or beneficial/useless. At least you appear to admit there are grey areas or at least a perspective centered origin to our definitions of those words good/bad

Again you're talking through your hat. You could say that by your experience or rather lack thereof, you see no way of knowing. Plugging that into the rest of your statement could render it true, but you really should resist your urge to speak on my behalf. I don't see why you find that so tempting?

Because you seem to want to communicate some ideas to me and yet all you seem to do is speak empty nothings that mean absolutely nothing to someone outside your tiny bubble of God experience and such. In that way, you're just stifling the conversation's progress by refusing to get outside of that bubble in any significant fashion.

Your statement here reads like what a good many torturers have said to C's when trying to get them to renounce their Faith.

I'm flattered, but I have no reason to torture you into renouncing anything. David Silverman, present president of American Atheists, is in a mixed marriage with his wife, who happens to still be a religious Jew. But he also says that he will not attempt to convert her, in opposition to her requests occasionally. He wants her to change her mind on her own. Similarly, I'd prefer you to change your beliefs, in whatever way, on your own

Your false accusations really put you on dangerous ground! Other than that this would be really comical. If anything were "personalized by my disposition," I assure you things would be VERY different!!

You seem to want to deny that your faith has personal aspects to it that are molded by your general disposition. You can't seriously say you're identical to other Christians on this board except in sharing basic beliefs. You don't have the same experience, so you are already qualitatively different from other Christians by nature of that perspective and context based observation.

Feel free to address the thread topic any time.

If you'd focus yourself as much as you try to focus me, perhaps we'd be making more progress. Basic topic in sequence seems to be "What is love?" followed by "What is Eternal Life/immortality in Christianity?" as it relates to the first question, with possible questions in between.

 

[Sabbath-Keeper777]

Who wants to die? I sure don't. Why, I haven't even gotten to live. If this sinful world ruled by satan is what you call life, I'm holding out hope for something much better.

 

[elman]

No purpose for the universe is ultimately no purpose for those in the universe and no purpose is ultimately no meaning. After all humans are extinct, it will not matter to anyone we ever lived. No meaning is less meaningful than meaning. Life however carries the potential of meaning. If there is life, there can be meaning because meaning involves someone alive caring about somthing.

Just because the universe has no purpose doesn't mean that humans don't have the basic capacity to make value judgments and find meaning in living life

What meaning will still be there after humans are extinct?

Meaning is contingent on the individual, but that doesn't mean that the simple existence of death means that there ceases to be meaning for still living individuals is absurd.

I did not say we could not have meaning if we are alive. In fact my point was that we can. My point was we cannot have meaning if we are dead.

You could argue that but it would be a argument based on invalid assumptions. You would be assuming the Creator that did not give us free will. Some Christians have this error in their theology also. Yes that would take aways meaning. But having the ability to love others and the ability to become a loving being, would be meaningful, unlike simply being a robot of a computer.

Part of it depends on the distinction between free will and volition. Volition would be admitted by even Calvinists, probably, but not free will in the sense of being able to choose your spiritual fate. Problem with your claim is that love is not by necessity required to be understood as some design we have, but simply a natural response and result of evolution over time.

You assume love with no intelligence behind it just as you assume life with no intelligence behind. It is only an assumption. Can we love without free will? I don't think so. Love is acting on behalf of another by choice, at least in the Christian context.

It would be less appreciation of life and you indicated everlasting life is not to be desired--that is not much appreciation of life.

You're making a mistaken claim in saying we have to believe life is eternal in some sense in order to value it.

I did not claim that.

I can just as much value life, if not moreso, because I realize that life is fleeting and when we die that's essentially it. You don't value something more because it's permanent, you value it because it's impermanent. It really doesn't work the other way, unless you see a value in clinging and attachment, which I don't.

I understand life on this earth in this realm is limited. Your argument is not applicable to me.

Yes it is the case in spite of your denials. You avoid it, or try to avoid it by saying meaningless things like we survive in some sense, but then you circle back to nothing surviving.

We survive in memories, we don't survive in experience ourselves.

No our memories which is part of our self, do not survive when self dies, according to your view. They do in my view.

The matter and energy that composed our body and mind in some sense survive, but not our mind as we experience it. I think this is qualification enough that I am not being contradictory.

