Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[ToHoldNothing]

I know, but this is more double speak as far as I can tell. We die to self and become part of the whole, like we are a drop of water and we merge with the ocean of everything. The result, no matter how you slice it, is oblivion of self--annihilation so far as self is concerned. It is similar to me becoming part of the worm that eats me when I die--no comfot there at all for me. If you are pleased with it, so be it.
You say what happens after death of an enlightened person is basically unknown. This is true of what happens to a person when they go to heaven--unknown, except we trust a loving Creator that it will be good and it will be life and not death. This is why it is foolish to talk about being bored and unhappy in heaven.

Annihilation of the self is not what is being said, but dissolution of the self. There is always the capacity for self in people still bound to samsara, but their own individual self does not survive their death, merely the vehicle for self in general.

Self annihilation would eliminate the possibility of reincarnation logically, so Buddhism cannot believe in absolute self annihilation, but only individual selves always in flux in being interrelated with things and thus entangled and persisting in believing your self is permanent.

You presume that believing in a loving creator will make life seem better, but it is more clinging and attachment to permanence. You keep missing the forest for the trees, you're like an ant trying to judge a dragon: however limited both of them are, the dragon sees things from a broader perspective than the ant.

 

[elman]

Annihilation of the self is not what is being said, but dissolution of the self. There is always the capacity for self in people still bound to samsara, but their own individual self does not survive their death, merely the vehicle for self in general.

Self annihilation would eliminate the possibility of reincarnation logically, so Buddhism cannot believe in absolute self annihilation, but only individual selves always in flux in being interrelated with things and thus entangled and persisting in believing your self is permanent.

You presume that believing in a loving creator will make life seem better, but it is more clinging and attachment to permanence. You keep missing the forest for the trees, you're like an ant trying to judge a dragon: however limited both of them are, the dragon sees things from a broader perspective than the ant.

There is no difference to self between annihilation of self and dissolution of self. One reaches the same result and the same unsatisfactory result. You presume believing in a loving Creator with a destiny of happiness is more clinging and attachment to permanence. Meaningless. I observe no clinging or attachment to permanence. I am very aware nothing in this life is permanent including life itself. I think you have the illusion of being a dragon when you are not.

 

[elman]

Buddhism doesn't say all life is suffering. That translation of dukkha is inflexible and forgets that Buddhism does affirm that life has good things in it to enjoy. But the dukkha, or unsatisfactoriness for a better translation, is internal and comes from our psychology and perspective on the world. Life and death are both good depending on perspective.

This is not to say they are absolutely determined by perspective, but any wise person will not use black and white thinking to judge things as good or bad in any ultimate sense. That's beyond words. Life is not dominated by suffering, suffering dominates a person's life individually.

That's not to say that life is depressing, but it is harsh in its reality. People die, things will degrade, things will change. That is anicca, impermanence. Anicca is part of why we see life as unsatisfactory. Satisfaction comes from within, one might say. That's where a misunderstanding comes from. The satisfaction is not to become dead to the world, but dead to black and white judgments.

There is a black and white judgment you should embrace. Death is not preferable to life unless life is unberable and life is not always unbearable.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There is no difference to self between annihilation of self and dissolution of self. One reaches the same result and the same unsatisfactory result. You presume believing in a loving Creator with a destiny of happiness is more clinging and attachment to permanence. Meaningless. I observe no clinging or attachment to permanence. I am very aware nothing in this life is permanent including life itself. I think you have the illusion of being a dragon when you are not.

Actually, there's a pretty big distinction between annihilation and dissolution of anything. Annihilation leaves nothing behind, dissolution leaves parts.


annihilate- to destroy the substance or force of; to cause to cease to exist

dissolve-to separate into component parts; to cause to pass into solution

So one does not reach the same result through annihilation and dissolution, as I pointed out above.

