Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[ToHoldNothing]

Why do you think it is unjustified and delusional?

Because I don't believe the self is permanent and thus should not be attached to. Is that difficult to understand?

That would not be reasonable. Why create some robots? There would be no purpose to that for a Creator that is powerful enough to create the univers.

You misunderstand. I agree we should be self determining beings. That's not being a robot at all. You seem to be the one suggesting we're created as robots, because we all, like robots, have some pre designated purpose. I don't believe that, which is where we disagree it seems. Not disagreeing on free will/volition at all.

Close to correct. We are all created with limited existence. If we are to extend that existence we must become loving beings. If we do nothing, there is no act of annihilation. That is simply the consequences of life not being extended.

I don't see why we should want to extend our existence. You haven't defended this. Annihilation is not said to be preferable to existence in Buddhism, it's simply an isolated fact with our selves and everything being impermanent. Buddhism affirms life as a whole, not as isolated incidents.

If I do not survive then I do not survive because others temporarily survive.

I never said you survived indefinitely, only in memories of others. It's called virtual immortality for a reason, it's virtual, not actual. No one's saying you actually survive as a consciousness because others remember. It doesn't work that way.

The wicked --unloving do not survive in any way.

I doubt that. Hitler survived in cultural memory. You're misunderstand what I mean by survive, it seems. But then you seem to have an unjustified hatred or hostility towards these wicked and unloving people when by Jesus' own declaration you should show them love, correct?

I agree, if self is gone, nothing matters to self.

Self is the problem here, though. You're attached to it and I don't think I can convince you by reason exactly why it could be understood that way.

I find it unrealistic to value others opinions after you are deceased and cease to exist. At that time as we have agreed above, their opinions do not matter to us.

I don't think I ever said we could value people's opinions when we're dead. It's more the expectation that people will remember us. It's sort of a comfort before we die, you might say. Though of course, in my general system, we don't survive our deaths, so technically it's a matter of hope for a future where we don't exist.

We have already agreed above that has no meaning for the one that is dead.

But meaning is not purely a self centered thing. Other people have meaning in life too. Just because you cease to have meaning in life does not mean other people will. If we'd stop being so self centered about this, meaning would not cease to be meaningful just because we die. Others will survive us.

That is no survival at all. Even if you could glean some sembalence of survival, that is gone when those people die.

I never said the survival was indefinite, so I never promised anything like the survival you crave.

The existence of God is not predicated on the existence of time and space.

Only because you, like pretty much every other apologist, insists God is somehow categorically different, when it's still a construction of the human mind, which you cannot deny in part.

Not correct. I do exist as we discuss our existence.

Depends on what you mean by existence. Empirically, perhaps, you exist. But you as an identity changes from moment to moment, as you interact with others and the environment in general. And as you die, those aggregates I'm pretty sure I mentioned before disassociate because things are breaking down.

I am a changing existence--which is not the same as non existence

I never said you were nonexistent. Changing existence means you are a necessarily transient being and should not by association be attached to your life. You are impermanent in your existence, which is in some nominal sense, a kind of emptiness and nonexistence. This is not to advocate nihilism at all, though. But this is another issue entirely.

That is an assumption of realism. It may be correct and it may not be correct.

I'd like to see you demonstrate otherwise though. Is it not more practical to focus on the present instead of the future that we know nothing about?

Ridiculous. There is no permanence in this life--how can you know permanence would be stagnation?

By the recognition that permanence would render this life stagnant. This life is good because it is impermanent. I think we could agree to that on some extent.

Our memories of others is not them--simply memories of others that die with us.

I never said memories of others constituted the exact identity of those people. Of course not, they are phenomenological beings themselves, experiencing life in different ways than ourselves. Again, it's called virtual immortality.

The existence of God or the non existence of God cannot be demostrated.

Then like an apatheist, I do not care either way. It does not affect me primarily because it cannot be demonstrated. Unlike say, numbers or love. God is hardly anything like numbers or love in terms of verifiability or demonstrability.

You seem to be stating your assumptions as if they were proven reality.

They're practical reality at the least.

If I do not exist, life going on is not important because nothing is important to the one who is non existing.

Again, this reflects your unnecessary attachment to your own life persisting after you die. Is it really necessary for you to persist after your death?

It is not about hostililty. It is more about accepting the fultility and meaninglessness of life.

Life is not futile and meaningless because we happen to not exist after our death. That sounds more like nihilism than anything Buddhism teaches.