I think you are saying something that has no meaning.

You,on the other hand, are asserting something without any support or proof of those assertions. You've failed to qualify what atheism is, what Buddhism is, and what nihilism is. And even if you qualified nihilism, you continually fail to grasp the basics of atheism or Buddhism because you read them through this ridiculous Christian-centric filter. You can't try to understand them from the perspective of an atheist or Buddhist, you insist on reading your own Christian preconceptions into them, which is intellectually dishonest.

I think the only intellectual dishonesty here is your claim that we survive in some sense when you in fact do not believe anything survives. That has nothing to do with Christian preconceptions and everything to do with trying to understand the meaning fo the words you use. It is like trying to understand square circle. It sounds like something is being said when in fact nothing is being said.

I have ask many times and I have ask you, and I have received the same meaningless respones--but no responses that do not indicate both of you believe in the annihilation of self.

Buddhists and atheists would differ in some sense, albeit they'd probably agree on a great deal of thigns regardless. At best,they'd disagree about the nature of karma or its relevance to ethics. But beyond that, they agree that our self is annihilated. But that in NO way implies that they believe in the annihilation of everything,because it doesn't follow logically anyway. Just because I happen to die in terms of body and self in terms of experience doesn't mean my surviving family will just disappear. It doesn't work that way.

Where did the surviving family come into the issue. That was never what I was discussing. You said above: "they agree that our self is annihilated." That has always been my point and that point is not effected in anyway if my cat survives me.

On close analization I believe there is no other way to read their language. Yes I look forward to a better life than this one. I find it unacceptable to assume no life is better than life, unles one is talking about a life dominated by suffering.

I never said a lack of life is better than life.

Yes that is exactly what you have said.

No you say it is a middle path and I assume you believe it to be that, but there is no middle path between life and death of self; and Buddhism clearly teaches the non survival of self. Being connected to each other is not the same as being one. A drop of water merging with the ocean results in the ocean existing, but not the drop of water, in any recognizable or meaningful sense. The theology that everything is god results in nothing being God or another way of expressing it--no thing being God.

buddhism teaches the impermanence of the self, but not the non survival of the self in general.

As I just said, the survival of self in general, but not in particular, is not the survival of self.

We clearly experience our self, so it does survive as long as we're alive. But just because we die does not mean self in general ceases to be.

Yes it does. Self in general is like square circle--meaningless. Self in particular is self. Self in general is no self.

And pantheism doesn't result in nothing being God, because that would be a contradiction in terms. Just because they say everything is God, it does not follow that nothing is God, but no thing being God is not the same as nothing being God. You're creating an artificial idea of what God must be in order to discredit pantheism

Actually I am not. If God is the same as everything, the word God becomes meaningless. No thing being God is the same as nothing being God.

I agree it is what we do with our lives that makes the difference, but if Buddhism or Atheism is correct there will come a time when there will be no one to whom it matters what I did with my life.

All the more reason to focus on the now instead of worrying about the future. If you keep looking too far ahead you're going to worry yourself to no end and get entangledin speculation and pessimism.

Yes assuming a destiny of obllivion is pessimism, but that is not true of assuming a destiny of life.

It's no wonder you read all this into it, because you're still stuck in the notion that we have to have some prescribed end for things, when that doesn't have to be the case for life to be meaningful. Meaning is found in the present.

The present is already the past. You did not address how life is meaningful when there is no life. I never said life was meaningless. I said lack of life is what is meaningless.

Enlightenment is Self gone--no more self in existence.

No more individual self in existence, but not a negation of every self in existence.

Meaningless--the self that is gone is the point, not the self that is not yet gone.

You're making a large leap in logic. Just because the Buddha's self disappeared after his death does not mean everyone's self disappeared.

You are jumping all over the place. I never said my cat would not miss me when I am gone, but my cat missing me, was never the point we were discussing; and it has absolutly nothing to do with what we have been discussing.

But even if all self disappeared, that would not mean life was pointless, but only that life went through its natural course.

Yes it would as meaningful as a rock having rolled down a mountain millions of years ago--the same meaning because it went through its natural course.

