Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[razeontherock]

Your quote here that I responded to, didn't distinguish EL from immortality:

Christians all disagree as to the nature of eternal life is. Some believe it is conditional from God, some believe it is unconditional for all, some believe it is unconditional for the elect, and so on.

This is C's pretending to be able to point fingers to determine "who's in and who's out." I could relate how Jesus dealt w/ that issue, but the short version is - He's against it. So again I'm saying that line of thought is a diversion away from clarifying what EL is, within the C POV. (This might be a big stone, that needs a lot of chipping away before what's left is a somewhat accurate representation)

Go back to the relationship idea, the life of the vine abides in it's branches, that type of thing.

You insist that these count as support. What would be wrong with deriving something more philosophical from those scriptures? textual analysis, deriving common themes from the literature even? I'm not asking for a dissertation here, just for something systematic.

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that at all! I don't think there are very many passages in the Bible w/ only 1 correct understanding. Yet what I do know is if we think we've found meaning to assign to some portion of it, there will be at least one or 2 other places saying the same thing. If we can't find that, we're probably imposing our own agenda onto it.

If you don't understand eternal life as immortality, then what do you understand it as? they're not identical, but they're not as different like apples and coconuts.

My point so far is, in C one does not wait for EL to start. This is somewhat confusing because we do expect this body to die, but that distinction vs immortality is not what I have been trying to address so far.

Instead, to understand either EL or "the Kingdom," one needs to understand the difference EL is supposed to make now. And it is in this regard that I find all Spiritualities to have at least some common ground. To further complicate things, C uses "the kingdom of G-d" as well as "the Kingdom of heaven." There's a distinction, but I have yet to keep it straight

So you see, the typical stereotypes of floating on a cloud and playing a harp don't connect to any reality I'm aware of

 

[razeontherock]

well, is it more logical or reasonable for any kind of happiness to be eternal: or does it make more sense for happiness to be transient, like fortune?

As used in the Bible, happiness is temporal and joy is eternal, or at least a Spiritual thing w/ the potential for Eternity, if we stick with it.

 

[razeontherock]

Any relationship that's eternal does not equal to eternal life, but an eternal relationship, which is by no means what even life generally means.

We were getting somewhere, until your "generally means." Our relationship w/ G-d is both what controls whether we live or die, and the definition of Life and death. So if you re-craft your question in your OP to "eternal relationship w/ our Maker," you could find workable answers.

but you admit it's favoritism.

Favoritism, on what grounds? Those that "walk after the Spirit, not after the flesh." Something we all have equal opportunity to do. No bearing on race, religion, creed, nor any other form of bigotry. That would then make it hard to define as "favoritism," but would be more akin to, say ... Justice.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This is C's pretending to be able to point fingers to determine "who's in and who's out." I could relate how Jesus dealt w/ that issue, but the short version is - He's against it. So again I'm saying that line of thought is a diversion away from clarifying what EL is, within the C POV. (This might be a big stone, that needs a lot of chipping away before what's left is a somewhat accurate representation)

Then all you seem to be doing is saying what it isn't without saying what it is.

Go back to the relationship idea, the life of the vine abides in it's branches, that type of thing.

To say we're absolutely bound, like vines to a fruit, seems unrealistic in the larger sense. another metaphor might suffice, but nothing is coming to mind

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that at all! I don't think there are very many passages in the Bible w/ only 1 correct understanding. Yet what I do know is if we think we've found meaning to assign to some portion of it, there will be at least one or 2 other places saying the same thing. If we can't find that, we're probably imposing our own agenda onto it.



My point so far is, in C one does not wait for EL to start. This is somewhat confusing because we do expect this body to die, but that distinction vs immortality is not what I have been trying to address so far.

