Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[razeontherock]

So you don't have any death at all, you just keep living forever?

I credit you, that what I'm saying can be misconstrued to seem this way. Eternal Life does mean "you just keep on living forever," yes. How could it not? Yet there is most definitely an end to this physical existence, complete with obituaries and all that. (Barring drastic Divine intervention, such as "the Last Day")

What you have to realize is I don't speculate and turn that into dogma. C simply doesn't tell us clearly what happens when we die. Here's an apt illustration:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. ... Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God."

This is what C IS. It requires us to "leave the land of our Fathers," including the traditions we have come to rely on. Faith is proven because we don't know exactly where we're going. (There's that humility thing again)

WHat about the soul sleep thing I mentioned?

Bunk, plain and simple. There's a person in the C only sections who's really on the warpath about this, and connects this false idea to many others. By itself, I don't see holding this false idea as affecting Salvation at all, and the Lord knows we can only change so much so fast, so He picks His battles.

Maybe because you consistently say that it's basically a text that can only be read by the initiated gnostics that you keep saying that I can NEVER understand your oh-so holy book unless I surrender any skeptical perspective to just rote obedience.

I have NEVER said any such thing! Where did you get such foul ideas?

Contrast to what i DO say:

Most of the Bible can be understood on it's face, although that level of understanding will miss a lot.

This level of understanding is what affects our actions the most.

As we do those things, greater understanding is given.

Those portions of the Bible that we can't yet comprehend are still to be read, but we must restrain ourselves from assigning our own meaning to them. Otherwise we easily "shout G-d down." And He'll patiently wait for us to get over our bad selves, but He won't enter into the fray.

As we approach Him, if we try to hide our questions, doubts, skepticism, etc., He will likewise "hide His face." If we swallow our pride and ASK Him, doing our best to maintain an appropriate attitude, He will flood us with more understanding than we can possibly take in

(And yes, then we get some of it wrong and C's wind up arguing w/ each other over petty nonsense in their excitement)

First you say Xianity has no afterlife

Correct. That is an Egyptian term, not C. We don't see the separation you suggest. Once to die, and then the Judgment. There are still unknowns.


Then by all means resume skepticism, unless you want to appear even more inconsistent than you already do.

You're going around in circles trying to set me up into your gnostic Christian framework

Gnosticism is a heresy. I don't buy into it. How many attacks do you have forthcoming? YOU are the one running around in circles, all I'm doing is trying to answer your questions. Which I'm afraid are going nowhere. FOCUS!

as far as you've 'explained' eternal life seems to hinge on knowing god and being saved, but beyond that, you don't seem to know much of anything about it

At least now I know that you skipping over the important stuff is INTENTIONAL. (HINT: go back and read where we discussed the fruit of the Spirit. Use the search function to help you locate it)

 

[razeontherock]

These are substances, not anything amounting to someone actually being aware and subsisting beyond their death as a disembodied soul or personality or consciousness. You're confusing the skandhas with the atman in Hinduism, from what I understand of it.

I'm doing no such thing! I've never seen either term before, how could I possibly confuse one for the other?

You use the word "substances" to describe a "disembodied soul." These terms are inconsistent, but it does explain your earlier comments about "weighing the soul."

You're simply going to have to separate all that from discussion in this sub-forum if you want to gain any understanding at all. The 2 do NOT mix!

And don't go confusing this as pretending I'm saying Eastern thought has no value. The systems are just distinct, that's all. Once you understand both well enough you may be able to make usable comparisons, but so far you have proven you DON'T have that level of understanding of what C is.

You're confusing reaction in the sense of our experiences of reaction with reaction in the sense of the fourth skandha

I'm not confusing anything of the kind. You said dead people react. I want to know how. I'm pretty sure they're ... dead. Failure to react seems to me as good a definition as any.

Except in Buddhist metaphysics, your self doesn't ever truly exist except as 'you' experience it and believe and cling to it

Well here's a strong commonality w/ C. I could give you some Scriptures to this effect.