My bigger picture is a comfort to me. Yours is not. It is similar to my conversation with Christians who belive the streets of gold will be literal gold. My view is, if that is the way it is, I want to be there, but I expect much better than literal streets of gold. I also expect much better than merging with the rest of the universe and ceasing to exist. Fortunatly if you are correct, I will not be disappointed, because disappointment is only for the living, not the dead.

I don't need comfort, I need truth, I need experience of life and learning about life. You want comfort and security, that is your prerogative and attachment/craving.

Buddhism does not say precisely what happens when you die, but in that sense, you can regard my answers as only probabilities. Not to mention you seem to regard the universe with hostility because it doesn't conform to your expectations. Perhaps becoming one with the universe is better than being with God, but this seems to be a matter of perspective.

You will be disappointed as you live as long as you are attached to living forever.

 

[razeontherock]

Conversion is an indirect and subtle intent of conversation. Conversation does not have to have conversion as its end goal,

Do you not see the flawed logic in your statement?

1) How can you know the intent of another?

2) If conversion is not the end goal of conversation, neither is it the intent.

3) If the Holy Ghost (that you don't believe exists, I must add) may be working
towards his own purposes, how would that make you defensive?

 

[razeontherock]

Christian teaching that the Gospel is perfectly simple. You make it sound complex, so it makes the whole notion mind boggling in that something can't be simple and complex to the same extent, so either you're right or they're wrong to a great extent, it would seem.

The Gospel is simple, and that's where it's Power lies! Yet the death of Christ (1 of the 3 components of it's simplicity) or rather it's relevance to the individual today is quite mind-bogglingly complex to fathom.

So then we see yet another paradox, that this is both simple and complex at the same time.

I wouldn't God gave dominion to mankind, it permitted it. A lot of this stuff with God's omnipotence is more that God is omnipotent according to its will, which seems to counter the notion that God's omnipotence consists in not contradicting its own nature.

I guess I'm not seeing your point in saying this? I see no contradiction. Either G-d is immutable, or He is .. cavalier, chaotic, arbitrary, unfaithful, etc

Justice is not violated when you follow a procedure, even if it is specific to each person. Just because God reconciles me instead of just getting me by conversion at death or in my life does not negate God being just. I don't see how Christians defend this notion.

Au contraire, many procedures followed are unjust, with the US system of criminal justice being a perfect example of that

But again I'm afraid I don't see your point here either.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The Gospel is simple, and that's where it's Power lies! Yet the death of Christ (1 of the 3 components of it's simplicity) or rather it's relevance to the individual today is quite mind-bogglingly complex to fathom.

So then we see yet another paradox, that this is both simple and complex at the same time.

Paradoxical or nonsensical is a distinction that's important to make. Paradox can be true, but nonsense isn't true.

I guess I'm not seeing your point in saying this? I see no contradiction. Either G-d is immutable, or He is .. cavalier, chaotic, arbitrary, unfaithful, etc

It means there's a problem defining what God's omnipotence actually consists in. If it's the will, we have a problem, or God is subject to rules beyond its will.

Au contraire, many procedures followed are unjust, with the US system of criminal justice being a perfect example of that

But again I'm afraid I don't see your point here either.

You're trying to compare human systems of justice with what can be argued to be an incomprehensible system of justice for God. Many Christians on this board say that we cannot be sure if there willbe atheists and such in heaven along with Christians. But what if God permits everyone into heaven with qualifications that involve reconciling and adjusting the person's sensibilities over a period of time? That seems just to me in that you let the person choose. If you let the person choose and don't give them a second chance, that seems actually quite unust.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Do you not see the flawed logic in your statement?

1) How can you know the intent of another?

2) If conversion is not the end goal of conversation, neither is it the intent.

3) If the Holy Ghost (that you don't believe exists, I must add) may be working
towards his own purposes, how would that make you defensive?

I never said I could know the intent of another conclusively or absolutely, but only inductively.

Conversion can be an unconscious intent, even if the person means only to convert, but then again, intent does not always imply that it is the end goal of any particular incident, but only a general goal in life. A Christian should, according to your own text, I imagine, always have the intent of converting people. Or am I wrong?

It wouldn't, but the fact that you insist it's real makes me concerned about your sanity just a bit, lol

 

[razeontherock]

It means there's a problem defining what God's omnipotence actually consists in. If it's the will, we have a problem, or God is subject to rules beyond its will.

You were talking about the difference between paradox and nonsense? How can you make sense out of this claim? OTOH, just because the Gospel is simple in that it is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, that doesn't mean you can fathom how any of it affects you, which is most certainly not nonsense just because you have never understood it.

You're trying to compare human systems of justice with what can be argued to be an incomprehensible system of justice for God.

