Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[ToHoldNothing]

Quick recap: I have broached the immense scope of this, by focusing on the concept of Eternal Life (EL) that seems quite foreign to our OP, that it is (in some sense) accessible in the here and now. (Namely John 17:3) And I've been attempting to do so via pointing out that we can partake of His Divine Nature, and as we learn to do so consistently that this becomes a growing reality of Christ in us.

So Dorothea, this plays right into your forte, no? Certainly you and I have different ways of verbalizing things, and at least slightly different conceptualizations of some of this, all of which is good. It is likely that at least some of what you may express will make sense to THN, where I have (so far) failed ...

I do think we have made substantial headway though. No?

Perhaps you could focus your attempts by parsing out verses and sections of scripture that you think enumerate Eternal Life as concisely and comprehensively as possible?

Just because she's Eastern Orthodox doesn't mean it'll make that much more sense. At best, she'll have a more immanent theology of what is still distinctly an entity that is beyond any human capacity. It turns God into something we can experience more directly, but not get a hold of, like the moon reflected in the water, to use a Chinese/Japanese proverb

 

[razeontherock]

Here's something I just came across that needs to be here. Why is eternal Life desirable?

Christ takes on our sins. He suffers for them on the cross, and is victorious over them in the resurrection. With his resurrection he wipes out their ability to separate us from God.

they no longer form a barrier between us and God, partly because they are forgiven, and partly because Christ has joined us on our side of the barrier, by uniting himself with sinners.

Second, the union with Christ forms the basis through which God regenerates us.

Simple enough words? None of us will truly fathom their repercussions in this lifetime. Eternity will be required to do so, and that will be the high point.

 

[razeontherock]

Mindfulness and zazen in Zen aren't detachment, but nonattachment at best.

I wouldn't put any stock in the difference when conversing with me. I don't have a clue what zazen might be, and my familiarity with mindfulness as a term is probably also vague. So as I've used it, non and de attachment would be synonyms.

Only if you think Zen involves training yourself to resist torture and such to prove a point.

Nope, that's not what happened. Failure to communicate.

The logos method refers to rhetoric and such, whereas the Logos of both Heraclitus and John is a principle of existence

Just preserving this for verification of this clear distinction, if we can get it.

 

[razeontherock]

Perhaps you could focus your attempts by parsing out verses and sections of scripture that you think enumerate Eternal Life as concisely and comprehensively as possible?

I've been doing that all along.

Just because she's Eastern Orthodox doesn't mean it'll make that much more sense.

Not my point. She's a different person than I am, and will put things differently. that difference alone may help you. Also, she has more practice with some of these specific concepts we've just opened up. She may well have been taught about some if it, as well as read about it. In my case, all this has been personal revelation, which can tend to leave things a bit murky.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Here's something I just came across that needs to be here. Why is eternal Life desirable?



Simple enough words? None of us will truly fathom their repercussions in this lifetime. Eternity will be required to do so, and that will be the high point.

You haven't really explained why eternity is desirable. That seems to be the crux of this problem we haven't gotten to.

And spiritual regeneration seems a bit vague even in this Christian context so far

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I've been doing that all along.

You've tried, that's the important part. Though I'm reminded of Yoda in saying "Do or do not...there is no try,"

Not my point. She's a different person than I am, and will put things differently. that difference alone may help you. Also, she has more practice with some of these specific concepts we've just opened up. She may well have been taught about some if it, as well as read about it. In my case, all this has been personal revelation, which can tend to leave things a bit murky.

You mean theosis in particular? I'm aware Eastern Orthodox has more teaching on that in some detail, if I'm not mistaken

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I wouldn't put any stock in the difference when conversing with me. I don't have a clue what zazen might be, and my familiarity with mindfulness as a term is probably also vague. So as I've used it, non and de attachment would be synonyms.

Zazen is sitting meditation, though it can extend to koans and such or simply shikantaza, simply sitting. It's a form of meditation for insight into the nature of things. Mindfulness is probably one of the most important ideas in Buddhism, being aware of things, not letting them simply pass you by, but not becoming hypervigilant of them either. It is a key to attaining wisdom and insight into existence and attaining nirvana in a sense as well.

Problem is, non and de-tachment aren't the same. Non attachment is simply putting no stock in attachment as a whole, but not completely separating oneself from connections to people. In Buddhism, there is the teaching of conditioned genesis; everything comes from something else and results in a cycle we become trapped in by our ignorance and delusions; similar but distinct from Hindu maya.

Nope, that's not what happened. Failure to communicate.