But you still seem to be attached to the idea of a permanent self and refuse to recognize that you are far more temporary than the things you are composed of, which survive your death.

Not at all! You should get in the habit of gathering info before trying to make conclusions based on not having any info.

 

[razeontherock]

Apparently the point of reaching Nirvana is to escape reincarnation.

So if I can mix metaphors - life is hell?

 

[elman]

So if I can mix metaphors - life is hell?

That I think is close to the Buddhist position. The whole poing seems to be escaping suffering and ultimatly the only way of doing that is to reach oblivion--nirvana. Is it not interesting that my idea of hell--oblivion, is their idea of heaven?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I studied Buddhism some and was surprised to find that many, if not most, believe reincarnation is not a blessing but a curse. Apparently the point of reaching Nirvana is to escape reincarnation.

Pretty much, though escaping it seems a bit too close to aversion, whereas Buddhism is more recognzing things as they are, which can involve seeing that your own perspective is limited and that reality as it truly is is not what you think it is. This is where the idea of samsara/reincarnation and nirvana/liberation being intertwined comes from.

Reincarnation is a curse in that it is something you bring upon yourself, not that it's a curse from outside yourself. You keep yourself bound to samsara, samsara doesn't bind you.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No death is not understandable as similar or identical to life. These are meaningless words. It is like saying a square circle. One can pretend to be saying something, but in reality nothing is being said at all.

No, saying life and death are exactly the same is not what I'm claiming. I'm saying they are intertwined and cannot be viewed as separate from each other.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Death mean no life which means no existence. Define death as you use the word.

Life persists in spite of death as a butterfly persists in spite of it no longer being a caterpillar. I use death contextually. There are different levels of death depending on how you understand it.

We are not butterflys nor are we the worms that can become butterflys. I can see nothing here that has any meaning at all attached to it. You contradict yourself. You say death is life in some sense, but it is not clear what the sense is. You say death is transitionary but there is no afterlife so there is nothing to be transformed into.

Except reincarnation is an afterlife in some sense of the word, so, yes, there is something to be transformed into in that when I die, my constituents may reconstitute into a cat or any other variety of things.
This seems to misunderstand Buddhist cosmology

Even in a worldview with no afterlife, death does not negate life overall, but only in particular situations. And biologically speaking, cell death does not mean that the cell is no longer able to transmit energy, which is a form of life when you think about it. Just because I die does not mean that people will not be comforted by my death in some way.

Meaningless. Death is not beneficial to the one dying so what is the point? There is no point.

Death can be beneficial to the one dying in that they have lived a full life and now they are moving on, in whatever way you might understand it; even if their personality ceases to be, death is beneficial in that it frees up resources for their descendants and, in cases of chronic pain or incurable diseases, it relieves them from their suffering.

All of this is support my comment above that there is nothing to be transformed into. Death is loss of life --non existence. That is the meaning of the word.

You forget that death and life are not isolated incidents. We die all the time in limited senses; our skin cells die, our brain cells slowly die as well and new skin cells are made over time to replace the dead ones. Unfortunately, it doesn't work exactly the same with brain cells from what I understand. Just because I cease to exist as a consciousness doesn't mean my body ceases to be. Nonexistence would imply that when we die, we just disappear, which isn't the case. Only part of us disappears. Our body continues on and decomposes, giving new life to other things.

You just said nothing survives, now something does but we are not clear what it is that survives

Nothing survives that we can be attached to as experiencing consciousnesses. Your personality and such do not survive, only the vehicles for future personalities and sensations of the next reincarnation, whatever it may be. Something basic surviving doesn't mean that something complex must also survive, e.g. the basics of a consciousness but not any particular consciousness will survive death, hypothetically.

 

[elman]

No, saying life and death are exactly the same is not what I'm claiming. I'm saying they are intertwined and cannot be viewed as separate from each other.