You observe no clinging and attachment because you don't think it's clinging and attachment. It's easy to think that all love is good but love in attachment only entangles you more. But you can love people without being attached to them, just as you could conceivably love a deity without attachment and clinging.

Somehow I think you presume that knowing something and outright dismissing it anyway is a dragon's perspective, but that is the ant exploring things and then staying steadfast in its tiny little anthill.

If I am a dragon, I am sleeping in that I still have not completely awakened to that purely broad perspective.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There is a black and white judgment you should embrace. Death is not preferable to life unless life is unberable and life is not always unbearable.

You're confusing Buddhism with Stoicism. Buddhism doesn't advocate killing yourself because life is unbearable. You persist on in order to seek out answers, to find the solution to the unsatisfactory nature of life. That is not to say life is bad and death is good, but life can be good and bad, and death can be good and bad. You're polarizing death and life in an unrealistic way, it seems. Death is not preferable to life, because I never claimed that. You're putting words in my mouth again. Death is simply what happens. And it can be good or bad, just as life can be good or bad as it happens. Life and death are a cycle, not a ladder.

 

[razeontherock]

You didn't qualify any quality about eternal life, you presume it is good without any support for that argument. Either explain why death should always be seen as bad or don't even bother trying to argue your position as even reasonable, let alone rational.

1. I never said death was always bad. Add this to the long and ever growing list of things you surmise incorrectly.

2. I haven't been able to get you to focus on why EL should be desirable.

3. I have mentioned a little re: the quality of EL in the here and now, but you ignored it in favor of going for the jugular.

More to the point, you should recognize your own bitterness by now. You'll take it out on anyone who will listen. My Sister charges $200 / hr for that sort of thing, and I'm not the shrink in the family. I can tell you it'd be wise to off-load your baggage though. If this forum can help somehow, then thank G-d for it.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

1. I never said death was always bad. Add this to the long and ever growing list of things you surmise incorrectly.

Then what did you mean when you said that in Xianity, death is the enemy? An enemy is, for all intents and purposes, pretty much not beneficial in any sense, except for the function of demonstrating why something is bad. If that's all, then death is merely a means to an end if anything. People fear death, so it makes more sense to believe in eternal life?

2. I haven't been able to get you to focus on why EL should be desirable.

Because you haven't even started to demonstrate why it would be so outside of your faith based belief in it. Argue why it would make sense to an outsider. If you can't argue that, then your belief that EL is desirable is basically worthless, because it can't even defend itself as relatively self evident.

3. I have mentioned a little re: the quality of EL in the here and now, but you ignored it in favor of going for the jugular.

The quality of EL in the here and now still doesn't seem to have been defended as good in general, but only good in particular, e.g. to you and others. I would not want to live forever, even if I could die by getting stabbed like elves in LOTR. I would much prefer dying on the grounds that it's a natural thing. For you to say death is unnatural is to fly in the face of all evidence we have and substitute your belief that there was some point in history where everyone was eternally living. Which you can't demonstrate, which only seems to weaken your argument all the more.

More to the point, you should recognize your own bitterness by now. You'll take it out on anyone who will listen. My Sister charges $200 / hr for that sort of thing, and I'm not the shrink in the family. I can tell you it'd be wise to off-load your baggage though. If this forum can help somehow, then thank G-d for it

You know, if I was bitter, I'd have been banned three times over by now. But either I can keep it in check or I'm not actually bitter and you're seeing things that you imagine exist in order to make yourself seem less flawed in arguing a point that you have no support for apart from beliefs that are unjustified on their face and anecdotal stories.

You're making these problems yourself by pretending that you have some authority or even reasonable arguments for your beliefs and then you present them as if they're somehow authoritative by themselves without you needing to explain them. Or when you do, it's petty scruples about how I'm not spiritually aware like you are, which amounts to just saying you're better than me, and I should stop trying to out think God, when in fact, I'm only managing to out think other people, at best. And even that might not be the case, but shifting responsibility is not giving you any more credibility, in fact, it's only ruining any shred you might've had.