Then specify what in Buddhist training you find a parallel to with Jesus.

Just preserving this for verification of this clear distinction, if we can get it.

So this distinction is satisfactory for you as well?

 

[razeontherock]

And spiritual regeneration seems a bit vague even in this Christian context so far

I think Dorothea (who's from essentially an opposite Christian orientation from my own) would agree with my assessment that regeneration is (at least roughly) synonymous with the whole process I've been using here, of partaking of the Divine Nature and it's relevance to Eternal Life having begun, as a journey. Fine points that may come out may become very helpful, and I'm also curious how this may contrast to "theosis."

 

[razeontherock]

You mean theosis in particular?

Well there have been several concepts we've been discussing here since you came back. If all of them are within theosis, I'd like that. (Doesn't make it true though)

 

[razeontherock]

Mindfulness is probably one of the most important ideas in Buddhism, being aware of things

This was taught to me as awareness.

Problem is, non and de-tachment aren't the same.

Ok so the concept I've been relating is what you would call non-attachment.

Then specify what in Buddhist training you find a parallel to with Jesus.

I wouldn't speak to Buddhist training, but to objectives. Getting too specific won't work, because Christ's purpose is rather singular among humanity. Still, non-attachment would need to be mastered, before submitting to such a thing. And that mastery would require development!

So this distinction is satisfactory for you as well?

I merely wondered at the distinction you made between logos and Logos. IIRC Dorothea has done some study on the subject ...

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I think Dorothea (who's from essentially an opposite Christian orientation from my own) would agree with my assessment that regeneration is (at least roughly) synonymous with the whole process I've been using here, of partaking of the Divine Nature and it's relevance to Eternal Life having begun, as a journey. Fine points that may come out may become very helpful, and I'm also curious how this may contrast to "theosis."

By opposite, do you mean Eastern Orthodox as opposed to Catholic or EAstern Orthodox as opposed to Protestant?

Maybe there isn't a contrast with theosis? I remember little things about it, and it almost, almost sounds like the regeneration you're talking about in some way.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This was taught to me as awareness.

It goes further than awareness to being mindful of things, recognizing them in themselves, kind of apart from your perception in some sense.
Awareness was taught to me in martial arts in particular.

Ok so the concept I've been relating is what you would call non-attachment.

I suppose, if you are understanding non attachment as I tried to explain it to you

I wouldn't speak to Buddhist training, but to objectives. Getting too specific won't work, because Christ's purpose is rather singular among humanity. Still, non-attachment would need to be mastered, before submitting to such a thing. And that mastery would require development!

Seems to me Jesus attained something like a meditative state, where he could approach things calmly and tranquilly as he did. That's the closest parallel I could find in training. Buddhist objectives aren't really God centered like Jesus' is. there might be the parallel of Jesus as a bodhisattva like Jizou or Kanzeon, compassionate towards beings and teaching them the way.

I merely wondered at the distinction you made between logos and Logos. IIRC Dorothea has done some study on the subject ...

Perhaps, she'll post if we remind her, I guess

 

[Dorothea]

Good to see you here! Have you heard of Thomas Merton? I'd be interested in your take, even if this isn't the right place for it ...

No, I don't think so. I'm trying to think...if the name sounds familiar, but not sure. I know, sounds crazy.

Thanks, Ray. It's good to see you too.

And to our OP's idea that w/o any contrast even good will become benign at best, or perhaps even bad -- I say we have the sufferings of this life to compare to. That contrast will always exist, and it squarely addresses many of the more typical atheist's concerns. (None of which are to be found in this thread

 

[Dorothea]

If you could flesh out the context of this and direct it towards Dorothea's attention, she can probably do more with this than I can. (And I wouldn't say I "defended that claim," but I did make a pointed observation re: some similarities)

What? Where? I'm lost as to what you all are talking about. Gee, I'm a big help.

Again, we're on a topic where Dorothea is much more knowledgeable than I. In the hopes she'll address this, I'll just say it was no accident to use this specific term in the Gospel! It certainly referred to the established term and concept, and then defined it further. Via living example. Did this bridge the two contexts you see as distinct?

I'm not the expert on this. Thekla is. If only she'd come in here. She's a master of the Greek and English translations in the Bible. She'd be quite helpful here.

I do know the Logos is the Word of God = Jesus Christ. Christ is the Word of God - meaning He speaks for God the Father. The Spirit is the Breath of God the Father. Their origins are from the Father. The Father has no origin. Hope this basic info helps.