I see no other way of seeing them than separate. How is life and death intertwined other than in order to die, one must first have life?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well it's pretty easy to see that the Truths in the Bible are as inflexible as they come, so why do you seek understanding from Christians?

You presume every Christian thinks the same way about the bible as you, and that's where you mistakenly create permanent fixtures of your faith that don't actually exist.

Again, guiding your thinking based on what makes sense to you will never lead to understanding what G-d says in the Bible. What's needed to make that step is humility. People generally don't like that

It's not about what makes sense to me, it's about what makes sense in general. Putting an animal down makes sense in that you will put it out of its misery. It's not about what makes sense to me, it's about what works in practice, regardless of my feelings about it. I would be sad to kill my pet, but if it saves it from a less than ideal life, then it would be better to euthanize it.

God says nothing in the bible apart from what the writers attribute to it, so your point is moot. all of it is second hand accounts of people who believe they're being inspired by something they call God, but for all we know it's merely imagination and creativity of the human mind.

Ixnay on the rabbit trails.

God is Love.

Then logically, love is God, so why would you need to separate the two except in that god is a personality, whereas love is between different personalities, suggesting god has dissociative identity disorder.

Well, since being born again I haven't found my bodily form nor my consciousness to cease, so again your premise is way off base

What you believe to be your bodily form or your consciousness is only what you perceive it to be, not necessarily what it is apart from your clinging to permanence.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, you have me confused with Elman. He says that, I don't. I'd be curious to see anything I said that gave you that impression.

Maybe just that you're not being clear about what happens to people when they die. You know; buy the farm, push up daises, all those euphemisms? You're not talking about it, or when you do, it's very vague.

that's an interesting turn of phrase, now let me ask you:

if life is "extended," w/o end, is it not Eternal? So I fail to see any distinction for you to object to. And if you can show me where the Bible says we "die and go to heaven," I'll go along with what appears to be a basic premise of your thread. I can save you some time though: the Bible doesn't say that. So I'm still pointing out to you that - it's a false idea, and therefore at least most things that get attached to it are also false.

You can't really prove that life can be extended without end, first off. And even if you could, how are you proposing this is a good thing? Assuming the bible doesn't say that heaven is a different realm, you still seem to hold that heaven is an idyllic existence where we don't ever die, like a veritable utopia.

A bright spot! This may well represent the clearest understanding we've had in some time. Although it's still wrong, because death is very real to me. I've faced it myself more times than I could possibly count, and I'm talking literally and physically.

I never denied death was real, I only denied it was permanent.

C does not DENY that death exists, but it does deny it any victory. "The last enemy to be defeated is death." Christ overcame the world, and then vanquished death. I won't try to instruct you what C promises us, but the fact is it doesn't spell out all the details you're asking. Sure I'd prefer it did, but the limitation seems to be what we as mortals are capable of relating to. I've also found G-d has a sense of dramatic timing, so maybe I shouldn't discount that? I think it's possible that for as much as some C's look forward to "the sweet by and by," that G-d the Father is much more excited to see His kids, not unlike small children on Christmas morning.

If Christianity believes death exists, it seems to be very mitigated in any significance or even just a general idea of what it consist of.

Speculation is ok once in a while, but crossing over into closure, i.e. just making stuff up to satisfy our own quest for understanding is where we get into trouble. As I use the word, I find "religion" to be a breeding ground for that mistake.

I wouldn't call that religion, so much as mysticism.

1. You told me the first commandment is wrong.
2. Your frustration may be I'm not about to argue with you about that, nor anything else.

the first commandment is myopic in its focus, is what I'm saying, not to mention it's basically irrelevant to me who worships no gods to begin with.

And I'm not frustrated, I'm disappointed, in that you seem to want to discuss and then reach no agreement at all.

These are really weird ideas you accuse me of, and you have no basis to do so.

1. Faith doesn't "depend on arguing." Sheesh!
2. Faith is the gift of G-d. I don't see how that is synonymous with being "self evident," but perhaps you'd care to explain?