 

[razeontherock]

Argue why it [EL] would make sense to an outsider. If you can't argue that, then your belief that EL is desirable is basically worthless, because it can't even defend itself as relatively self evident.

1. EL is not even AVAILABLE to an outsider!

2. An outsider can not possibly "see" it. I take that to include comprehend.
We are told how it appears from the outside, and we have our own experience to confirm that. We are also told how it appears from the inside, and it takes a believer quite some time to gain that experience. Via the process we come to realize these things are true. Your lack of this perspective doesn't make them false; all it means is that you lack this perspective.

3. Those of us "on the inside" can share the experience, and/or tell you what we are told. That's all you get, w/o partaking yourself.

The quality of EL in the here and now still doesn't seem to have been defended as good in general, but only good in particular, e.g. to you and others.

Notice how this comment lines up w/ what I said above?

For you to say death is unnatural is to fly in the face of all evidence we have and substitute your belief that there was some point in history where everyone was eternally living.

When are you going to stop guessing, and pretending you can conclude what others are saying, re: things they've never said? It's quite foolish. Have you never been taught what happens when you assume? That pitfall we should avoid is very clearly on display in this quote I snipped here, as well as many, many other times when you make the same mistake, in all sorts of flavors.

you present them as if they're somehow authoritative by themselves without you needing to explain them.

You've said this in many ways. You fail to perceive I refuse to argue, and the more you try to draw me into an argument, the less I'm willing to do to try to help you. This should have been evident months ago, especially since most have left off responding to you at all.

Anyway, we're discussing things that must be proven and decided individually. If I did anything to try to make up another person's mind for them, that would make me a control freak. I'm not. I wouldn't want to inflict anyone with my limitations. Instead, if people can add one another's perspective to their own, there's benefit to that.

This is quite different from the strawman you create me to be, and after all this time I don't see how you can continue painting your horrible picture. It's good to know you're in denial about being bitter re: C though. And you can't get banned for being bitter. The only reason you haven't been banned 3x over already is we have been merciful with you, sensing you have some deep hurt rather than reporting you. And when I point this out, you've thrown it in my face. That seems to fulfill a very hard saying from Jesus about not casting pearls before swine, because they will turn right around and hurt you if they can. So you need to decide for yourself if that's not due to bitterness, what is the root?


Now on to false assumption #93:

about how I'm not spiritually aware like you are, which amounts to just saying you're better than me

What?? Since G-d is no respecter of persons this makes no sense. We are all guilty under sin, there is no difference. In any given instance where you may not be Spiritually aware "like I am," the difference is perspective. Like, I'm standing in front of a window and you're not. And I point out "hey look at the cool mountain we're passing by," and make room so you can see too. And to follow the analogy, the only reason I got the seat is because it was given to me, freely, and not because of anything I've done.

Given by G-d who tells me to give what I have to those who lack.

Now if you can process what I said even just in reply to the last quote I snipped, and apply that to our communication to date ...

I don't know what you might do with it, but it would have to change things.

Back to the quote itself, there simply have to be things you are aware of that I'm not. That's not to be a competition nor a source of argument, but there should be benefit from exchange of info.

and I should stop trying to out think God, when in fact, I'm only managing to out think other people

I'd love to be able to say there are times you've out-thought me, but it's never happened in any of our exchanges. And that may be solely because you so freely drift into assuming what I think or feel and attacking that, instead of dealing with what's actually on the table. Classic strawman.

Now if what I "put on the table" is what I perceive as G-d's own thoughts as revealed in Scripture, then it is 100% correct for me to credit Him for the thought, and in such a case you're not arguing w/ me, but against my G-d. And it's my responsibility to point that out to you! And if you're going to assume anything, it should be that anything I "put on the table" IS direct from Scripture, even if I may put it some other way so it fits our conversation better. Again, I'm astounded you haven't perceived this by now.

