Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[razeontherock]

From what you've described, it just sounds like heaven is whatever a Christian imagines it to be

While our imaginations (and the rest of our mind) may have some creative power - not that much

If heaven is unspecifiable, then by all means defend immortality and eternal life in general

This a cart before the horse type problem. How would you define "Eternal Life?"

 

[ToHoldNothing]

How would Nietszche know?

I didn't say he knew, you put words in my mouth

 

[ToHoldNothing]

While our imaginations (and the rest of our mind) may have some creative power - not that much

Then it's purely faith based and not worth debating as if you can prove it

This a cart before the horse type problem. How would you define "Eternal Life?

Living essentially forever, albeit usually qualified with death by physical trauma. Basically eternal youth potentially, but usually simply living forever in some ideal body, which is tantamount to immortality anyway

 

[ToHoldNothing]

One might say any number of things that are incorrect. So you deny anything that is speculation and not proven. Kind of a limited approach. You say you are skeptical of it being proven. How many times have I said it cannot be proven?

Your whole diatribe is moot then; heaven is merely something you believe in, but you cannot defend it as anything logically compelling. you believe in it because it fits with your personality and psychology, it doesn't with mine. Why is there such a problem if you can't accept that and respectfully disagree instead of saying I'm willfully ignorant?

I deny the usefulness of things that are pure speculation alongside things that are believed in purely by faith based in psychology, such as magical thinking, etc. Better to have some limits than believe in anything that tickles your fancy.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Do you truthfully think you can distinguish between soul and spirit, in the way Christianity uses such terms? If you think so, what compels you to think such a thing?

By basic theological distinctions presented by Christians. If you think you can find a more compelling argument for why they are not distinct, by all means present your thesis and support for them.

 

[razeontherock]

Then it's purely faith based and not worth debating as if you can prove it

Exactly! I call this type of thing arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Nothing we can do about it either way.

Living essentially forever, albeit usually qualified with death by physical trauma. Basically eternal youth potentially, but usually simply living forever in some ideal body, which is tantamount to immortality anyway

Then it surprises you to learn that Eternal Life in Christianity is not something you wait for, and don't have to (physically) die first?

 

[elman]

I would assume spirit to be that part of me that continues to exist after death if there is an afterlife. My personality and consciousness and memories are me, not my physical body. So you seem to be talking about death not being death but then you do talk about death being death. The constituents of my material body, whatever that means, being still alive in some sense does not mean I am still alive in some sense.

Spirit according to general Christianity is not your soul, it's the animating principle of both your soul and body.

I don't think this is correct, but in any event your spirit according to this Christian is your soul and not your body.

Death is death as we usually understand it, but that doesn't mean death is actually death as we usually understand it. Death as transition and merely a metamorphosis of life makes more sense.

No it does not if there is no God and no afterlife. I am not metamorphing into the worms that eat my body. It makes no sense to think that.

This all assumes that your identity is not in some sense tied with your physical body, which is inaccurate even by a general Christian understanding, unless you want to lean towards gnosticism

Incorrect. Losing parts of my body is not losing my identity. Christianity believing our Spiritual existence is separate from our body is not gnosticism.

I am saying the same thing I have always said to you, that for some of us, the righteous, physical death may only be a transition to complete spiritual existencs; but for some of us, the wicked and unloving , death may be oblivion.

conditional immortality only creates more problems because life and death are up to the caprice of a deity that has the power to bestow it whenever it pleases.

It is more of a problem to have certain oblivion than a chance at life. We can trust God who is loving and just, so being up to His caprice is not a problem.

If there is no afterlife for my personality etc. there is no persisting by me in even a nominal sense.

I didn't say otherwise; that's the basic idea of the afterlife, the persistence of your consciousness and personality. The bodily aspect is a secondary concern of details.

It seems to me you did say otherwise.

You think about the afterlife and assume there is none. So where do you come up with your ideas that the afterlife is bad?

From people's general explanations of what they beleive it to be, including your own.

I believe it to be unimaginable on my part, but good. How do you get bad out of that?

You're mistaken in thinking I assume there is no afterlife. At best I reserve judgment since I don't think it's important, but if there is any afterlife, hypothetically, I don't think it will be especially pleasant.

That effects a Christian belief in eternal life.

then it's just your psychology that makes you believe in an afterlife.

How did you get to that illogical conclusion?

That is what you did.

No I didn't. Heaven is not unique to Christianity, therefore you are not my sole "target"

What difference does it make to our conversation how many other targets you have?

Yes you reject the possibility of eternal life and then proceed to point out how bad it will be.

I reject the desirability. I don't deny outright the possibility. At best I say it is highly unlikely. I point out how bad it is by hypothetical descriptions by people such as yourself, that isn't the same as outright rejecting it.