First of all it is not selfish to desire abundant life over oblivion. Secondly my belief is such that one only achieves life after death if we love others; which is not discounting other people's experiences in any sense. I wish for you and other people an abundant existence, both here and now and forever. It is you that is comfortable with everyone being obliterated and ultimatly it mattering to no one that they ever existed.

That's ridiculous. Of course I believe it matters to people that other people die. It mattered to my mother when our tabby died, it mattered to me when my friend's stepfather died. Just because I believe that they cease to existin some sense does not mean I should say that they cease to exist in people's memories. My friend and her family still miss that man who might as well have been her real father from an outsider perspective. My mom still misses that cat that purred so loud but was usually so quiet in general, very rarely peeping except for getting slight attention.

This response was as if you did not read what I said. It has no relationship or connection to what I said.

And your belief that loving others is the only way to get eternal life is absurd. Just because I happen to love people doesn't mean they'll keep existing as full people when they die.

Look closely at what I said. Do you see anywhere in there about the ones we love being the ones that have hope of eternal life?

You can't prove or even demonstrate why this must be the case, except that you seem to want everything to stay the same in some sense, which is just more clinging.

Nothing I said deserves any negative description of clinging.

People die and the response you have reflects your perspective on your valuation of life. You can value life too much, that much can be proven relatively easily.

Nothing I said gives you any evidence to judge that I value life too much. I do value it more than death. I guess you would say that is valuing life too much.

Like I said above, when something or someone dies, it doesn't mean a Buddhist believes everything about them isobliterated. Neither the matter and energy that composed them nor the memories people have of them are gone. Simply their self in the experiential sense is gone. That's a very simple explanation, but you insist on complicating it and exacerbating it to extend to saying everything dies.

I am the one that sees the simple result of the Buddhist belief that the self is obliterated. You try to complicate it into something about the self still not being gone, although when pressed you will say the same as I--the self is gone.

Buddhism in the general sense can't say that in good conscience, because even if every self dissolves, matter and energy still exist.

And so do the rocks which means nothing. The rocks continuing to be here after I die does not mean I did not die.

Of course this is different than the issue of meaning in life, but that's another topic entirely that we keep derailing this thread in doing so.

I think our discussion has been exactly on point.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Who wants to die? I sure don't. Why, I haven't even gotten to live. If this sinful world ruled by satan is what you call life, I'm holding out hope for something much better.

That's where the problem seems to exist; you have unrealistic expectations for this world, so of course you'll be disappointed. If you have realistic and falsifiable perceptions and ideas about the world, perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to want to survive forever in some way. The world is what you make of it, one might say.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

What meaning will still be there after humans are extinct?

None, because humans are where meaning comes from. This is part of the problem.

I did not say we could not have meaning if we are alive. In fact my point was that we can. My point was we cannot have meaning if we are dead.

I didn't deny that.

You assume love with no intelligence behind it just as you assume life with no intelligence behind. It is only an assumption. Can we love without free will? I don't think so. Love is acting on behalf of another by choice, at least in the Christian context.

We can love without free will in the extended sense, but we cannot love without volition, that much is clear.

I did not claim that.

Then what did you claim?

I understand life on this earth in this realm is limited. Your argument is not applicable to me.

But you don't understanding life as limited in general, so it does still apply in part.

No our memories which is part of our self, do not survive when self dies, according to your view. They do in my view.

I never said our memories survive, but those of others.

I think the only intellectual dishonesty here is your claim that we survive in some sense when you in fact do not believe anything survives. That has nothing to do with Christian preconceptions and everything to do with trying to understand the meaning fo the words you use. It is like trying to understand square circle. It sounds like something is being said when in fact nothing is being said.

You're forgetting indirect survival as distinct from direct survival. I never claimed we absolutely do not survive, for that would be intellectually dishonest. We only do not survive individually.

Where did the surviving family come into the issue. That was never what I was discussing. You said above: "they agree that our self is annihilated." That has always been my point and that point is not effected in anyway if my cat survives me.

But it is affected by other people surviving me.

Yes that is exactly what you have said.

quote me where I have said this. Perhaps you're misunderstanding me.

As I just said, the survival of self in general, but not in particular, is not the survival of self.

You're limiting the idea of the self to merely our individual experience.

Yes it does. Self in general is like square circle--meaningless. Self in particular is self. Self in general is no self.

SElf in general is still self by you giving it the name self.