 

[elman]

=ToHoldNothing;57246994]Actually, there's a pretty big distinction between annihilation and dissolution of anything. Annihilation leaves nothing behind, dissolution leaves parts.

annihilate- to destroy the substance or force of; to cause to cease to exist

dissolve-to separate into component parts; to cause to pass into solution

So one does not reach the same result through annihilation and dissolution, as I pointed out above.

Self is annihilated in your dissolution process. How much of the parts that are left are self being alive? Answer none. Result your dissolution is exactly the same as annihilatation.

You observe no clinging and attachment because you don't think it's clinging and attachment. It's easy to think that all love is good but love in attachment only entangles you more. But you can love people without being attached to them, just as you could conceivably love a deity without attachment and clinging.

Being concerned about someone because you love them is not your negative clinging and attachment. It is a positive state of relationship.

Somehow I think you presume that knowing something and outright dismissing it anyway is a dragon's perspective, but that is the ant exploring things and then staying steadfast in its tiny little anthill.
If I am a dragon, I am sleeping in that I still have not completely awakened to that purely broad perspective.

Observing the meaninglessness of prefering non existence because of some facination with the worms still being alive when I die, is not staying steadfast to a tiny little anthill. It is simply recogonizing meaninglessness and rejecting it as a profound philosophy or theology.

 

[elman]

You're confusing Buddhism with Stoicism. Buddhism doesn't advocate killing yourself because life is unbearable. You persist on in order to seek out answers, to find the solution to the unsatisfactory nature of life. That is not to say life is bad and death is good, but life can be good and bad, and death can be good and bad. You're polarizing death and life in an unrealistic way, it seems. Death is not preferable to life, because I never claimed that. You're putting words in my mouth again. Death is simply what happens. And it can be good or bad, just as life can be good or bad as it happens. Life and death are a cycle, not a ladder.

The problem is your lack of consistency. You do sometimes say non existence is preferable to existence but then you say otherwise. I believe life is both good and bad. I suspect, if you really do believe in Buddhism, you really do not profess that, but wish to escape the suffering in this life ultimately by seeking the bliss of oblivion. I wish to avoid the destiny of oblivion. I look for and hope for better than that. I think Christianity and Buddhism have similar ways of reaching their goals, both are about being kind and loving to others, but the goal in Buddhism is not a good goal and the goal of everlating life in my opinion is a good goal.

 

[razeontherock]

Missed this earlier:

Then what did you mean when you said that in Xianity, death is the enemy? An enemy is, for all intents and purposes, pretty much not beneficial in any sense, except for the function of demonstrating why something is bad.

Again, this is something you'll have to ask G-d. Since I don't know exactly what will happen when "the last enemy to be defeated is death," I'd be a fool to try to answer your question here. My first introduction to the harsh reality of death came at a very young age, when someone quite close to me died, which was a merciful thing. It's not hard at all for me to reconcile these 2 things, even though you try to paint them as mutually exclusive.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

1. EL is not even AVAILABLE to an outsider!

Then there is no point, it seems, to you even talking to me. You are basically resigned to praying that I change my mind. Any conversation you have is doomed to failure because of how biased and insulated your insider perspective is to any observations by an outsider of seeming problems in your beliefs.

2. An outsider can not possibly "see" it. I take that to include comprehend.
We are told how it appears from the outside, and we have our own experience to confirm that. We are also told how it appears from the inside, and it takes a believer quite some time to gain that experience. Via the process we come to realize these things are true. Your lack of this perspective doesn't make them false; all it means is that you lack this perspective.

You're presuming that your perspective overrides mine, when it doesn't. Your perspective is yours, my perspective is mine, but we cannot reach objective knowledge, since we always approach things from a subjective perspective. You can't suggest that your perspective is more ideal unless you can demonstrate it through more common ideas. You keep throwing in jargon, it's no wonder I keep insisting that you're being gnostic in some sense of the term, if not technically outside of the 'heresy'

3. Those of us "on the inside" can share the experience, and/or tell you what we are told. That's all you get, w/o partaking yourself.

