Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[razeontherock]

I'm not minimizing the mystery. you can believe there's a mystery within those experiences, but you shouldn't conflate things that are of two distinct but slightly overlapping categories. One is God in itself in creation, the other is God by faith manifesting in works of faithful, am I wrong?

Hmmm ... you refer to "doing" accurately enough, but what about "being?" This is where Christianity resides, and why Psalm 91 is so significant! So to re-state your premise here, one is God Himself in creation, and the other is God Himself in creation. Nope, I don't see the distinction:

"Christ in you, the hope of glory"

Do you merely think you had Zen exposure before you met this professor you speak of or did you know what Zen was when you studied the trumpet and made that connection at all?

I had no idea he had any connection to Buddhism, and he was my first exposure to Zen. Fwiw, those that currently dominate the field are his students, and my contemporaries at the time. (Chris Botti, Bobby Burns, Pat Harbison, John Harbough, Allen Johnson, Bob Slack, etc etc)

the connection of Zen and Buddhist ideas to what is a martyr practice of crucifixion by persecution in speaking your faith has little connection to Zen, except perhaps in the sense that samurai could be said to have a similar lack of fear towards death that Jesus did, albeit in a military context, not a social activism context.

Jesus' context was neither military nor social activism. I didn't expect that the complete lack of attachment on display would be lost on you!? Notice that according to C belief, He could have put on a showy display of power, delivering Himself, which no doubt means He could have also overthrown the Roman army which is what was expected of Him. And still is, by Jews.

You're saying the humility and self-control to resist such temptation for the sake of following a pre-ordained goal has no connection to Buddhist ideals?

Whether my statement conforms with some orthodoxy is not my concern, it's merely a general understanding I've gained from analysis on a phenomenological level of believers.

Fair enough. I'm just pointing out it's not so cut and dried.

If you think you can explain it to me without bringing up unnecessary tangents and/or jargon, by all means

Nope I'm pointing out the scope of your OP. Understanding these things will certainly require effort on your part, apart from any explanation I might proffer. I find it kinda odd I recommended starting w/ Psalms, but in your case I stand by that. I think for you personally, it would be foundational even to John's Gospel. Speaking of which, have you studied the philosophical meaning of the Greek logos?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Hmmm ... you refer to "doing" accurately enough, but what about "being?" This is where Christianity resides, and why Psalm 91 is so significant! So to re-state your premise here, one is God Himself in creation, and the other is God Himself in creation. Nope, I don't see the distinction:

"Christ in you, the hope of glory"

You're not restating my premise, you're rewording my premise to fit your presumption that they aren't different.

I had no idea he had any connection to Buddhism, and he was my first exposure to Zen. Fwiw, those that currently dominate the field are his students, and my contemporaries at the time. (Chris Botti, Bobby Burns, Pat Harbison, John Harbough, Allen Johnson, Bob Slack, etc etc)

Can't say I'm familiar with any of them, but that's beside the overall point

Jesus' context was neither military nor social activism. I didn't expect that the complete lack of attachment on display would be lost on you!? Notice that according to C belief, He could have put on a showy display of power, delivering Himself, which no doubt means He could have also overthrown the Roman army which is what was expected of Him. And still is, by Jews.

Activism was his primary context, even if he didn't expect to affect immediate change, he WAS working towards change, albeit in a progressive sequence of events. I never said his context was military, so your reference to him being able to call on angels to save himself is pointless.

You're saying the humility and self-control to resist such temptation for the sake of following a pre-ordained goal has no connection to Buddhist ideals?

Buddhists don't view nirvana as a pre ordained goal, it's simply a goal every being has the potential for. Buddhists resist temptation because it has practical benefits, not because it pleases some deity or God to be righteous before it.

Nope I'm pointing out the scope of your OP. Understanding these things will certainly require effort on your part, apart from any explanation I might proffer. I find it kinda odd I recommended starting w/ Psalms, but in your case I stand by that. I think for you personally, it would be foundational even to John's Gospel. Speaking of which, have you studied the philosophical meaning of the Greek logos?

I'm familiar with the philosophical method of argument of logos,alongside ethos and pathos. Logos here, though, seems to focus more on logical progression, whereas Logos in Christianity takes another meaning of the term and extends it into the religious context, that meaning being word and a few other meanings by association.