 

[Dorothea]

Quick recap: I have broached the immense scope of this, by focusing on the concept of Eternal Life (EL) that seems quite foreign to our OP, that it is (in some sense) accessible in the here and now. (Namely John 17:3) And I've been attempting to do so via pointing out that we can partake of His Divine Nature, and as we learn to do so consistently that this becomes a growing reality of Christ in us.

So Dorothea, this plays right into your forte, no? Certainly you and I have different ways of verbalizing things, and at least slightly different conceptualizations of some of this, all of which is good. It is likely that at least some of what you may express will make sense to THN, where I have (so far) failed ...

I do think we have made substantial headway though. No?

Uh, I'm not a great scholar. lol But I can try to explain the basic of this. I have notes from a lecture from a priest that explains this much better than I, but he probably doesn't want to wade through them, which is on my faith community's forum on a sticky. It's called "What we Believe." It talks all about the origins and God - the Trinity, why we are here.

God has no origin. He is and has always been. He created everything out of nothing. Not worked with what has already existed in time. God created us all in His Image, and we were actually created to worship Him. He loves us so much, He created us to become one with Him by sharing in the Trinity's divine energies.

What is great about the Resurrection of Christ, is that we will be with Him once again. He restored us to what we were before the Fall. Meaning, we all have the chance to reach this summit in our lives or if not, after we leave it. We still grow spiritually after we leave his life on earth. Our spirits/souls go on growing until His Second Coming. This is why prayers of the Saints both earthly and in heaven are so paramount to us. At the Final or General Resurrection, when our souls are reunited with our bodies that were laying in the tombs reposed, Christ then will create a new heaven and earth, and we will be with Him forever. Forever growing and worshiping with Him in His Divine Presence (the Trinity actually) - love and joy. To try to totally dissect this and understand what this will exactly be like would fail. It's beyond our comprehension.

But, to let THN know, this is a reiteration of what I learned through this lecture. I will post parts if it will help.

 

[Dorothea]

By opposite, do you mean Eastern Orthodox as opposed to Catholic or EAstern Orthodox as opposed to Protestant?

Maybe there isn't a contrast with theosis? I remember little things about it, and it almost, almost sounds like the regeneration you're talking about in some way.

Eastern Orthodox as opposed to both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. We are much different in praxis and theology than both of the other major Christian Communities, if you will.

 

[Thekla]

I can't say that you understand Buddhism correctly, since eternal life is not even what samsara and reincarnation/rebirth entails in Buddhism, since you as a person don't survive your death strictly speaking. There is no soul, there is only form and matter that generate the mind that perceives. So there is no eternity of an individual's survival, since even if I reincarnate, what is reincarnted is not the same as I was technically speaking. There is the "Eternal" circle of life, but that isn't something you have to accept being bound to. Buddhism seeks a way from bondage, so to speak, to the cycle of life and our attachments.

And I fail to see how Jesus and the Dao can be related except in incidental ways, such as the Logos notion in John, which isn't very much similar to the Dao in the Daoist context, since the Dao is impersonal, the Logos favors those who believe in Jesus.

Not to mention I fail to see how being in the presence of something good eternally actually makes that thing good for eternity. Experiencing something good eternally without a contrast would make the good seem benign or even bad if there is no contrast to be experienced. This is one of my underlying problems with what you describe as eternity and eternal life/immortality with/in God's presence

Hey, ToHoldNothing

just thought to try and help a bit, though I don't know how helpful I can be ! To first admit I have no real knowledge of Buddhism (except what I forgot from a College class decades ago).

The concept of "logos" is actually quite rich and frankly hard to describe. It is used of course to describe Christ before His Incarnation, but it also has the meaning of the "created identity" of each thing. IE, each thing has a particular inherent identity - a logos - given to it at it's creation by God. The Gospel of John directly parallels the creation account of Genesis -- in this sense the Logos said creation into being. Thus form and matter has in a sense an "identity", and further form and matter is sustained by the action of God (would return to nothing without God). IE, nothingness is - in a sense - the absence of God, of life.

In our present situation, post-lapsarian, our relationships have become self-centered ie we do not actually relate (to God, to others, to self). Created for relationship (as relational beings), our identity (our created logos) can only "be" known to ourselves in relationship with God. Without realtionship with God, there is also no relationship or disordered relationship to self and others.

To imagine eternity accurately in such a condition (a condition of disorder and without our true identity) is impossible, and it will indeed seem "hellish".