If you could share the experience, you'd be using common language in that sense of experience. But you keep bringing in spiritual/esoteric jargon, so it's no wonder you're not actually communicating much of anything of your experience.

Notice how this comment lines up w/ what I said above?

Only demonstrates my rebuttal; your perspective is not objective, it is subjective. It doesn't apply to everyone, but only those that have your similar disposition.

When are you going to stop guessing, and pretending you can conclude what others are saying, re: things they've never said? It's quite foolish. Have you never been taught what happens when you assume? That pitfall we should avoid is very clearly on display in this quote I snipped here, as well as many, many other times when you make the same mistake, in all sorts of flavors.

Only because you seem to be saying something, and my general assessment is only mistaken because you keep using esoteric and obscurantist language about your beliefs. It's no wonder you get nowhere, unless you start talking on a different language set.

You've said this in many ways. You fail to perceive I refuse to argue, and the more you try to draw me into an argument, the less I'm willing to do to try to help you. This should have been evident months ago, especially since most have left off responding to you at all.

If you're not arguing, then why are you basically making arguments in the fallacious sense of concluding something with no real support that isn't subject to perspective problems?

Anyway, we're discussing things that must be proven and decided individually. If I did anything to try to make up another person's mind for them, that would make me a control freak. I'm not. I wouldn't want to inflict anyone with my limitations. Instead, if people can add one another's perspective to their own, there's benefit to that.

We can compare perspectives, but adding on is not what happens when you add one belief or another to your perspective; instead, you're tearing stuff off of someone's perspective like a piece of bread.

This is quite different from the strawman you create me to be, and after all this time I don't see how you can continue painting your horrible picture. It's good to know you're in denial about being bitter re: C though. And you can't get banned for being bitter. The only reason you haven't been banned 3x over already is we have been merciful with you, sensing you have some deep hurt rather than reporting you. And when I point this out, you've thrown it in my face. That seems to fulfill a very hard saying from Jesus about not casting pearls before swine, because they will turn right around and hurt you if they can. So you need to decide for yourself if that's not due to bitterness, what is the root?

You want to try to be psychological, demonstrate you have qualifications instead of asserting things with no support. With the pearls before swine, the saying says they will trample on them, if I remember right, so you're confusing me with someone that outright dismisses your claims. I only understand them as far as I'm familiar with your jargon, which only seems to change depending on denomination and individual. So in effect, any attempt I make to confront you on these unfounded and unjustified beliefs is dismissed because you have already surrendered much of your capacity to think critically outside of a tiny bubble of orthodoxy and slightly heterodox positions. Any possibility of thinking your beliefs might be completely or significantly wrong seems to not exist in your mind. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the impression you've given me time and time again.

I simply want to clarify things, but you are making yourself out to be the victim because you're not being clear about much of anything, but only confusing the issues more. I only seem bitter because you're making me out to be that way in phrasing everything in such vague ways.

What?? Since G-d is no respecter of persons this makes no sense. We are all guilty under sin, there is no difference. In any given instance where you may not be Spiritually aware "like I am," the difference is perspective. Like, I'm standing in front of a window and you're not. And I point out "hey look at the cool mountain we're passing by," and make room so you can see too. And to follow the analogy, the only reason I got the seat is because it was given to me, freely, and not because of anything I've done.

This is all perspective. You think you're in front of a window, I think you're looking at a wall. Who's right and wrong? Maybe both of us are right and wrong to certain extents.

Back to the quote itself, there simply have to be things you are aware of that I'm not. That's not to be a competition nor a source of argument, but there should be benefit from exchange of info.