No it can't be argued to be that at all. It is explained in terms any child could understand, in a huge variety of ways in the Gospel alone.

what if God permits everyone into heaven with qualifications that involve reconciling and adjusting the person's sensibilities over a period of time?

Why pretend that's a "what if," when it is the experience of every believer through the ages?

If you let the person choose and don't give them a second chance, that seems actually quite unust.

Every one of us is given a dizzying number of chances. Jesus said to forgive 70 times 7, per day. For the very same offense!

 

[razeontherock]

A Christian should, according to your own text, I imagine, always have the intent of converting people. Or am I wrong?

Most certainly a person cannot convert another. We can't even save ourselves! We are given a whole long list of things that must be done, that are clearly outside of our territory and in G-d's sovereign arena.

the fact that you insist it's real makes me concerned about your sanity just a bit, lol

This is like a person born blind contending with you that you saw this morning's sunrise.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You were talking about the difference between paradox and nonsense? How can you make sense out of this claim? OTOH, just because the Gospel is simple in that it is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, that doesn't mean you can fathom how any of it affects you, which is most certainly not nonsense just because you have never understood it.

Paradox is merely appearing to be contradictory, nonsense is actually contradictory. The Dao is paradoxical, the Trinity is contradictory, lol. I can understand it, but it doesn't mean I'll accept it as compelling.

No it can't be argued to be that at all. It is explained in terms any child could understand, in a huge variety of ways in the Gospel alone.

Parables can be understood in different ways, metaphorical and figurative interpretations all around with Jesus' miracles, etc.

Why pretend that's a "what if," when it is the experience of every believer through the ages?

I'm not talking about the present; I think I've made that relatively clear. I'm referring to the afterlife. If someone dies in their sins, so to speak, could it be true that God reconciles them if they had not accepted Jesus Christ? Is that specific enough?

Every one of us is given a dizzying number of chances. Jesus said to forgive 70 times 7, per day. For the very same offense!

Again, see above. Not referring to now, but when I am dead as a stubborn unbeliever.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Most certainly a person cannot convert another. We can't even save ourselves! We are given a whole long list of things that must be done, that are clearly outside of our territory and in G-d's sovereign arena.

Of course, you've said before, God converts. Perhaps the word I'm looking for is witness.

This is like a person born blind contending with you that you saw this morning's sunrise.

That's just a perspective problem. You believing you experienced something is not my problem until you tell me what I've experienced, in which case I have to call shenanigans.

 

[razeontherock]

Paradox is merely appearing to be contradictory, nonsense is actually contradictory. The Dao is paradoxical, the Trinity is contradictory, lol. I can understand it, but it doesn't mean I'll accept it as compelling.

I fail both to see how you can find this contradictory, or how you can say you understand it. If you can understand it, how is it nonsensical? Anyway my example (and the original context) was a much better illustration of the concept here: you may not fathom how the Gospel can have any real effect,
but that doesn't change the reality that it has had in countless lives.

Parables can be understood in different ways, metaphorical and figurative interpretations all around with Jesus' miracles, etc.

Of course that is quite true but why evade your point, that God's Judgment is nonsensical or incomprehensible?

If someone dies in their sins, so to speak, could it be true that God reconciles them if they had not accepted Jesus Christ? Is that specific enough?

The variety of answers to this across the spectrum of C is staggering. EO is the last side of it for me to encounter, and they have some ideas I find to be truly weird. Have you heard of their toll houses? Makes me think of baking cookies, but it addresses your question. Maybe. Sort of. (?)

Again, see above. Not referring to now, but when I am dead as a stubborn unbeliever.

Sir, I perceive you are a Prophet!

 

[razeontherock]

Of course, you've said before, God converts. Perhaps the word I'm looking for is witness.

Ok. If I say nothing at all, I witness. Except in that case who may audience may be is questionable If I open my mouth, G-d will fill it. My only other choice is to deny Him. Surely you wouldn't want to exert that influence upon me?

That's just a perspective problem. You believing you experienced something is not my problem until you tell me what I've experienced, in which case I have to call shenanigans.

Ah, the dreaded shenanigans! Is that like a leprechaun that's out to get me? When have I told you of your own experiences?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I fail both to see how you can find this contradictory, or how you can say you understand it. If you can understand it, how is it nonsensical? Anyway my example (and the original context) was a much better illustration of the concept here: you may not fathom how the Gospel can have any real effect, but that doesn't change the reality that it has had in countless lives.

Contradictions exist in Christianity, especially since it seems so proud to subject itself to subjective logic and ignore logic when it says the Trinity is contradictory, just saying it's a "Mystery"

One can understand that something is false without it being nonsensical in the sense of incoherence. Perhaps that was a language problem there. Nonsensical might be better synonymous with contradictory, incoherent is unintelligible.