 

[Dorothea]

After talking with someone in chatbox, I thought it pertinent to bring up a topic, since the mod finally decided to catch up and break up the discussion. Suggestion for chat room anyone?

Anyway, the gist of the discussion actually started with Pascal's Wager and how I found itquestionable on a few levels, not to mention the most relevant being that eternal life is not by necessity agreed upon to be the greatest happiness or good.

With this in mind, along with other considerations, why should we consider heaven objectively good in and of itself? The best and only argument that seems to come up is that heaven is good because one glorifies the Ultimate there, that is, God. But this doesn't seem to synch up either, if only because it hinges on presuming something I would find questionable.

What you'd have to assume is that subsisting forever in a perfect, disease free, destruction free body, forever and into infinity, doing nothing but praising God and having nothing compel you to think of anything else at all would be a good thing.

But I don't see why you should,but then that's a difficulty that spans across one's paradigm in relation to God. If you're thoroughly convinced that worshipping God forever unendingly is a good thing, I am not aware at the moment of how to make you think otherwise, since you're compelled by pathos and ethos, not any sense of logos. You feel you must and should, not that you do it naturally. But that's a whole other issue.

As I put it, heaven and eternal life seems psychologically destructive, suicide inducing, aesthetically dissonant and existentially a source of further anguish in the possibility you might actually exist in your experiential suffering forever as a soul in a perfect body.

Well, we are looking at it, obviously from a totally different perspective. As I understand it, your faith and others of the oriental eastern philosophy of religion is that there was never a beginning or an end made by God. That the cycle of life has always been there, but that the god or gods that one believes in in these eastern religions only comes about and has a bit of control over the universe that is already in existence. And thus, coupling that with reincarnation, where one continues to die and come back as something better (is that right), that one was never dead in the first place. One always existed. When you look at eternal life in this instance, I would agree with you and wouldn't want an eternity of this type of existence, even if at the end one dissolves into the universe somehow to become one with whatever supreme being you believe in. No, not appealing at all.

But when you realize that a God created everything out of nothing. That we are living in a period of time and space. A linear time line that had a beginning and will soon have an end...that God created us because He loved us so and wanted a relationship with us, to share and partake of the Divine energies of the Trinity, which is perfect love, and to live in this presence eternally, which is beyond our comprehension the immeasurable love and joy that encompasses this, it is something we'd definitely hope for.

This is the way i look at it. I hope this helps.


ETA: btw, you might like to read the book "Christ, the Eternal Tao." It's on my reading list, but haven't gotten it yet, but it looks absolutely wonderful. Here's a link on it:

http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Eterna...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307224039&sr=1-1

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I can't say that you understand Buddhism correctly, since eternal life is not even what samsara and reincarnation/rebirth entails in Buddhism, since you as a person don't survive your death strictly speaking. There is no soul, there is only form and matter that generate the mind that perceives. So there is no eternity of an individual's survival, since even if I reincarnate, what is reincarnted is not the same as I was technically speaking. There is the "Eternal" circle of life, but that isn't something you have to accept being bound to. Buddhism seeks a way from bondage, so to speak, to the cycle of life and our attachments.

And I fail to see how Jesus and the Dao can be related except in incidental ways, such as the Logos notion in John, which isn't very much similar to the Dao in the Daoist context, since the Dao is impersonal, the Logos favors those who believe in Jesus.

Not to mention I fail to see how being in the presence of something good eternally actually makes that thing good for eternity. Experiencing something good eternally without a contrast would make the good seem benign or even bad if there is no contrast to be experienced. This is one of my underlying problems with what you describe as eternity and eternal life/immortality with/in God's presence

 

[razeontherock]

You're not restating my premise, you're rewording my premise to fit your presumption that they aren't different.

Actually I re-worded it to fit the Bible.

Can't say I'm familiar with any of them, but that's beside the overall point

Yeah I'd almost bet there's not a single pro trumpet player you could name My point is the methods are effective.

Activism was his primary context, even if he didn't expect to affect immediate change, he WAS working towards change, albeit in a progressive sequence of events. I never said his context was military, so your reference to him being able to call on angels to save himself is pointless.