If we both understand that we have limited perspectives and we don't have the conclusive answers for everyone, then that's a start. It seems you keep thinking that if I believe in God and Jesus as the same person, my life will be better, but you don't know that, you believe that.

I'd love to be able to say there are times you've out-thought me, but it's never happened in any of our exchanges. And that may be solely because you so freely drift into assuming what I think or feel and attacking that, instead of dealing with what's actually on the table. Classic strawman.

Now if what I "put on the table" is what I perceive as G-d's own thoughts as revealed in Scripture, then it is 100% correct for me to credit Him for the thought, and in such a case you're not arguing w/ me, but against my G-d. And it's my responsibility to point that out to you! And if you're going to assume anything, it should be that anything I "put on the table" IS direct from Scripture, even if I may put it some other way so it fits our conversation better. Again, I'm astounded you haven't perceived this by now

All this boils down to your perspective of what you think and believe to be God. This isn't God in itself, but only your limited and subjective approach. All that means is that you have to start admitting that your beliefs are not founded on arguments, but observations of what you believe to be objective facts. If I outthink you, you may not even be aware of it, merely because you seem to refuse to think in that way and imagine that you might be wrong. Could you be wrong? You don't seem to think so. Could I be wrong? Sure, but that's for people who make assertions about God to prove, not me.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Self is annihilated in your dissolution process. How much of the parts that are left are self being alive? Answer none. Result your dissolution is exactly the same as annihilatation.

Our experience of self is dissolved, not self as a whole in the sense of the skandhas. This seems to be your misunderstanding. Self is not just what we experience, it's a cluster of various things, such as sense, perception, judgments and consciousness. Those are all parts of a self. There is no self except as a whole composed of parts.

Being concerned about someone because you love them is not your negative clinging and attachment. It is a positive state of relationship.

Anything positive is such and so because of moderation. I can love too hard. I can be suffocating to my beloved. A positive state of relationship is not in clinging and attachment, but compassion and love, which are not the same as clinging and attachment. A lot of this is discernment of psychological states, one might say. I never said love was clinging and attachment, but it can lead to it.

Observing the meaninglessness of prefering non existence because of some facination with the worms still being alive when I die, is not staying steadfast to a tiny little anthill. It is simply recogonizing meaninglessness and rejecting it as a profound philosophy or theology.

You believe it is meaningless that things still exist even after you die, but that is meaningful in a certain way. I never said it was profound, since that's usually a matter of perspective. If you want to stay in your anthill, that's fine. Eventually you may leave the anthill and broaden your perspective, but not everyone does it at the same pace.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The problem is your lack of consistency. You do sometimes say non existence is preferable to existence but then you say otherwise. I believe life is both good and bad. I suspect, if you really do believe in Buddhism, you really do not profess that, but wish to escape the suffering in this life ultimately by seeking the bliss of oblivion. I wish to avoid the destiny of oblivion. I look for and hope for better than that. I think Christianity and Buddhism have similar ways of reaching their goals, both are about being kind and loving to others, but the goal in Buddhism is not a good goal and the goal of everlating life in my opinion is a good goal.

I wouldn't call nirvana oblivion, but that's another discussion entirely about the nature of enlightenment in relation to dukkha, anicca and anatta. I have a thread for it in Christianity and World Religion.

I don't deny that Buddhism and Christianity have similarities. I have a decent amount of texts, even a collection of parallel sayings of Jesus and Buddha that I can reference occasionally.

This is a difficulty that is perspective based. You think life is to be attached to as the end in itself, whereas I want to surpass life and death in a sense, you might say. You want life everlasting, am I right? I want to simply escape life and death, one might say. Therein is one of our differences

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Again, this is something you'll have to ask G-d. Since I don't know exactly what will happen when "the last enemy to be defeated is death," I'd be a fool to try to answer your question here. My first introduction to the harsh reality of death came at a very young age, when someone quite close to me died, which was a merciful thing. It's not hard at all for me to reconcile these 2 things, even though you try to paint them as mutually exclusive.