A speaker yesterday (who had practiced Buddhism for some time with eventual "success", at a large Monastery in Thailand or Cambodia) described the Christian faith I belong to as "Orthodoxy is paradoxy. You descend to ascend." The descent in the EO is reaching for humility, dying off from attachments if you will (as in our fallen state these will be disordered and false), of becoming empty -- in order to become filled with Christ. Thus filled, our true logos is discovered/regenerated and we become who we were created to be in Him; it is only in losing the self that the self is found in Him who created us in love for us.

In this condition of relationship with God, our true self restored or discovered (and this typically over a long period of time), we will be relational: right relationship with God, thus right relationship with others, and right relationship with self. But also, we will be engaging in "right use"; ie we will see all through the eyes of God --- we will see the logos of each created thing. (In this condition, Adam was able to name the animals.)

The present (sometimes horrifying) state of the world is evidence of human disordered relationship to all, and thus "wrong use" (including environmental degradation).

I don't know if this will make any sense, and I have gone a bit afar of my original intention here, but hope that at least some things might be clearer.

 

[Dorothea]

Hey, ToHoldNothing

just thought to try and help a bit, though I don't know how helpful I can be ! To first admit I have no real knowledge of Buddhism (except what I forgot from a College class decades ago).

The concept of "logos" is actually quite rich and frankly hard to describe. It is used of course to describe Christ before His Incarnation, but it also has the meaning of the "created identity" of each thing. IE, each thing has a particular inherent identity - a logos - given to it at it's creation by God. The Gospel of John directly parallels the creation account of Genesis -- in this sense the Logos said creation into being. Thus form and matter has in a sense an "identity", and further form and matter is sustained by the action of God (would return to nothing without God). IE, nothingness is - in a sense - the absence of God, of life.

In our present situation, post-lapsarian, our relationships have become self-centered ie we do not actually relate (to God, to others, to self). Created for relationship (as relational beings), our identity (our created logos) can only "be" known to ourselves in relationship with God. Without realtionship with God, there is also no relationship or disordered relationship to self and others.

To imagine eternity accurately in such a condition (a condition of disorder and without our true identity) is impossible, and it will indeed seem "hellish".

A speaker yesterday (who had practiced Buddhism for some time with eventual "success", at a large Monastery in Thailand or Cambodia) described the Christian faith I belong to as "Orthodoxy is paradoxy. You descend to ascend." The descent in the EO is reaching for humility, dying off from attachments if you will (as in our fallen state these will be disordered and false), of becoming empty -- in order to become filled with Christ. Thus filled, our true logos is discovered/regenerated and we become who we were created to be in Him; it is only in losing the self that the self is found in Him who created us in love for us.

In this condition of relationship with God, our true self restored or discovered (and this typically over a long period of time), we will be relational: right relationship with God, thus right relationship with others, and right relationship with self. But also, we will be engaging in "right use"; ie we will see all through the eyes of God --- we will see the logos of each created thing. (In this condition, Adam was able to name the animals.)

The present (sometimes horrifying) state of the world is evidence of human disordered relationship to all, and thus "wrong use" (including environmental degradation).

I don't know if this will make any sense, and I have gone a bit afar of my original intention here, but hope that at least some things might be clearer.

I ask of a friend, and I receive.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I do know the Logos is the Word of God = Jesus Christ. Christ is the Word of God - meaning He speaks for God the Father. The Spirit is the Breath of God the Father. Their origins are from the Father. The Father has no origin. Hope this basic info helps.

The problem seems to be that the Christian logos you describe is contingent on something else, the Father, whereas Heraclitus' logos was closer to the Father in Christianity, God, in that it has no origin and is the basis of existence. Perhaps there is more, but your description seems like either Modalism or Oneness doctrine from what I understand. Or that there are indeed three Gods, two coming from a single God, all of them serving distinct functions. Again, potential misunderstandings abound.

 

[Thekla]

The problem seems to be that the Christian logos you describe is contingent on something else, the Father, whereas Heraclitus' logos was closer to the Father in Christianity, God, in that it has no origin and is the basis of existence. Perhaps there is more, but your description seems like either Modalism or Oneness doctrine from what I understand. Or that there are indeed three Gods, two coming from a single God, all of them serving distinct functions. Again, potential misunderstandings abound.

The description I have given is of course brief (the definition itself covers I think about 20 terms, and one must consider logos is not the other terms for "word" in Greek).

The understanding of God as Trinity disincludes Modalism and Oneness doctrine (and is also the understanding that "God is love" per John).

There are three persons, One God, one in essence.
The Father cannot be a Father without a Son. Likewise the Son/Logos (eternally begotten) cannot be Son without Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (thus shares essence) and is sent by the Son. IE all actions of God are Trinitarian actions.