Not reasonable. See above.

But you are focusing on the afterlilfe when you propose it is bad.

By hypothetical tentative descriptions by believers. This isn't misotheism, where I believe in God and hate it, no more than I can be said to believe in the afterlife and persist in hating it. That isn't my position.

No your postion seems to be you don't believe in an afterlife and hate it.

It is what it is and you have no power over it in any event. Again it is not logical to assume annihilation is preferable to existence. You have no concept of what the existence might be like.

Nor do you beyond your psychology imagining what it might be like.Speculation on something that is faith based is useless to me, so I don't speculate much myself, I let others do that for me.

Alright I will do it for you. If there is a loving Creator and an afterlife, you can relax because it will be a good experience.

I am not sure how our perspective will effect our happiness or sadness after we physically die. I continue to not be able to follow why you think eternal happiness would be a bad thing.

Because there'd be no sorrow to contrast it and it would be hollow and empty, like being a vegetable or comatose.

Unreasonable assumption. A loving Creator that could have cause all of this and us to exist will be able to keep our existence with Him interesting. We will have the contract of our memories to rely on if that is your concern.

You are the one wanting to fill in the unknown with bad things.

You're filling in the unknown with the things, I'm simply judging them as bad.

With no reason or logic to do so.
_

No love and goodness are the same if done by God as done by us. Love and goodness are never bad and never inhumane

Anything taken to excess is by its nature a bad thing.

Then it would not be love and goodness if taken to excess. I cannot see how that is possible but the result would negate it being love and goodness if the result were bad.

Even things we normally understand to be good can be unquestionably bad when taken to excess and made to be something more than they originally were. Happiness in perfection and eternity would be without real significance, since it would not be in flux as natural happiness is.

It is not reasonable to assume unhappiness because it is different from our experiences here.__________________

 

[razeontherock]

By basic theological distinctions presented by Christians. If you think you can find a more compelling argument for why they are not distinct, by all means present your thesis and support for them.

I didn't say they aren't distinct. What i said is I wonder what makes you think you can distinguish between them, which turns to wondering about those C's with their theology.

While the original languages of Scripture sometimes add a little light, here's what we have re: distinguishing Spirit from soul:

"For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

That is ... not a lot; but what it does say, is very limiting to our own abilities in this regard.

 

[elman]

Your whole diatribe is moot then; heaven is merely something you believe in, but you cannot defend it as anything logically compelling. you believe in it because it fits with your personality and psychology, it doesn't with mine. Why is there such a problem if you can't accept that and respectfully disagree instead of saying I'm willfully ignorant?

I deny the usefulness of things that are pure speculation alongside things that are believed in purely by faith based in psychology, such as magical thinking, etc. Better to have some limits than believe in anything that tickles your fancy.

I don't believe in anything that tickles my fancy. Your not believeing in something does not prove it to not be real. You can deny the usefulness of believing in a loving Creator all you want. That does not mean it is useless. I don't think I ever said you are willfully ignorant. I have had trouble understand some of the things you said and disagreed with much of it, but that is not the same thing.

 

[elman]

I didn't say he knew, you put words in my mouth

I assumed you were quoting him for some reason.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Exactly! I call this type of thing arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Nothing we can do about it either way.

Problem is, even Xians don't agree about certain questions being relevant to faith in discursive and logical investigation. Catholics, along with some Protestants, find angelology and demonology beneficial, whereas many Christians would find it dangerous to spiritual health.

Then it surprises you to learn that Eternal Life in Christianity is not something you wait for, and don't have to (physically) die first?

This assumes that eternal life, like nirvana, can be realized in this physical life, where I don't think that's the case in Christianity, you live forever in the afterlife, not now.And even if you live forever in a material universe, it's a reformed one, so to speak. You don't live forever 'here', you live forever 'there', whatever 'there' might be.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I assumed you were quoting him for some reason.

I can quote someone without thinking they're an absolute authority on a subject. Although when you quote Jesus or paul, that's a different thing entirely, so my point seems to potentially be missed even if I explain it.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't believe in anything that tickles my fancy. Your not believeing in something does not prove it to not be real. You can deny the usefulness of believing in a loving Creator all you want. That does not mean it is useless. I don't think I ever said you are willfully ignorant. I have had trouble understand some of the things you said and disagreed with much of it, but that is not the same thing.

I never said my disbelief or belief about something made it true, but simply that it is the primary way we approach things. you can't demonstrate believing in a loving creator is useful to everyone, so my default position is disbelief in a loving creator's usefulness.

Then by all means tell me if you respectfully disagree or simply think that I'm being stubborn because the devil is talking to me, among other options?