Actually I am not. If God is the same as everything, the word God becomes meaningless. No thing being God is the same as nothing being God.

Bad distinction recognition between no-thing as no distinct thing and nothing, which negates everything.

Yes assuming a destiny of obllivion is pessimism, but that is not true of assuming a destiny of life.

I do not assume a destiny of either oblivion or eternity.

The present is already the past. You did not address how life is meaningful when there is no life. I never said life was meaningless. I said lack of life is what is meaningless.

You seem to imply life in a temporary sense is meaningless.

Meaningless--the self that is gone is the point, not the self that is not yet gone.

You are jumping all over the place. I never said my cat would not miss me when I am gone, but my cat missing me, was never the point we were discussing; and it has absolutly nothing to do with what we have been discussing.

But it has everything to do with it because you assume that the only self that can survive is the individual self. People missing you as a self in some sense is still your self surviving indirectly after your individual self has dissolved.

Yes it would as meaningful as a rock having rolled down a mountain millions of years ago--the same meaning because it went through its natural course.

This response was as if you did not read what I said. It has no relationship or connection to what I said.

You said I was a nihilist in some sense,but you are mistaken, since you misunderstand both me and nihilism, it seems.

Look closely at what I said. Do you see anywhere in there about the ones we love being the ones that have hope of eternal life?

I never said that. We are the ones that would hope for eternal life, but hope is not realistic.

Nothing I said deserves any negative description of clinging.

Nothing I said gives you any evidence to judge that I value life too much. I do value it more than death. I guess you would say that is valuing life too much.

Valuing something in complete rejection of its opposite is clinging and attachment in its very nature.

I am the one that sees the simple result of the Buddhist belief that the self is obliterated. You try to complicate it into something about the self still not being gone, although when pressed you will say the same as I--the self is gone.

There is such a thing as oversimplifying, which I believe is what you are doing with the Buddhist idea of anatta. The individual self is gone, but not the self that others remember.

And so do the rocks which means nothing. The rocks continuing to be here after I die does not mean I did not die.

You're forgetting the material nature of your body, which doesn't surprise me with your emphasis on the future hope of a spiritual body.

I think our discussion has been exactly on point.

I never said otherwise.

 

[razeontherock]

This backs up a bit, responding to post #273

What did you think I was responding to? You seemed to say that God was a simple mental concept, which I contested was not.

Which only proves my point. What I said is it's a simple concept that you don't believe in G-d, but only hold it to be a concept. While you are free to accuse of not being able to keep this much straight, it was perfectly evident to me from the first post of yours I ever read, and has remained so. So there's no need to backtrack over that.

If you would be clear in what you are saying, I wouldn't misunderstand and appropriate ideas that conform to what you appear to be saying into your philosophy and beliefs.

This is not a reasonable request, nor a reasonable course of action. We are talking about things that invisible, that you have not experienced. there will be necessity be things that are unclear, but for you to clarify by continually extrapolating what was not said, simply isn't a direct path towards better understanding.

1)Why is feeling fulfilled not the goal? Fulfillment is where we derive purpose and meaning, so for you to say you have found any meaning in life and yet are not fulfilled seems a contradiction in terms.

The basic law of economics (unlimited desires vs limited resources) dictates fulfillment to be unachievable. This would also seem (to me) to be athe heart of Hinduism and Buddhism, so you'll pardon me if I find this comment of yours to be quite odd.

Anyway, G-d plainly tells us that human contentment on Earth is really not His objective. Therefore any C pursuing that as their primary goal is working against G-d, and likely has a rude awakening in store.

2) Feelings are a complement to our intellect. Not to say they are less or more, but a complement, as shadow complements light, etc.

Obviously you are not married

3) This is a matter of perspective. Whatever you intuit to be more necessary than food and water is not necessarily what others would experience to be so

Correct! Yet this is directly a shared experience by those who embrace G-d's purposes, as being other than our own contentment. (Ghandi also fasted)

With such a thing as your statement, God is love, it would behoove you to qualify WHY the converse of the statement does not hold.

I already have, but here it is again:

all of the possible English uses for "love" do not pertain. G-d is not puppies or bubble gum, for instance. The Divine type of Love is marked most clearly for love within the person for G-d Himself.