Instead, to understand either EL or "the Kingdom," one needs to understand the difference EL is supposed to make now. And it is in this regard that I find all Spiritualities to have at least some common ground. To further complicate things, C uses "the kingdom of G-d" as well as "the Kingdom of heaven." There's a distinction, but I have yet to keep it straight

So you see, the typical stereotypes of floating on a cloud and playing a harp don't connect to any reality I'm aware of[/quote]

 

[ToHoldNothing]

We were getting somewhere, until your "generally means." Our relationship w/ G-d is both what controls whether we live or die, and the definition of Life and death. So if you re-craft your question in your OP to "eternal relationship w/ our Maker," you could find workable answers.

You seem to think that we will die in two ways if we don'tbelieve in God and believe rightly, which is only positing a second term which is unfalsifiable. Relationships don't determine absolutel whether we live or die, that's fortune and basic limitations of biology. Relationships are important, I don't deny that. I simply see no reason to have a relationship with this deity that refuses to make itself general instead of particular.

Favoritism, on what grounds? Those that "walk after the Spirit, not after the flesh." Something we all have equal opportunity to do. No bearing on race, religion, creed, nor any other form of bigotry. That would then make it hard to define as "favoritism," but would be more akin to, say ... Justice

The spirit is ill defined and not verifiable outside of a biased and subjective perspective of what amounts to a mystic. It wouldn't be justice, it would be simply how things flow if we assume this is correct. but it isn't necessarily true, so where does that get us?

 

[razeontherock]

Then all you seem to be doing is saying what it isn't without saying what it is.

Yes, I tried to make that clear from the beginning. At least you're seeing it now.

To say we're absolutely bound, like vines to a fruit, seems unrealistic in the larger sense. another metaphor might suffice, but nothing is coming to mind

I'm not one to suggest any metaphor is ever perfect, but it does help to start with the metaphor as presented!

The metaphor does not go from vines to fruit. It goes from THE vine, to us as branches, and later we're told that ultimately fruit is to come from within us via being connected to the Life of the vine. Is that really such a subtle distinction from what you said here? (You'll notice this idea directly contradicts other ideas you have expressed in this thread)

 

[razeontherock]

You seem to think that we will die in two ways if we don'tbelieve in God and believe rightly, which is only positing a second term which is unfalsifiable.

I'd love for you to disclose what you base this on. I don't see how it could be anything I said.

Relationships don't determine absolutel whether we live or die, that's fortune and basic limitations of biology. Relationships are important, I don't deny that.

1) You still confuse what I'm saying with "relationships," in the plural.

2) If you separate fortune and biology from G-d, you fail to comprehend who He is; so again defining terms is a precursor to any kind of workable answer to the question of your OP.

I simply see no reason to have a relationship with this deity that refuses to make itself general instead of particular.

That excuse is both odd and unfounded. How much more "general" do you suppose He could be?

1) whoever comes to Him He will not cast out in any way shape or form
2) All possible barriers have been eliminated; class, race, birthplace / birthright, sex, you name it.

The spirit is ill defined and not verifiable

Change that to read you refuse to seek the Lord and I'd agree with you. If you choose to assert that anyone who knows Him is a "mystic," I suppose I could let that statement stand but I certainly never saw the need to think of it that way, nor do I see how it benefits. What DOES benefit, is knowing Him

It wouldn't be justice, it would be simply how things flow if we assume this is correct. but it isn't necessarily true, so where does that get us?

I'm hoping you may come to understand that getting answers to the questions you ask and then responding in this fashion doesn't help anything. It should be self-evident that the nature of the topic can't be put in a test tube.

 

[chris4243]

A living dog is better than a dead lion.

This assumes you buy into the binary dichotomy that life is always better than death, which isn't always the case. You wouldn't want eternal life if you were also wracked with crippling pain or torture, would you?

And I don't even know what you mean by that little "metaphor"

He means that the living dog is better because the living know that they will die. (Ecclesiastes 9)

 

[razeontherock]

I had missed that last exchange. The lion / dog phrase is in the book of Proverbs. The contrast is intentionally striking, and IS one way of saying that life is always better than death, contrary to what our OP espouses. In the same breath, if anyone is tortured in hell the OP is obviously correct, they would prefer annihilation as relief, which is kinda the whole point.