I'm not painting death and life as mutually exclusive at all. You seem to read something into my speaking about death that isn't there. Death is good and bad, just as life is good and bad. That is dukkha in a nutshell one might say. Death is a mercy in some abstract sense, but it isn't usually merciful unless we're talking euthanasia, which is another topic entirely.

And this is a problem with our discussion; you think God is where I should get my answers, but as is usually said in a cliche way, Eastern thought is introspective, looks within, Western thought is extrospective, looks without.

 

[razeontherock]

Then there is no point, it seems, to you even talking to me. Any conversation you have is doomed to failure because of how biased and insulated your insider perspective is to any observations by an outsider of seeming problems in your beliefs.

Now please compare your objective (that you finally stated here) with the stated objective of this sub-forum, EC. Next, please realize that continually picking at "seeming problems in C as a belief" isn't really exploring C, neither is it pursuing why EL might be desirable. If there is a place where CF tolerates belittling C as a pastime, it's not in the outreach section.

You're presuming that your perspective overrides mine

Since such a thing is foreign to me, please don't ascribe it to me. Thanks.

you keep bringing in spiritual/esoteric jargon, so it's no wonder you're not actually communicating much of anything of your experience.

I don't "bring in" anything! I respond to points you try to make, and point out how it is false. Then I point out the christianese jargon you attempt to use in the process doesn't really express what you're trying to say when you use it, and we wind opening one can of worms after another.

It really would be better just to focus on why EL is desirable, as your thread suggests. And I'm not communicating anything of my experience, because you keep attacking, twisting, and distorting. Get all that out of the way and somebody might be inclined to try.

With the pearls before swine, the saying says they will trample on them, if I remember right, so you're confusing me with someone that outright dismisses your claims.

You don't have to remember, because I said plain as day the point is that they turn right around and try to hurt you. Which you demonstrate quite well.

you have already surrendered much of your capacity to think critically

Case in point. Thanks for the flame, btw

This is all perspective. You think you're in front of a window, I think you're looking at a wall. Who's right and wrong? Maybe both of us are right and wrong to certain extents.

If we both understand that we have limited perspectives and we don't have the conclusive answers for everyone, then that's a start.

Yah, I was there in 1970. So for you to think you need to tell me this is rather insulting, don't you think?

It seems you keep thinking that if I believe in God and Jesus as the same person, my life will be better

I've never said any such thing Another one of your wild assumptions

merely because you seem to refuse to think in that way and imagine that you might be wrong. Could you be wrong? You don't seem to think so.

How many times have I told you you're in no position to tell me what I think? Don't you think it's about time you stop? Being wrong is one thing, but being so consistently 180 degrees wrong, and being so persistent about it, should be embarrassing.

And add to that, look at how far away from the stated purpose of the thread you are. Why?

 

[razeontherock]

I'm not painting death and life as mutually exclusive at all.

Never said you were. In context, what you're trying to respond to is my statement that death can simultaneously be declared an enemy by G-d, but be a merciful end to suffering for humans.

Not such a hard concept, really.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Never said you were. In context, what you're trying to respond to is my statement that death can simultaneously be declared an enemy by G-d, but be a merciful end to suffering for humans.

Not such a hard concept, really.

But it still seems to paint death as primarily a bad thing, which makes the angel of death, so to speak, an unpleasant job that people tend to associate with say, the Grim Reaper, for example. Death is only good for those that deserve it, you seem to say, or at least merit it out of suffering or simply because they disbelieve. So death is merciful to me in a final sense, since I may not ever believe in God or Jesus and thus merit in some sense, eternal life?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Now please compare your objective (that you finally stated here) with the stated objective of this sub-forum, EC. Next, please realize that continually picking at "seeming problems in C as a belief" isn't really exploring C, neither is it pursuing why EL might be desirable. If there is a place where CF tolerates belittling C as a pastime, it's not in the outreach section.