How does this agape love relate to this supposed EL that you're trying to explain?

Ah, HERE we are on topic! I wouldn't say trying to explain EL, but simply define it into some workable term. While the meaning of agape may be within human means, the way the Bible uses it is not. I posit the same holds true for Faith and Hope. These things are available to the C, and don't change. They serve as an "anchor to the soul." These could then be referred to as "keys to the Kingdom," in this life. Yet EL would not be synonymous with the Kingdom itself.

So then any C availing themselves of these qualities could be said to be partaking of the Divine Nature.

It seems questionable to love God itself except as you hope for it, and the thigns of God will need to be qualified

This is a fair statement! But it is not G-d Himself a C needs to Hope for, in that we don't hope for what we already have. Yet we are still subject to Hope, by design, as there are many things we are Promised yet still do not have or see.

"Things of G-d" is admittedly vague, but includes everything G-d reveals to us, both those that are available to us now and those which are not. You'll noticed I focus more on what is currently available.

You don't seem to understand a basic distinction between strongly held beliefs and convictions and justified knowledge that conforms with facts

It only seems that way to you because you choose to discount any experience I've had as if I'm loony; which is your problem, not mine.

 

[razeontherock]

Backing up further, responding to post #263:

So what survives your death? A new permutation of your personality and consciousness? That only makes vague sense in the notion of Christians being reborn. You're qualifying that the self that survives is not your 'old' self, but nonetheless you are attached to your self. You seem to miss this point entirely in my criticism.

No I don't miss that point of your criticism at all. Why would you think that?

Instead, I am addressing an apparent confusion on your part, first about what EL is. And then from there it will give us a basis for launching off about immortality, which C does indeed leave vague.

I'm not sure how to take your comment here about C's being reborn. That is an eastern term, whereas C talks about a new birth. Note also the Bible speaks not of the second man Adam, but of the last man Adam.

All of this will be vague by necessity, since it is only known by experience. And the experience is that we attach ourselves to G-d, and detach from ourself. So your criticism is both erroneous, and revealing as to where that error lies.

Another way of putting this is to go back to the third arm analogy; let's refine that a bit and point out the third arm is not us at all, but the arm of the Lord, mighty to Save. Again quoting the Baptizer,"we must decrease, and He must increase."

No, we aren't bought like commodities. We are not possessed by something because they pay some debt. We are ends in ourselves, not means to the end of glorifying some supposed god. You are reading a christian idea into a Buddhist tenet that I formulated in some sense to familiarize you with the notion. but it is not saying we are possessions of somethign greater than us, but that we are impermanent and transient entities, empty of completion in our attachments to things in themselves.

I never conflated these C ideas you decry w/ Buddhism. I said certain things you put forward "prepare people for C."

You presume that we both just know what theosis is. the notion as I recall is becoming like God only in general attitude, but not in nature absolutely. Making the distinction is dualism in that you are distinct from God

That is the opposite of theosis. Again you're proving my point that dualism has no part in C.

Soul might be said to be our experiential and conscious aspects of self and existence, whereas spirit is more unconscious and basic reflexes and reactions we have to existence, like sneezing or blinking.

This is the oversimplification I have already decried, comparing the two to conscious and sub-conscious. That simply doesn't line up to C.

Eternity is part of the problem I see with Christianity and systems like it. Tapping into God sounds suspiciously pantheistic, so you'd need to qualify that. But as I said, you'd first have to qualify eternity in some sense that doesn't render the idea of that kind of existence terrible to even imagine, let alone actually 'live' in, if you can call it living anymore.

This is a most problematic little snippet! These issues really need to be addressed.

1) Your qualms w/ pantheism open a whole can of worms. Why do you conflate the 2?

2) "doesn't render the idea terrible to imagine." IOW, you want me to put lace around the Bible to make it more palatable for you? Sorry, you've got the wrong guy for that.

More jargon that presumes this is the only way to change. I can change from within without tapping into some super human entity like God. I can change my perspective by interacting with nature and with other humans.

You should be able to recognize this as unfounded knee-jerk reaction. Nowhere have I even hinted at any such thing as "the only way to change." And I'm not the one who uses undefined jargon.

Except God itself as the Trinitarian doctrine describes it , IS in fact divided in nature, even if they are unified in so called purpose and goals.