 

[chris4243]

The lion / dog phrase is in the book of Proverbs.

That does seem consistent with the nature of our previous disagreement.

 

[elman]

=ToHoldNothing;57208125]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.

The negative is not a default position that is proven by the positive being unprovable. If it were you could not be Buddhist because that is certainly unproven.

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?

I respectfully disagree that death is preferable to life or that there is no death or that the worms that eat my body indicate my existence continues after I die and I do not believe in the devil.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

As used in the Bible, happiness is temporal and joy is eternal, or at least a Spiritual thing w/ the potential for Eternity, if we stick with it.

Happiness and joy are not necessarily distinct. A qualification of the two would be required in order for this to be clear.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Yes, I tried to make that clear from the beginning. At least you're seeing it now.

Using via negativa gets us nowhere because your concept in question dies the death of a thousand qualifications, like Antony Flew's invisible gardener idea presented in "Theology and Falsification"

I'm not one to suggest any metaphor is ever perfect, but it does help to start with the metaphor as presented!

The metaphor does not go from vines to fruit. It goes from THE vine, to us as branches, and later we're told that ultimately fruit is to come from within us via being connected to the Life of the vine. Is that really such a subtle distinction from what you said here? (You'll notice this idea directly contradicts other ideas you have expressed in this thread)

Either way, the metaphor assumes that we need this so called vine to be ethical, which would be the fruits, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I'd love for you to disclose what you base this on. I don't see how it could be anything I said.

I didn't say it was. Revelation has something to the effect of us being judged twice, from what I recall

1) You still confuse what I'm saying with "relationships," in the plural.

2) If you separate fortune and biology from G-d, you fail to comprehend who He is; so again defining terms is a precursor to any kind of workable answer to the question of your OP.

RElationships in the plural can simply refer to multiple relationships with different humans. How is that complicating matters?

You're presuming the ontology of those terms as opposed to looking at them in and of themselves separate from any presuppositions. Fortune and biology are neither from God nor separate from God, they are what they are.

That excuse is both odd and unfounded. How much more "general" do you suppose He could be?

1) whoever comes to Him He will not cast out in any way shape or form
2) All possible barriers have been eliminated; class, race, birthplace / birthright, sex, you name it.

It's contingent on people being compelled to surrender a great deal of individuality and critical thought in "coming to Him". That's how particular it is.

Change that to read you refuse to seek the Lord and I'd agree with you. If you choose to assert that anyone who knows Him is a "mystic," I suppose I could let that statement stand but I certainly never saw the need to think of it that way, nor do I see how it benefits. What DOES benefit, is knowing Him

You're rewording this to shift the responsibility from God to me, which is absurd, considering God's the one that's supposed to be all powerful and could conceivably convince people in countless ways besides the bible.

You don't know God, you experience God. Knowledge is independent of your personal convictions, and clearly God is not knowable in that sense if you are basically only able to experience God by an outside influence.

I'm hoping you may come to understand that getting answers to the questions you ask and then responding in this fashion doesn't help anything. It should be self-evident that the nature of the topic can't be put in a test tube

I said nothing about scientific empirical tests, but basic philosophical tests of its consistency. Problem is, it isn't even consistent in that sense, because we have a concept of spirit that amounts to little more than hypothetical matter beyond quantum particles

 

[ToHoldNothing]

He means that the living dog is better because the living know that they will die. (Ecclesiastes 9)

And yet doesn't Ecclesiastes also say that the dead know nothing? This seems to imply they cease to exist.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I had missed that last exchange. The lion / dog phrase is in the book of Proverbs. The contrast is intentionally striking, and IS one way of saying that life is always better than death, contrary to what our OP espouses. In the same breath, if anyone is tortured in hell the OP is obviously correct, they would prefer annihilation as relief, which is kinda the whole point.