By all means support your claim, but make some attempt to do so outside of your perspective. It's not any problem for someone who was supposedly a nonbeliever at one point to think like one, so why not give it a shot instead of thinking that it always has to work the other way.

Since such a thing is foreign to me, please don't ascribe it to me. Thanks.

So you don't have any perspective of your own? Nonsense. You can't deny that you derive your beliefs from your perspective first and foremost and not from others, since you are not those people, so your beliefs could not come directly from them, but from your consideration of those beliefs in your subjective context.

I don't "bring in" anything! I respond to points you try to make, and point out how it is false. Then I point out the christianese jargon you attempt to use in the process doesn't really express what you're trying to say when you use it, and we wind opening one can of worms after another.

It really would be better just to focus on why EL is desirable, as your thread suggests. And I'm not communicating anything of my experience, because you keep attacking, twisting, and distorting. Get all that out of the way and somebody might be inclined to try.

You clearly are communicating ideas of your experience, even if they aren't clear in understanding, it's clear you're reflecting something that you experience that you term eternal life, along with all the other esoteric terminology you bring into the debate that complicates the matter unnecessarily. Again, if you can try to reach common ground instead of putting down my position at every turn as less enlightened or less open minded than yours, then maybe I wouldn't have any reason to "attack" you.

You don't have to remember, because I said plain as day the point is that they turn right around and try to hurt you. Which you demonstrate quite well.

Now you're missing the point of the verse, which was not about the beliefs, but the people's response to those beliefs. You present the beliefs, but the pearls before swine suggests I just trample over them, while you're trying to say it's the beliefs themselves that will turn on me, which is absurd, even in a figurative sense, since you're presenting the beliefs. At best, you're saying my own previous beliefs will turn on me, which is not the point of that verse in question, seems to me.

Case in point. Thanks for the flame, btw

Again, taking the victim position instead of admitting that the critique might have some validity or trying to see it from another person's perspective at all, which you really seem to lack the capacity to do in any real way, aside from strawmen you equally can be alleged to create of my beliefs.

Yah, I was there in 1970. So for you to think you need to tell me this is rather insulting, don't you think?

For you to think that the schools of thought in the 1970s are anything but barely similar to schools of thought today is equally insulting and, what's more, condescending, as if your perspective is more classical in some sense.

I've never said any such thing Another one of your wild assumptions

Instead of saying how I'm wrong and leaving it at that, why not clarify what you ACTUALLY meant to say. Will my life be even slightly better if I believe as you do? Or are you saying anything about a correlation between my state of life and fulfillment and my belief or disbelief in JEsus as God?

How many times have I told you you're in no position to tell me what I think? Don't you think it's about time you stop? Being wrong is one thing, but being so consistently 180 degrees wrong, and being so persistent about it, should be embarrassing.

And add to that, look at how far away from the stated purpose of the thread you are. Why?

Likewise with you. You think you know what I think and you keep claiming that almost as much as me. It'd be helpful to point out where I'm wrong by clarifying what you actually say instead of expecting me to fill in the giant holes in your explanations that you continue to leave.

You keep derailing the thread by bringing in Christian jargon, expecting me to understand that, instead of starting from an evidental perspective that tries to establish some general ground rules. You seem to be doing presuppositional apologetics instead of any kind of apologetics that doesn't assume Christianity must be the only think that makes sense.

 

[razeontherock]

Death is only good for those that deserve it, you seem to say, or at least merit it out of suffering or simply because they disbelieve. So death is merciful to me in a final sense, since I may not ever believe in God or Jesus and thus merit in some sense, eternal life?

You're making false distinctions that do not exist in C. We ALL "deserve death." That's what the curse is about.

I would say death is good in a situation for example where lung cancer is destroying your body, you experience nothing but pain, and there is no hope.

No part of C goes around wishing NC's would die