I'm not sure why you would bring that into this thread, but this is 100% FALSE, and only represents your own lack of understanding of the subject matter.

You have failed to explain why attachment and clinging, which are distinct in nature from taking refuge in something, are also good. taking refuge in something means you have tested it more generally. Attachment and clinging are based in particular experiences.

C doesn't distinguish between these, nor does it use the terms attachment or clinging. Particular experiences are put forward as the cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian heritage, vis Abraham.

 

[elman]

What meaning will still be there after humans are extinct?
None, because humans are where meaning comes from. This is part of the problem.

I don't see it as a problem, just the way things are.

You assume love with no intelligence behind it just as you assume life with no intelligence behind. It is only an assumption. Can we love without free will? I don't think so. Love is acting on behalf of another by choice, at least in the Christian context.

We can love without free will in the extended sense, but we cannot love without volition, that much is clear.

I suspect you and I are not talking about the same thing when we refer to free will. I see free will as the ability to chose to act in behalf of another or to be able to chose to not act. What do you see as free will?

I understand life on this earth in this realm is limited. Your argument is not applicable to me.

But you don't understanding life as limited in general, so it does still apply in part.

I don't agree. A belief in an afterlife does not make me less able to enjoy this life than to not believe in an afterlife. In fact in some ways a belief in an afterlife makes this life more pleasant.

No our memories which is part of our self, do not survive when self dies, according to your view. They do in my view.

I never said our memories survive, but those of others.
But if I do not survive, the memories of others is meaningless to me after I die. Right?

I think the only intellectual dishonesty here is your claim that we survive in some sense when you in fact do not believe anything survives. That has nothing to do with Christian preconceptions and everything to do with trying to understand the meaning fo the words you use. It is like trying to understand square circle. It sounds like something is being said when in fact nothing is being said.

You're forgetting indirect survival as distinct from direct survival. I never claimed we absolutely do not survive, for that would be intellectually dishonest. We only do not survive individually.

Not surviving individually is not surviving period, as far as I can tell. You can never seem to convey to me what does in fact survive.

Where did the surviving family come into the issue. That was never what I was discussing. You said above: "they agree that our self is annihilated." That has always been my point and that point is not effected in anyway if my cat survives me.

But it is affected by other people surviving me.

No it is not. The survival of my neighbor is no more meaningful than the survival of my cat if I am gone.

Yes that is exactly what you have said.

quote me where I have said this. Perhaps you're misunderstanding me.

I quoted it above. You said:"they agree that our self is annihilated."

As I just said, the survival of self in general, but not in particular, is not the survival of self.

You're limiting the idea of the self to merely our individual experience.

The word self limits to our individual experience.

Yes it does. Self in general is like square circle--meaningless. Self in particular is self. Self in general is no self.

SElf in general is still self by you giving it the name self.

I don't give it the name self. You do; but then you admit it is a state of self being annihillated.

Actually I am not. If God is the same as everything, the word God becomes meaningless. No thing being God is the same as nothing being God.

Bad distinction recognition between no-thing as no distinct thing and nothing, which negates everything.

True but calling God everything, negates God being anything and makes the word meaningless. I no longer need the word God, just use the word everything.

Yes assuming a destiny of obilivion is pessimism, but that is not true of assuming a destiny of life.

I do not assume a destiny of either oblivion or eternity.

As far as I can tell this is not correct. You do not assume a destiny of life--this means by default you assume a destiny of oblivion.

The present is already the past. You did not address how life is meaningful when there is no life. I never said life was meaningless. I said lack of life is what is meaningless.

You seem to imply life in a temporary sense is meaningless.

Its meaning is temporary.

Meaningless--the self that is gone is the point, not the self that is not yet gone.

You are jumping all over the place. I never said my cat would not miss me when I am gone, but my cat missing me, was never the point we were discussing; and it has absolutly nothing to do with what we have been discussing.

But it has everything to do with it because you assume that the only self that can survive is the individual self.

Yes I do because the general self is not self.

People missing you as a self in some sense is still your self surviving indirectly after your individual self has dissolved.

Only so long as they remember me--which is not that long and this kind of suvivial of self is hardly comforting to someone after they have been obliterated.