Even if the Gospel has drawn my brother back into their little cultus, that doesn't mean it follows that I should follow it or even see any meaning in it. By all means, I can look into the theology he seems to be reading by Bill Bright, but I'm also looking into open theism, which some consider very heretical.

Of course that is quite true but why evade your point, that God's Judgment is nonsensical or incomprehensible?

If that is the case, then why make any claims about God's judgment at all?

The variety of answers to this across the spectrum of C is staggering. EO is the last side of it for me to encounter, and they have some ideas I find to be truly weird. Have you heard of their toll houses? Makes me think of baking cookies, but it addresses your question. Maybe. Sort of. (?)

I've heard of toll booths when we cross state borders occasionally, but not those.

Sir, I perceive you are a Prophet!

Doesn't a prophet just continue the old message? A messenger would be ideal, since they add new revelations.

My point is that you haven't answered that question as to whether universal reconciliation as soteriology is true or not. Or even whether you can say anything about it, which I predict you will say you cannot. Am I still a prestidigitator?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Ok. If I say nothing at all, I witness. Except in that case who may audience may be is questionable If I open my mouth, G-d will fill it. My only other choice is to deny Him. Surely you wouldn't want to exert that influence upon me?

You're saying that you yourself don't witness except as you behave? So any words you're saying are from God right now? I think that cuts this part of the convo off..

Ah, the dreaded shenanigans! Is that like a leprechaun that's out to get me? When have I told you of your own experiences?

There's always the word bollocks as a replacement, or b.s. in the politest sense. Basically, I think you're being disingenuous.

At best, you seem guilty of telling me what would happen if I experimented with Christianity.

 

[razeontherock]

At best, you seem guilty of telling me what would happen if I experimented with Christianity.

What do you base this on? I have no idea how you might go about your experiment, nor has G-d shown me what He might do.

 

[razeontherock]

Contradictions exist in Christianity, especially since it seems so proud to subject itself to subjective logic and ignore logic when it says the Trinity is contradictory, just saying it's a "Mystery"

C certainly leaves some mystery, but I would certainly like to know who within it has been telling you that Trinity is in any way contradictory. (Even though this started as changing the subject, and remains so. Why have you not linearally developed the idea being pursued?)

If that is the case, then why make any claims about God's judgment at all?

It is you who claimed His Judgment is incomprehensible. You have yet to demonstrate this, or even address it really.

I've heard of toll booths when we cross state borders occasionally, but not those.

Something about praying for those that have died, as encountering obstacles, apparently with potentially positive outcomes. To me this seems related to universal reconciliation, or some degree thereof. My point being the "fire and brimstone" flavor is not all there is, and it doesn't even seem to be authentic.

My point is that you haven't answered that question as to whether universal reconciliation as soteriology is true or not. Or even whether you can say anything about it, which I predict you will say you cannot. Am I still a prestidigitator?

Personally I see no basis for UR; but there is also some requisite "stuff" I really don't know. The original language, the original manuscript, the meaning of Jesus' specific words and key phrases in that day and age. Not sure how much prestige your digits are left with.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

What do you base this on? I have no idea how you might go about your experiment, nor has G-d shown me what He might do.

Perhaps I should qualify it as you believe that you have some inkling of what might happen if I tried Christianity, though you also admit God may not have plans for me if it so wills.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

C certainly leaves some mystery, but I would certainly like to know who within it has been telling you that Trinity is in any way contradictory. (Even though this started as changing the subject, and remains so. Why have you not linearally developed the idea being pursued?)

No one in Christianity said Trinity is contradictory, but one can enumerate contradictions in it by the very nature of saying it is three persons in one essence, which would suggest not one singular personality, but 3 dissociated personalities, which implies God is mentally ill, which contradicts God's immutability, supposedly.

Developing the idea of eternal life and immortality would depend on if we're talking about spiritual or physical immortality and eternal life.

It is you who claimed His Judgment is incomprehensible. You have yet to demonstrate this, or even address it really.

God's ways are not our ways, correct?

Something about praying for those that have died, as encountering obstacles, apparently with potentially positive outcomes. To me this seems related to universal reconciliation, or some degree thereof. My point being the "fire and brimstone" flavor is not all there is, and it doesn't even seem to be authentic.

I'm not talking about prayers for others in the hopes that they'll go to heaven, but merely the inquiry about those people's fates

Personally I see no basis for UR; but there is also some requisite "stuff" I really don't know. The original language, the original manuscript, the meaning of Jesus' specific words and key phrases in that day and age. Not sure how much prestige your digits are left with.