 

[razeontherock]

This assumes that eternal life, like nirvana, can be realized in this physical life, where I don't think that's the case in Christianity, you live forever in the afterlife, not now.And even if you live forever in a material universe, it's a reformed one, so to speak. You don't live forever 'here', you live forever 'there', whatever 'there' might be.

That's neither here nor there (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Seriously, you're creating an artificial distinction between "here" and "there."

My broaching this topic was simply to point out you are misconstruing what is meant by Eternal Life in Christianity. This snipped quote above points that out completely enough.

Problem is, even Xians don't agree about certain questions being relevant to faith in discursive and logical investigation. Catholics, along with some Protestants, find angelology and demonology beneficial, whereas many Christians would find it dangerous to spiritual health.

When you find yourself in a battle against demons and/or the like, suddenly it becomes ... relevant. And then it is a lack of knowledge that is dangerous to Spiritual health. Those that find knowledge to be problematic no doubt lack experience, and I try to avoid thinking of them as leaders.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't think this is correct, but in any event your spirit according to this Christian is your soul and not your body.

So it's whatever the Xian believes that makes it so?

No it does not if there is no God and no afterlife. I am not metamorphing into the worms that eat my body. It makes no sense to think that.

I never said that. Our constituents metamorphose into various things by 'death' and 'life', but we don't possess them since we cease to exist when we die personality wise. Not to say everything ceases to exist when we die, merely our personality and consciousness.

I never posited that there was a permanent consciousness and personality after death. You're adding things into my position that aren't there. I'm not attached to myself surviving, so I have no problem believing that I cease to exist and metamorphose in the general sense to something else. It's not me changing into dirt, it's my constituents

Incorrect. Losing parts of my body is not losing my identity. Christianity believing our Spiritual existence is separate from our body is not gnosticism.

I never said losing parts of your body was losing your identity, but if your consciousness is tied to your brain, losing it is tantamount to losing your consciousness. Christianity doesn't necessarily believe your spirit/soul are separate from your body, but only that they can survive without the body. But the idea that the spirit is our full body is not necessarily a Christian belief but a gnostic one. Christians believe we need both a body and our spirit/soul to be a full person. Am I wrong?

It is more of a problem to have certain oblivion than a chance at life. We can trust God who is loving and just, so being up to His caprice is not a problem.

Not if you don't care whether your personality ceases to exist. If I cease to exist at death, i accept that. you cannot accept it, so you posit a chance at life from god.

It seems to me you did say otherwise.

You're confusing an afterlife in no-self reincarnation to an afterlife with a self reincarnation as well as an afterlife where you have a self and go to heaven or hell. I was saying that if there is an afterlife, it makes more sense to believe in Buddhist reincarnation with no self persisting after your death.

I believe it to be unimaginable on my part, but good. How do you get bad out of that?

Because all you're doing is filling in the gaps with what fulfills your tiny perspective of what is good.

How did you get to that illogical conclusion?

Only illogical if you think we somehow get our beliefs primarily from outside ourselves as opposed to deliberating internally. You chose to believe this regardless of your enculturated beliefs beforehand.

What difference does it make to our conversation how many other targets you have?

because if i am targeting more than one person, you have no reason to be personally offended.

Not reasonable. See above.

you think I have to take a position one way or another, but I don't. Being skeptical of the afterlife is not outright denying it.

No your postion seems to be you don't believe in an afterlife and hate it.

Why would I hate something I don't believe in? You're positing absurd ideas like this, it's no wonder the conversation keeps going nowhere.

Alright I will do it for you. If there is a loving Creator and an afterlife, you can relax because it will be a good experience.

Not necessarily. It could be a torturous experience because I will not be content, since that existence is basically whatever the creator wants, which could be little more than being assimilated into its consciousness, which it thinks would be good for me, but I don't think that's a good thing.

Unreasonable assumption. A loving Creator that could have cause all of this and us to exist will be able to keep our existence with Him interesting. We will have the contract of our memories to rely on if that is your concern.

Interesting from a creator's perspective is still subjective. It could be wrong and some people like myself would not like the afterlife and wish to cease to exist.

With no reason or logic to do so.

You have no reason or logic to say your answers are better, so how are my judgments less reasonable or logical if I posit a standard that is falsifiable?

_Then it would not be love and goodness if taken to excess. I cannot see how that is possible but the result would negate it being love and goodness if the result were bad.

It would be love and goodness still in general ideas, but it would not be love and goodness discursively, yes. If you think love and goodness need moderation, why posit an afterlife where both of them appear to be taken to excess? Unless you're not aware of those implications.

It is not reasonable to assume unhappiness because it is different from our experiences here

I assume it will be less than moderate happiness. I don't assume it is unhappiness, since that is a perception that not everyoen will have in your heaven. Some people would ignorantly believe it's happiness, some would just believe it's happiness without thinking otherwise and some would think it's hell instead of heaven. Happiness is a subjective thing, you can't objectify it and expect it to make sense.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That's neither here nor there (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Seriously, you're creating an artificial distinction between "here" and "there."

