razeontherock
Well-Known Member
While our imaginations (and the rest of our mind) may have some creative power - not that much
This a cart before the horse type problem. How would you define "Eternal Life?"
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
From what you've described, it just sounds like heaven is whatever a Christian imagines it to be
If heaven is unspecifiable, then by all means defend immortality and eternal life in general
How would Nietszche know?
While our imaginations (and the rest of our mind) may have some creative power - not that much
This a cart before the horse type problem. How would you define "Eternal Life?
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?
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?
Then it's purely faith based and not worth debating as if you can prove it
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
I don't think this is correct, but in any event your spirit according to this Christian is your soul and not your body.Spirit according to general Christianity is not your soul, it's the animating principle of both your soul and body.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.
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.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.
Incorrect. Losing parts of my body is not losing my identity. Christianity believing our Spiritual existence is separate from our body is not gnosticism.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
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.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.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.
It seems to me you did say otherwise.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.If there is no afterlife for my personality etc. there is no persisting by me in even a nominal sense.
I believe it to be unimaginable on my part, but good. How do you get bad out of that?From people's general explanations of what they beleive it to be, including your own.You think about the afterlife and assume there is none. So where do you come up with your ideas that the afterlife is bad?
How did you get to that illogical conclusion?then it's just your psychology that makes you believe in an afterlife.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.
What difference does it make to our conversation how many other targets you have?No I didn't. Heaven is not unique to Christianity, therefore you are not my sole "target"That is what you did.
Not reasonable. See above.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.Yes you reject the possibility of eternal life and then proceed to point out how bad it will be.
No your postion seems to be you don't believe in an afterlife and hate it.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.But you are focusing on the afterlilfe when you propose it is bad.
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.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.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.
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.Because there'd be no sorrow to contrast it and it would be hollow and empty, like being a vegetable or comatose.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.
With no reason or logic to do so.You're filling in the unknown with the things, I'm simply judging them as bad.You are the one wanting to fill in the unknown with bad things.
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.Anything taken to excess is by its nature a bad thing.No love and goodness are the same if done by God as done by us. Love and goodness are never bad and never inhumane
It is not reasonable to assume unhappiness because it is different from our experiences here.__________________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.
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 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.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 assumed you were quoting him for some reason.I didn't say he knew, you put words in my mouth
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.
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?
I assumed you were quoting him for some reason.
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.
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.
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.
So it's whatever the Xian believes that makes it so?I don't think this is correct, but in any event your spirit according to this Christian is your soul and not your body.
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.
Incorrect. Losing parts of my body is not losing my identity. Christianity believing our Spiritual existence is separate from our body is not gnosticism.
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 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.
It seems to me you did say otherwise.
I believe it to be unimaginable on my part, but good. How do you get bad out of that?
How did you get to that illogical conclusion?
What difference does it make to our conversation how many other targets you have?
Not reasonable. See above.
No your postion seems to be you don't believe in an afterlife and hate it.
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.
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.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.
With no reason or logic to do so.
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._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 is not reasonable to assume unhappiness because it is different from our experiences here
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.
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.
The idea of here and there was purely perspective based.
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.
You only say that because you haven't encountered them to know better.
So in short, you have the 'promise' of eternal life, so it might as well be eternal life now?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.
If I said something that somehow suggested that to you, please forgive me. That was not at all my intent.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
Time is almost also a necessity to appreciate life and death; otherwise they really don't seem distinct from each other.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).
Because many Christians seem to indicate that fellowship with God is a group activityI agree and I'm not sure why you think I would think differently.
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.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?