How much prestige are yours left with in that context if neither of us know these things?

 

[MercyGrace]

I find it interesting that in literature people's attempts to live forever are seen as self-destructive or evil. Vampires live forever but are cursed and prey on humans to live. Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Dr. Hedegger's Experiment" showed people wouldn't use their extra time wisely but continue to make the same mistakes. Tuck Everlasting shows a sad and lonely family who are removed from the natural cycles of life. Everlasting life would be a terrible burden - if we were not changed.

As a Christian, I believe God will create a new heaven and a new earth and give me a new body and I already have a new spirit within me. This will enable me to appreciate and enjoy heaven in a way that my sinful, earthly self could not. And as to details about what it's like, the Bible doesn't say, but I enjoy Joni Eareckson Tada's book Heaven which definitely indicates that we will find deep fulfillment and active enjoyment not solely passive praise.

(I realize I am actually going back to the original post and sort of interrupting an ongoing discussion. Sorry about that.)

On earth, we are often lonely. When we experience pain, we are truly alone; no one can be IN the pain with us as I sadly experience when my own children are hurt. My daughter cries and I hold her and kiss her, but I can't bear the pain for her. We desire to be known and accepted for ourselves; to be part of community. I believe that is part of the beauty and wonder of heaven - to at last be connected to God and to other believers, to be known and loved.

Beyond that, the idea of living forever is rather mind-blowing, so I prefer to leave it to God and just trust Him.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I find it interesting that in literature people's attempts to live forever are seen as self-destructive or evil. Vampires live forever but are cursed and prey on humans to live. Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Dr. Hedegger's Experiment" showed people wouldn't use their extra time wisely but continue to make the same mistakes. Tuck Everlasting shows a sad and lonely family who are removed from the natural cycles of life. Everlasting life would be a terrible burden - if we were not changed.

Everlasting life would by definition be unchanging, so it stands to reason that changing life is by default preferable.

As a Christian, I believe God will create a new heaven and a new earth and give me a new body and I already have a new spirit within me. This will enable me to appreciate and enjoy heaven in a way that my sinful, earthly self could not. And as to details about what it's like, the Bible doesn't say, but I enjoy Joni Eareckson Tada's book Heaven which definitely indicates that we will find deep fulfillment and active enjoyment not solely passive praise.

Someone saying Heaven will giveyou deep fulfillment and active enjoyment does not mean it will actually be true, but merely is something you seem to believe will be the case.

Seems to me that when you are changed so radically it would be incoherent to speak about experiencing things as a human, so the experience you would have would therefore be something categorically different and thus makes the argument for your position seem ad hoc; that is, you just qualify that this is different in some way.

(I realize I am actually going back to the original post and sort of interrupting an ongoing discussion. Sorry about that.)

New posters are welcome, I say.

On earth, we are often lonely. When we experience pain, we are truly alone; no one can be IN the pain with us as I sadly experience when my own children are hurt. My daughter cries and I hold her and kiss her, but I can't bear the pain for her. We desire to be known and accepted for ourselves; to be part of community. I believe that is part of the beauty and wonder of heaven - to at last be connected to God and to other believers, to be known and loved.

Isn't the point of community to engender sympathy and empathy to begin with? Even if I cannot feel the pain of my friend who may still suffer a bit at the loss of her stepfather only about half a year ago (who might as well have been her father as far as anyone was concerned) but I nonetheless went to his funeral visitation and expressed sympathy and empathy at my own suffering at his loss. Just because we cannot feel the pain and suffering of others does not mean we cannot empathize in that we have felt similar pain ourselves.

I don't see how having such a hive mind experience would actually be beneficial, since we would cease to be individuals anymore in a significant sense, but would be so interconnected it would damage any consciousness of an individual's experience.

Beyond that, the idea of living forever is rather mind-blowing, so I prefer to leave it to God and just trust Him.

Seems like you are more unwilling to think that it could be a bad thing and just hope and pray that it will be good. What if there is some eternal life, but the "god" that enables it is malicious and otherwise not benevolent in any sense to humanity? Would immortality in an existence of no change or progress, stagnating in eternal life and immortality with no way to even end your life be a good thing?

 

[MercyGrace]

Stagnation and unending boredom with no reprieve are rather horrible thoughts! But I believe first that God is good. Second I believe God is infinite. John 17:3 says, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Since we are to KNOW God and since He is infinite, I believe all of eternity we will not be stagnating in unending monotonous praise but rather discovering more and more about the intricacies and beauties of the universe God made and of God Himself.