Disagreed, on all points.

1) His context was obedience to the Father, and His suffering became so great it blotted out all understanding. This is certainly my experience of anything G-d recognizes as meaningful Faith.

2) Saving Himself (as per the C Faith) is NOT pointless at all! Instead you ran roughshod over a fairly simple point. Vis:

Buddhists don't view nirvana as a pre ordained goal,

Why mention Nirvana? I didn't, and there is no C parallel. Can you respond to what I posted?

I'm familiar with the philosophical method of argument of logos,alongside ethos and pathos. Logos here, though, seems to focus more on logical progression, whereas Logos in Christianity

Why do you assume what you know of Logos was abandoned by C? It was not. It was developed further, yes ...

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Actually I re-worded it to fit the Bible.

Point remains the same, you fit it to your own ideas instead of critiquing why they aren't the same in your opinion

Disagreed, on all points.

1) His context was obedience to the Father, and His suffering became so great it blotted out all understanding. This is certainly my experience of anything G-d recognizes as meaningful Faith.

2) Saving Himself (as per the C Faith) is NOT pointless at all! Instead you ran roughshod over a fairly simple point. Vis:

Just because faith might supersede understanding doesn't mean it defies it
And I didn't say his saving himself was pointless, I said it was irrelevant to the conversation at large.

Why mention Nirvana? I didn't, and there is no C parallel. Can you respond to what I posted?

I mentioned Nirvana because that's the basic "goal" of sorts for Buddhists, but your claim that Jesus had relation to buddhism through that pre determined goal was why I said what I did. To put it simply, there is little connection between a martyr believing in a pre ordained goal and a Buddhist practicing

Why do you assume what you know of Logos was abandoned by C? It was not. It was developed further, yes ...

Logos as a philosophical method is not the same as Logos in Christianity. And I never said Logos in Christianity was abandoned, but it appealed no longer to logic, but to pathos and ethos, to reference the other two forms of argument.

 

[razeontherock]

Point remains the same, you fit it to your own ideas instead of critiquing why they aren't the same in your opinion

Wut? It is your opinion that they aren't the same. Which directly relates to the OP IOW, if you apply yourself to understanding that facet of C, you will have the answer to your question.

I mentioned Nirvana because that's the basic "goal" of sorts for Buddhists, but your claim that Jesus had relation to buddhism through that pre determined goal was why I said what I did. To put it simply, there is little connection between a martyr believing in a pre ordained goal and a Buddhist practicing

Whoa Bolded part completely fabricated. "What we have here is a lack of communication"

Logos as a philosophical method is not the same as Logos in Christianity. And I never said Logos in Christianity was abandoned, but it appealed no longer to logic, but to pathos and ethos, to reference the other two forms of argument.

Disagreed. Even your own semantics should indicate to you you're missing something here ...

 

[Dorothea]

I can't say that you understand Buddhism correctly, since eternal life is not even what samsara and reincarnation/rebirth entails in Buddhism, since you as a person don't survive your death strictly speaking. There is no soul, there is only form and matter that generate the mind that perceives. So there is no eternity of an individual's survival, since even if I reincarnate, what is reincarnted is not the same as I was technically speaking. There is the "Eternal" circle of life, but that isn't something you have to accept being bound to. Buddhism seeks a way from bondage, so to speak, to the cycle of life and our attachments.

I appreciate your explaining Buddhism to me. I do not know much about it. Thanks for taking the time to help me to understand.

And I fail to see how Jesus and the Dao can be related except in incidental ways, such as the Logos notion in John, which isn't very much similar to the Dao in the Daoist context, since the Dao is impersonal, the Logos favors those who believe in Jesus.

I'm not sure as I've said. I haven't read it yet, but since I am reading a book on an Orthodox priest who used to practice Eastern religions such as Tao and entertained a bit of Buddhism, I thought it would be an interesting read. I thought you might find it interesting too. Sorry if I overstepped.