No, no, no. I didn't say death was preferable to life, I said death was essentially the same as life when you see it as merely transition or transformation. Death can be beneficial to us, I didn't say we should wish death upon everyone. Not to mention your idea of death presumes there's an afterlife where our consciousness survives, which you have yet to present an argument for outside of your scriptures. There are plenty of arguments you could probably bring up to support some claim of life after death, but you haven't brought them up.

 

[elman]

No, no, no. I didn't say death was preferable to life, I said death was essentially the same as life when you see it as merely transition or transformation. Death can be beneficial to us, I didn't say we should wish death upon everyone. Not to mention your idea of death presumes there's an afterlife where our consciousness survives, which you have yet to present an argument for outside of your scriptures. There are plenty of arguments you could probably bring up to support some claim of life after death, but you haven't brought them up.

It seems to me you have said non existence is preferable to existence when discussing the afterlife. I cannot see how you can reasonbly get to life and death being the same. The only way death can be beneficial is to end our suffering. Can you think of another example? If our consciousness does not survive then what does? Certainly not our bodies? Exactly what in your opinion survives?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The negative is not a default position that is proven by the positive being unprovable. If it were you could not be Buddhist because that is certainly unproven.

I didn't say the negative was the default position, but a skepticism towards such unfalsifiable claims. Plus you can't prove a negative, so your point makes even less sense in saying what I believe in regards to what the default position is. Buddhism is not proven in every claim, but I've never claimed to be a full Buddhist, have I?

I respectfully disagree that death is preferable to life or that there is no death or that the worms that eat my body indicate my existence continues after I die and I do not believe in the devil

I never said death was preferable to life, I merely said death is misunderstood in a context where the afterlife is your primary goal. Any afterlife that may exist is not my goal, but realizing truths within my life as it is now. Death may be understood as similar or identical to life, but only if you get out of the binary dualist thought process that everything needs an exact opposite instead of simply a contrast.

And I did not say that worms indicate your existence continues after you die. If you don't believe in the devil as a christian, you're certainly a minority.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It seems to me you have said non existence is preferable to existence when discussing the afterlife. I cannot see how you can reasonbly get to life and death being the same. The only way death can be beneficial is to end our suffering. Can you think of another example? If our consciousness does not survive then what does? Certainly not our bodies? Exactly what in your opinion survives?

I've said nonexistence is preferable to an afterlife where my consciousness does survive. Not overall. I accept things as they are, and I do not know what the afterlife holds for anyone, including myself. Nonexistence is not the same thing as death, as I've said before. No more than existence is the same as life.

I've never said they are identical. Death is life in some sense, but it is also not life, quite obviously. A caterpillar is not a butterfly, yet it is. Death is transitionary, transformative, but it is not identical to the state of life we understand at the moment, similar to how we don't see how a butterfly could come from a caterpillar. Death, in a related way, comes from life and is related to it in that death brings forth more life. Apoptosis, programmed cell death, comes to mind

Death can be beneficial in that it is a learning experience for the living. I learn from deaths of others, I don't say that people learn from their own deaths, assuming their consciousness does not survive their death, which I do.

Nothing that you possess survives your body, neither your body nor your mind, but simply a body and a mind in the nominal sense. To believe otherwise is to cling to permanence where there is none as far as we can tell. Clinging to what is "mine" is what I find problematic in the afterlife, including what you think is "your" consciousness, when in reality, it does not appear to be that way.

The idea of something surviving the deaths of any being is what I believe is considered the skandha, or aggregates, in Buddhism. They are 5 in number: matter, sensation, perception, reaction and consciousness (translations vary)

 

[razeontherock]

Using via negativa gets us nowhere

So you give up, and understanding is a hopeless goal?

Either way, the metaphor assumes that we need this so called vine to be ethical, which would be the fruits, if I'm not mistaken.

That is mistaken. The fruits, are the fruit of the Spirit; i.e., sign of ETERNAL LIFE. You keep trying to mix and match your own thoughts w/ G-d's Word, and that just doesn't work.