My broaching this topic was simply to point out you are misconstruing what is meant by Eternal Life in Christianity. This snipped quote above points that out completely enough.

The idea of here and there was purely perspective based. Nirvana and samsara, in a general buddhist understanding are the same thing. I don't think Christians all agree that this world is the same as heaven

You're obfuscating by not even trying to explain what eternal life is in Christianity. At least make the attempt instead of being passive aggressive about this.

When you find yourself in a battle against demons and/or the like, suddenly it becomes ... relevant. And then it is a lack of knowledge that is dangerous to Spiritual health. Those that find knowledge to be problematic no doubt lack experience, and I try to avoid thinking of them as leaders

This all presumes they exist and that they are malicious, which may very well not be the case.

 

[razeontherock]

This all presumes they exist and that they are malicious, which may very well not be the case.

You only say that because you haven't encountered them to know better.

The idea of here and there was purely perspective based.

Glad to see you were able to follow my turn of phrase. I'm just pointing out the beginning of Christian Eternal Life in the here and now, is unaffected
by the changes the future brings.

I don't think Christians all agree that this world is the same as heaven

If I said something that somehow suggested that to you, please forgive me. That was not at all my intent.

You're obfuscating by not even trying to explain what eternal life is in Christianity. At least make the attempt instead of being passive aggressive about this.

This is a difficult subject, that an unbeliever cannot "see." So because I cannot spell it out in black and white, I'm now "passive aggressive?"

Does not compute, Will Robinson.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You only say that because you haven't encountered them to know better.

Perhaps they don't exist at all. This is all a moot point until you can demonstrate independently of your faith that they are reasonable to believe in.

Glad to see you were able to follow my turn of phrase. I'm just pointing out the beginning of Christian Eternal Life in the here and now, is unaffected
by the changes the future brings.

So in short, you have the 'promise' of eternal life, so it might as well be eternal life now?

If I said something that somehow suggested that to you, please forgive me. That was not at all my intent.

You didn't, but honestly, the whole orthocentric way of thinking just seems to give that impression thatChristians who don't agree about this orthodox idea of heaven are either heretics or stupid/spiritually blind.

This is a difficult subject, that an unbeliever cannot "see." So because I cannot spell it out in black and white, I'm now "passive aggressive?"

I never said black and white, since language is only a method that is still imperfect in speaking about things in and of themselves. I am aware of this as I'm doing a paper on Zhuangzi and his philosophy of language. But you could make some attempt to describe heaven in some way, even if you know it may not make sense to my so called spiritually blind unbelieving mind. What do you have to lose?

 

[solarwave]

The problem remains in that there's also a difference between having a sufficiently long life, say 900 years, and having life eternal with no way to die. I'd prefer to have a long life with the possibilty of death, like tolkien's elves, than be immortal and also live forever by association.

Couldn't a timeless heaven be enough like both life and death to satisfy both those who want eternal life and those who want a final eternal sleep (death).

Basically, yes. If your whole end purpose is worship, why would God require the group to do it. Couldn't it just be everyone privately communing with God? Certainly seems to be more consistent with god wanting everyone to come to it individually and then fellowship as a community.

I agree and I'm not sure why you think I would think differently.

Resurrection is still distinct from a belief in immortality of the soul. There are Christians that believe in conditional immortality; that is, we get immortality from God and can potentially lose it, I'd imagine. Unless of course, it's like learning a new skill, you can't unlearn it easily, if at all completely.

One can be resurrected or even reincarnated multiple times and this is a very conditional immortality in that you might eventually get out of the cycle of reincarnation or you might simply lose the favor of whatever force decided to resurrect you multiple times.

I'm not sure we have an immortal soul (or a soul at all) but if the resurrection of Christ is real it gives hope that this is the final state for those who are saved.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Couldn't a timeless heaven be enough like both life and death to satisfy both those who want eternal life and those who want a final eternal sleep (death).

Time is almost also a necessity to appreciate life and death; otherwise they really don't seem distinct from each other.

Like I said, it would require the ability of people to choose to sleep/hibernate for a time before they wake up. Temporary immortality almost, in some sense.

I agree and I'm not sure why you think I would think differently.

Because many Christians seem to indicate that fellowship with God is a group activity

I'm not sure we have an immortal soul (or a soul at all) but if the resurrection of Christ is real it gives hope that this is the final state for those who are saved

The reflection of Jesus, assuming the events happened, is merely the hope that we will die and then be brought back to life in some shiny new body, which doesn't give us much specificity as to the nature of that body.