Not to mention I fail to see how being in the presence of something good eternally actually makes that thing good for eternity. Experiencing something good eternally without a contrast would make the good seem benign or even bad if there is no contrast to be experienced. This is one of my underlying problems with what you describe as eternity and eternal life/immortality with/in God's presence

Well, how does one describe eternity with an Eternal, Loving God? It's one that we do our best to explain in words, but since we haven't been there, to be exact or perfectly correct would be erroneousness.

But I do know that it's not like living here on earth and the idea of forever the same thing all the time. It transcends this.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Wut? It is your opinion that they aren't the same. Which directly relates to the OP IOW, if you apply yourself to understanding that facet of C, you will have the answer to your question.

You haven't defended your claim that they are the same, so we're at an impasse until you can admit you might be wrong. Perhaps they are the same in the Christian context, but you've only started to defend that claim

Whoa Bolded part completely fabricated. "What we have here is a lack of communication"

You said at the very least that Jesus reflected Buddhist or Zen ideas in particular, did you not?

Disagreed. Even your own semantics should indicate to you you're missing something here ...

We're talking about two pretty distinct contexts where the word logos is used. One of them capitalizes it, the religious one, one of them doesn't, the philosophical one. Logos in philosophical context usually implies something of a method concerning the data itself, the words and relations thereof as opposed to one's emotional or ethical considerations about those words and implications.

Logos as Christianity describes it has a relation to Heraclitus' Logos, a principle of order in the universe, so there's not a complete separation between them, though I wonder if Christianity was borrowing Heraclitus' concept more than the other way around at all.

 

[freezerman2000]

I do not want to fade into nothing...if that is what we are destined for, why bother with striving to be the best that we can be spiritually?
Fortunately, I am assured of eternal life through my Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Because spirituality doesn't require believing we will live eternally after our deaths. Striving for our spiritual best only requires recognizing a spiritual aspect of life, though that's another issue entirely of nontheistic spirituality.

You don't fade into nothing, you are essentially no-thing already. You are a part of a greater whole in one perspective. To say a person is empty is not to say they are not valuable, but only impermanent. And all the more to value if they are impermanent and to be valued for every moment they are here.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Just repeating scriptures doesn't prove your point. You'd have to substantiate why Jesus is more insightful or generally better than others. And pulling out his sacrifice for the sins of humanity does not suffice, since that presumes people take the sin nature seriously, which isn't necessarily the case.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

People can take things seriously and they can understand it, but reject it as reality. I am the latter in relation to sin nature.

If you're not going to contribute to the discussion in a fruitful fashion, you should leave. If all you're going to do is turn this into General Apologetics, I think even the mods would start saying you should go. Fortunately, you can get advice from me, having been called on two occasions of posting things that violate ToS.

So in short, if all you intend to do is ignore my OP and throw scriptures at me that I can interpret as literary flourish and not based in actual facts, then you really should dust off your feet and go elsewhere as Jesus told you in Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5 and 10:11. Of course in fairness that might be a bit harsh, though perhaps you view my "Gentile" ways as deserving of shaking off my dust and leaving me to my own ends. Your choice, I won't stop you.

 

[Dorothea]

So, I was wondering what part of Christianity or what in Christianity are you and others exploring here, as this forum says that's what it's for.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Raze has established it relatively well: the part of Christianity being explored is the notion of immortality and eternal life it teaches and why it is or is not appealing or desirable to people.

This includes,but is not limited to: clarifying what Christianity means by heaven, eternal life, immortality, life after death, survival of the consciousness, embodied existence after death, etc, and why these should be appealing or are not appealing to a person's psychology

 

[Dorothea]

Ah ok. Duh. That's the name of the thread. Sorry for the denseness. I'm new to this particular forum.

 

[razeontherock]

I am reading a book on an Orthodox priest who used to practice Eastern religions such as Tao and entertained a bit of Buddhism, I thought it would be an interesting read.

Good to see you here! Have you heard of Thomas Merton? I'd be interested in your take, even if this isn't the right place for it ...

Well, how does one describe eternity with an Eternal, Loving God? It's one that we do our best to explain in words, but since we haven't been there, to be exact or perfectly correct would be erroneousness.

But I do know that it's not like living here on earth and the idea of forever the same thing all the time. It transcends this.