If faith doesn't depend on argumentation, in all fairness it's pure illogic in that you assert a conclusion with no support for it.

And faith is self evident in Christianity to the believer, if anything, from what I understand. You experience it and believe it has to be God.

Yes it is There is nothing larger than G-d, so by definition He can't be part of something greater. If you reduce this stuff to theism and philosophy, you don't have Eternal Life in the here and now. Pick your poison.

Except people can believe in immortal souls and such without believing in Christianity, so you miss the point entirely. One can believe ideas that you believe are Christian without being Christian themselves.

Here you are calling the Holy Ghost a mad man, or at the very least one who experiences Him as mentally sick. These are clear violations.

Do refrain.

Don't care. It's my opinion, get over it. If you disagree, don't make this into you being persecuted, which is just pure narcissism.

1. You have failed to point out a single flaw.

2. You haven't the foggiest clue as to my worldview, nor the actual tenets of Christianity. You consistently prove these things by paraphrasing incorrectly.

3. You only pretend to have any insight into how I process info, such as
"refuse to even consider their existence."

There's that closure stuff, biting you on the tukus. None of this has anything to do w/ your OP, which is a good question. Unless you can show how attacking me is related?

I was not attacking you, you're confusing me attacking your unfounded beliefs with attacking you as a person, which isn't what I'm doing.

I never presumed to know anything about what you believe except as you correct me, so don't start putting words into my mouth about what I say I know about you or your beliefs.

I can point out flaws, it's your problem if you refuse to admit you might have a flaw in your system.

And closure is virtually nonexistent here; which is why discussion is what I seek.

What I have "attacked" is the false notion of Eternal Life being reduced to the Monty Pythonesque cardboard cutout of fat babies in diapers lying around on a cloud playing harps. I can't tell if your understanding of C has gotten past that point yet; you give no indication.

Once you can get a glimpse of what Eternal Life is within C's teachings, it won't be so hard to understand why it's desirable.

Not at all. From what you've described, it's even less ideal, because we never truly die. There's no sense of any experience of loss or suffering to make happiness that much more valuable. No one "dies", so it either suggests everyone's sleeping or everyone somehow will persist into infinity without clogging up the world, neither of which sound desirable in the slightest.

With all your philosophical musings, you still fail to account for "the Kingdom is within."

I don't believe any kingdom of heaven is within me, but merely the capacity for enlightenment, which is relatively distinct in that it doesn't require any belief in a god or gods or spirits or persistence of life in the face of death.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I credit you, that what I'm saying can be misconstrued to seem this way. Eternal Life does mean "you just keep on living forever," yes. How could it not? Yet there is most definitely an end to this physical existence, complete with obituaries and all that. (Barring drastic Divine intervention, such as "the Last Day")

What you have to realize is I don't speculate and turn that into dogma. C simply doesn't tell us clearly what happens when we die. Here's an apt illustration:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. ... Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God."

This is what C IS. It requires us to "leave the land of our Fathers," including the traditions we have come to rely on. Faith is proven because we don't know exactly where we're going. (There's that humility thing again)

I left my Christian background for the most part, but that doesn't mean I have to surrender my critical thinking or skepticism to trust in the validity of what I believe now. You're confusing faith and trust, which are related, but distinct from each other.

In short, you believe these things with no clarification, as if people will just magically go along with you because it just makes sense. That's giving people too little credit in that we can be incredulous of such ridiculous ideas without even being aware of logical fallacies or the like.

Bunk, plain and simple. There's a person in the C only sections who's really on the warpath about this, and connects this false idea to many others. By itself, I don't see holding this false idea as affecting Salvation at all, and the Lord knows we can only change so much so fast, so He picks His battles.

If you aren't asleep when you die, then what happens? Are you in hibernation? You're not even trying to give an answer, but just believe something's there, which is tantamount to mysticism and general speculation centered discussion, which leads nowhere.

I have NEVER said any such thing! Where did you get such foul ideas?