Look closely at what I said. Do you see anywhere in there about the ones we love being the ones that have hope of eternal life?

I never said that. We are the ones that would hope for eternal life, but hope is not realistic.

I think it is reasonable, which mean it is realistic. Your assumption it is not realistic, is simply your assumption.

Nothing I said deserves any negative description of clinging.

Nothing I said gives you any evidence to judge that I value life too much. I do value it more than death. I guess you would say that is valuing life too much.

Valuing something in complete rejection of its opposite is clinging and attachment in its very nature.

Rejecting your assumption of a destiny of oblivion is not automatically clinging to this life too much.

I am the one that sees the simple result of the Buddhist belief that the self is obliterated. You try to complicate it into something about the self still not being gone, although when pressed you will say the same as I--the self is gone.

There is such a thing as oversimplifying, which I believe is what you are doing with the Buddhist idea of anatta. The individual self is gone, but not the self that others remember.

It is not the memories of others that Buddhists propose is what eventually reaches enlightment.

And so do the rocks which means nothing. The rocks continuing to be here after I die does not mean I did not die.

You're forgetting the material nature of your body, which doesn't surprise me with your emphasis on the future hope of a spiritual body.

I am not forgetting it--just recognizing that it will not matter to me, when I am gone.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Which only proves my point. What I said is it's a simple concept that you don't believe in G-d, but only hold it to be a concept. While you are free to accuse of not being able to keep this much straight, it was perfectly evident to me from the first post of yours I ever read, and has remained so. So there's no need to backtrack over that.

So it’s at least clear to you that I only believe in God as a concept, which doesn’t contradict that I don’t believe in God as reality

This is not a reasonable request, nor a reasonable course of action. We are talking about things that invisible, that you have not experienced. there will be necessity be things that are unclear, but for you to clarify by continually extrapolating what was not said, simply isn't a direct path towards better understanding

So the fact that you believe these things are invisible and not experienced by me seems to mean that only you or your kin can really understand them

The basic law of economics (unlimited desires vs limited resources) dictates fulfillment to be unachievable. This would also seem (to me) to be athe heart of Hinduism and Buddhism, so you'll pardon me if I find this comment of yours to be quite odd.

Anyway, G-d plainly tells us that human contentment on Earth is really not His objective. Therefore any C pursuing that as their primary goal is working against G-d, and likely has a rude awakening in store

.

Depends on what you mean by fulfillment. I don’t think I’ll ever get material fulfillment. Any fulfillment I get is mental in nature in tranquility or contentment.

Obviously you are not married

I fail to see how our emotions and reason cannot have a happy medium in a married relationship. It involves sacrifices and compromise, both bred by communication

Correct! Yet this is directly a shared experience by those who embrace G-d's purposes, as being other than our own contentment. (Ghandi also fasted)

Except that our own contentment being our primary goal is not by necessity selfish

I already have, but here it is again
all of the possible English uses for "love" do not pertain. G-d is not puppies or bubble gum, for instance. The Divine type of Love is marked most clearly for love within the person for G-d Himself

I don’t see how or why I should love such an entity that you have failed to convince me is relevant

Ah, HERE we are on topic! I wouldn't say trying to explain EL, but simply define it into some workable term. While the meaning of agape may be within human means, the way the Bible uses it is not. I posit the same holds true for Faith and Hope. These things are available to the C, and don't change. They serve as an "anchor to the soul." These could then be referred to as "keys to the Kingdom," in this life. Yet EL would not be synonymous with the Kingdom itself.

So then any C availing themselves of these qualities could be said to be partaking of the Divine Nature

The Divine Nature being partaken of is therefore eternal life?

This is a fair statement! But it is not G-d Himself a C needs to Hope for, in that we don't hope for what we already have. Yet we are still subject to Hope, by design, as there are many things we are Promised yet still do not have or see.
"Things of G-d" is admittedly vague, but includes everything G-d reveals to us, both those that are available to us now and those which are not. You'll noticed I focus more on what is currently available

But this just seems to focus on what you personally believe to be things of God, which not everyone agrees about

It only seems that way to you because you choose to discount any experience I've had as if I'm loony; which is your problem, not mine.

I don’t discount all experiences you have, or any in the general sense, but only discount your interpretation of them as unjustified