And to our OP's idea that w/o any contrast even good will become benign at best, or perhaps even bad -- I say we have the sufferings of this life to compare to. That contrast will always exist, and it squarely addresses many of the more typical atheist's concerns. (None of which are to be found in this thread

 

[razeontherock]

You haven't defended your claim that they are the same, so we're at an impasse until you can admit you might be wrong. Perhaps they are the same in the Christian context, but you've only started to defend that claim

If you could flesh out the context of this and direct it towards Dorothea's attention, she can probably do more with this than I can. (And I wouldn't say I "defended that claim," but I did make a pointed observation re: some similarities)

You said at the very least that Jesus reflected Buddhist or Zen ideas in particular, did you not?

Just because I see common ground doesn't mean I have to gloss over distinctions. Is there no aspect of Zen that pertains to focusing on a goal? Detaching from not only material possessions but also emotion and ego, even to the self?

Do you not see how Jesus must have mastered such to become Christ, via His Passion? All of this is portrayed by the Cross, as a symbol. He did not do this to "reflect ideas," but isn't there some overlap anyway?

We're talking about two pretty distinct contexts where the word logos is used. One of them capitalizes it, the religious one, one of them doesn't, the philosophical one. Logos in philosophical context usually implies something of a method concerning the data itself, the words and relations thereof as opposed to one's emotional or ethical considerations about those words and implications.

Logos as Christianity describes it has a relation to Heraclitus' Logos, a principle of order in the universe, so there's not a complete separation between them, though I wonder if Christianity was borrowing Heraclitus' concept more than the other way around at all.

Again, we're on a topic where Dorothea is much more knowledgeable than I. In the hopes she'll address this, I'll just say it was no accident to use this specific term in the Gospel! It certainly referred to the established term and concept, and then defined it further. Via living example. Did this bridge the two contexts you see as distinct?

 

[razeontherock]

Raze has established it relatively well: the part of Christianity being explored is the notion of immortality and eternal life it teaches and why it is or is not appealing or desirable to people.

This includes,but is not limited to: clarifying what Christianity means by heaven, eternal life, immortality, life after death, survival of the consciousness, embodied existence after death, etc, and why these should be appealing or are not appealing to a person's psychology

Quick recap: I have broached the immense scope of this, by focusing on the concept of Eternal Life (EL) that seems quite foreign to our OP, that it is (in some sense) accessible in the here and now. (Namely John 17:3) And I've been attempting to do so via pointing out that we can partake of His Divine Nature, and as we learn to do so consistently that this becomes a growing reality of Christ in us.

So Dorothea, this plays right into your forte, no? Certainly you and I have different ways of verbalizing things, and at least slightly different conceptualizations of some of this, all of which is good. It is likely that at least some of what you may express will make sense to THN, where I have (so far) failed ...

I do think we have made substantial headway though. No?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If you could flesh out the context of this and direct it towards Dorothea's attention, she can probably do more with this than I can. (And I wouldn't say I "defended that claim," but I did make a pointed observation re: some similarities)

The context is that you think God in itself coming to earth and God manifesting in the hearts of believers by grace/faith are not distinct, while I argue they are by a basic description to any layperson.

Just because I see common ground doesn't mean I have to gloss over distinctions. Is there no aspect of Zen that pertains to focusing on a goal? Detaching from not only material possessions but also emotion and ego, even to the self?

Mindfulness and zazen in Zen aren't detachment, but nonattachment at best. They emphasize that we should recognize things as they are without putting our own expectations into the world, hoping they go the way we want them to go.

Do you not see how Jesus must have mastered such to become Christ, via His Passion? All of this is portrayed by the Cross, as a symbol. He did not do this to "reflect ideas," but isn't there some overlap anyway?

Only if you think Zen involves training yourself to resist torture and such to prove a point. Zen accepts death much more in that life is transient by its nature and thus death will come when it comes.

Again, we're on a topic where Dorothea is much more knowledgeable than I. In the hopes she'll address this, I'll just say it was no accident to use this specific term in the Gospel! It certainly referred to the established term and concept, and then defined it further. Via living example. Did this bridge the two contexts you see as distinct?

The logos method refers to rhetoric and such, whereas the Logos of both Heraclitus and John is a principle of existence, so the contexts are difficult, if not impossible to bridge exactly