Contrast to what i DO say:

Most of the Bible can be understood on it's face, although that level of understanding will miss a lot.

This level of understanding is what affects our actions the most.

As we do those things, greater understanding is given.

Those portions of the Bible that we can't yet comprehend are still to be read, but we must restrain ourselves from assigning our own meaning to them. Otherwise we easily "shout G-d down." And He'll patiently wait for us to get over our bad selves, but He won't enter into the fray.

As we approach Him, if we try to hide our questions, doubts, skepticism, etc., He will likewise "hide His face." If we swallow our pride and ASK Him, doing our best to maintain an appropriate attitude, He will flood us with more understanding than we can possibly take in

(And yes, then we get some of it wrong and C's wind up arguing w/ each other over petty nonsense in their excitement)

So skepticism is somehow imbedded in Christianity even though there are instances where people are rewarded for believing simply because they think that their experience can only be Jesus? Thomas was told that those who believe and don't see are better than him, so his skepticism seems to be disregarded as having as much value overall. Am I wrong?

Correct. That is an Egyptian term, not C. We don't see the separation you suggest. Once to die, and then the Judgment. There are still unknowns.

The egyptian soul is more complex than just the ka. There's the heart, the shadow, the soul, the name. Clearly egyptians had some valuation of the body, otherwise, they wouldn't have mummified people.Christians just say, dust to dust and throw you in a box 6 feet under. Seems kind of dissonant with the valuation of the body that seems to exist in Christianity in some sense.

Gnosticism is a heresy. I don't buy into it. How many attacks do you have forthcoming? YOU are the one running around in circles, all I'm doing is trying to answer your questions. Which I'm afraid are going nowhere. FOCUS!

says the person who thinks their answers mean anything to someone that they've told many times is basically spiritually blind and can't understand much of what they're REALLY saying. You're gnostic even if you don't believe explicitly gnostic things as formulated in modern gnosticism. It's a bit more complex than what exists in "Gnostic" scriptures.

At least now I know that you skipping over the important stuff is INTENTIONAL. (HINT: go back and read where we discussed the fruit of the Spirit. Use the search function to help you locate it)

So you living forever is a result of God's love and grace? well, good for you, I'll just sit over here and die even if I'm seeking out answers through a different path.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I'm doing no such thing! I've never seen either term before, how could I possibly confuse one for the other?

You use the word "substances" to describe a "disembodied soul." These terms are inconsistent, but it does explain your earlier comments about "weighing the soul."

You're simply going to have to separate all that from discussion in this sub-forum if you want to gain any understanding at all. The 2 do NOT mix!

And don't go confusing this as pretending I'm saying Eastern thought has no value. The systems are just distinct, that's all. Once you understand both well enough you may be able to make usable comparisons, but so far you have proven you DON'T have that level of understanding of what C is.

Just because you don't know them doesn't mean you aren't creating metaphysical categories similar to them, even if you don't know the corresponding ideas in Eastern philosophy

All of this rests on what you think substances are and what philosophical history as it has developed has understood them to be. Not to mention that you seem to think I'm implying Christian materialism, which isn't the case, though you might be cutting into that territory with the idea that we never really die.

I never said all substances were the same as a disembodied soul. There are substances that have nothing to do with souls or someone's individual personality, which are not what the skandhas are.

So you have understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism to compare it to Christianity even though you don't even know the ideas of skandhas and atman? Shenanigans; you know next to nothing about Eastern thought if you can't even get to the basic vocabulary of their systems.

I'm not confusing anything of the kind. You said dead people react. I want to know how. I'm pretty sure they're ... dead. Failure to react seems to me as good a definition as any.

I said no such nonsense. Dead people are dead, the reactions are in the skandhas, which exist in a distinct, but related, connection with them. Not to mention reactions isn't necessarily what the sanskrit/pali may actually mean. you are taking these ideas too literally to actually understand them in a nondualistic context, where people dying doesn't mean everything about them ceases to exist, because it never existed to begin with.
Dead people don't react, reactions simply survive beyond death. That in no way means dead people react, since there are no personalities that persist after death.

Well here's a strong commonality w/ C. I could give you some Scriptures to this effect.

By all means, if you think you actually understand anatta in Buddhism in any capacity.

Not at all! You should get in the habit of gathering info before trying to make conclusions based on not having any info

You see where I use the word 'seem' consistently? THat's where I'm tentatively making an assessment. If I'm wrong, I'm saying you can correct me. Don't tell me I'm assessing you conclusively, because that's NOT what I'm doing. If you don't believe that, tell me to the contrary and then clarify what you DO believe.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Because then I can attain every achievement and easter egg in every video game ever designed.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

So if I can mix metaphors - life is hell?

That assumes that hell is understood in buddhism as some place of torment in any sense of the word, which is only half right. Buddhist hell tends to be a transient place; one escapes it in time, but to what, we are never sure. Life is hellish, but it is not hell. If we understand life to be both good and bad, then life is no longer heaven or hell, but simply a place where we can begin to understand things deeper, through meditation and subseqeuent enlightenment.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That I think is close to the Buddhist position. The whole poing seems to be escaping suffering and ultimatly the only way of doing that is to reach oblivion--nirvana. Is it not interesting that my idea of hell--oblivion, is their idea of heaven?

Heaven is not what nirvana is. Nirvana is liberation, not annihilation. Siddhartha Gautama himself said that nirvana is not either eternal existence nor annihilation, but a middle path between them.

Some might call it pantheism in some sense, in that you finally become one with everything in a sense, but not in a conscious sense. That's certainly closer than either understanding that seems to be popularized in understandings of Buddhism in the west.

Nirvana is neither oblivion nor eternity, but simply realizing things as they are; it's a state of mind more than a state of existence, one might say; so that what happens after death of an enlightened person is basically unknown.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Because then I can attain every achievement and easter egg in every video game ever designed.

Which would be totally pointless, seems to me. But then, this was intended in jest, no doubt anyway.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Jest indeed. I figured after about 20 pages, everything that can be said as been said.

 

[razeontherock]

Buddhism is more recognzing things as they are, which can involve seeing that your own perspective is limited and that reality as it truly is is not what you think it is.

This is VERY Judeo-Christian thought! (Also why I'm not about to pretend to be able to lay out clearly what happens immediately upon death, even within a C POV)

You keep yourself bound to samsara, samsara doesn't bind you.

While I can't comment on this because I don't know enough about samsara, this basic thinking is also represented within C. The Gospel can be seen as those who are bound don't realize the prison doors have been broken, and left standing wide open. They (we) remain in the dark dank cellars anyway.

the preaching of the Gospel simply informs them they can walk out into the fresh air and go on their way. Spiritually speaking, of course. And THAT is the beginning of EL!

 

[razeontherock]

You presume every Christian thinks the same way about the bible as you, and that's where you mistakenly create permanent fixtures of your faith that don't actually exist.

Sorry, your jello relativism doesn't carry any weight:

The Word of the Lord is sure.

The Word of the Lord endures forever.

God doesn't change.


THEREFORE, there's simply no room for your statement here.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This is VERY Judeo-Christian thought! (Also why I'm not about to pretend to be able to lay out clearly what happens immediately upon death, even within a C POV)

Except buddhists don't pretend to have anything like a god's eye perspective even remotely written out for them.

While I can't comment on this because I don't know enough about samsara, this basic thinking is also represented within C. The Gospel can be seen as those who are bound don't realize the prison doors have been broken, and left standing wide open. They (we) remain in the dark dank cellars anyway.

the preaching of the Gospel simply informs them they can walk out into the fresh air and go on their way. Spiritually speaking, of course. And THAT is the beginning of EL

Like many have said, "The doors to hell are locked from the inside,"

So why is eternal life good when death is supposedly something good as well?