1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    09 Mar '07 02:24
    Originally posted by vistesd
    As I revisit this, Whodey, it strikes me that you really didn't answer the question. From the context of your post, I will take it as: if, for whatever reason you determined that there were no after-life, you would find no further reason to maintain your Christian religous expression--that without the promise of an after-life, all the rest of it must fall...
    Sorry for not answering, however, it is like asking me if I would purchase a train ride home even though, in the end, I would know that I would never reach my home by doing so. I suppose I would anyway because what is at the end of that train ride is what I love the most. It is not merely a desire to be with him face to face but it is a love for his ways and his commandments. So I guess the answer is that I would change nothing.

    BTW: Thanks for being a gentleman. Its nice to talk to you on these boards.
  2. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    09 Mar '07 02:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    Sorry for not answering, however, it is like asking me if I would purchase a train ride home even though, in the end, I would know that I would never reach my home by doing so. I suppose I would anyway because what is at the end of that train ride is what I love the most. It is not merely a desire to be with him face to face but it is a love for his ways an ...[text shortened]... hange nothing.

    BTW: Thanks for being a gentleman. Its nice to talk to you on these boards.
    Its nice to talk to you on these boards.

    The feeling is mutual—and for my part always has been. You and I have disagreed, but it’s always been with respect. I appreciate that.

    What about the “train ride” itself? As I tried to indicate, I’m not convinced that the aesthetic of various religious expressions doesn’t affect that favorably. That is, if someone were to come to me and say that, since they no longer believed in an after-life they were abandoning their religion, I would likely ask them if there weren’t other valuable aspects of that which they might consider... Especially since getting people to quit their religious expression is never my goal.

    For me, my existence is a transient manifestation of the totality from which it arose, of which it is, and into which it will be dispersed (with no memory or remainder) eventually—like a wave on the ocean, inseparable yet transient. Where would I go? I was never anything other than a manifestation of that ocean to begin with. The fact of my existence—the train-ride, as you put it—is of value itself. How marvelous! Even with the tragedy and hard pain that has sometimes been involved. Even though the train crashes, what sights I have seen...!

    As Alan Watts once put it, if the purpose of a symphony was to reach the end, the best musicians would be those who played the fastest.

    But—I’ll let it go. Thanks for your response. I’m curious as to what responses others will have...
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    09 Mar '07 03:12
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [b]Its nice to talk to you on these boards.

    The feeling is mutual—and for my part always has been. You and I have disagreed, but it’s always been with respect. I appreciate that.

    What about the “train ride” itself? As I tried to indicate, I’m not convinced that the aesthetic of various religious expressions doesn’t affect that favorably. That i ...[text shortened]... I’ll let it go. Thanks for your response. I’m curious as to what responses others will have...[/b]
    I must be honest in that the train ride is not always pleasant. The train ride can often be a lonley one in which you seem to be the only one going to that destination. In fact, at times it would be alot more fun being on another train, however, you have decided not to live your life merely for the pleasure of the moment much in the same way you might fight off a beautifal woman throwing herself at you because you are madly in love with your wife. In fact, as a Christian we are told to take up our cross, if you will. Take it from me, this taking up the cross is often not pleasant. This is represented in the gospels when Christ collapsed as he was dragging the cross up the hill to be crucified. Another man took over and dragged the cross up the hill for him. However, when the man reached the top of the hill with his cross, Christ then took over for the man and was crucified in his stead. I think it a small price to pay for such a favor.
  4. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    09 Mar '07 04:133 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    I must be honest in that the train ride is not always pleasant. The train ride can often be a lonley one in which you seem to be the only one going to that destination. In fact, at times it would be alot more fun being on another train, however, you have decided not to live your life merely for the pleasure of the moment much in the same way you might fight ...[text shortened]... r for the man and was crucified in his stead. I think it a small price to pay for such a favor.
    Another "Christian" who hasn't read the Bible. I forget the man's name, but he was compelled by the guards to carry the cross (or part of the cross). Christ was not crucified in his stead. either; the cross was always meant for Christ. You must be reading crib notes again.

    EDIT: Matthew 27:32: Along the way, they came across a man named Simon, who was from Cyrene,[a] and the soldiers forced him to carry Jesus’ cross.

    Luke 23:26: And when they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, and laid on him the cross, to bear it after Jesus.

    Mark 15:21: And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear his cross.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    09 Mar '07 04:241 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Another "Christian" who hasn't read the Bible. I forget the man's name, but he was compelled by the guards to carry the cross (or part of the cross). Christ was not crucified in his stead. either; the cross was always meant for Christ. You must be reading crib notes again.

    EDIT: Matthew 27:32: Along the way, they came across a man named Simon, who was ...[text shortened]... e country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear his cross.
    I did not mean to say that the man was to be crucified instead of Christ or along with Christ. I was only pointing out the symbolism of the man carrying the cross up a hill that was ment for Christ to die on.

    I have a question for you. If such symbolism is way off base why did Christ tell us to take up our cross and follow him in Matthew 16:24?
  6. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    09 Mar '07 05:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    I did not mean to say that the man was to be crucified instead of Christ or along with Christ. I was only pointing out the symbolism of the man carrying the cross up a hill that was ment for Christ to die on.

    I have a question for you. If such symbolism is way off base why did Christ tell us to take up our cross and follow him in Matthew 16:24?
    It could mean any number of things (e.g., accepting the consequences, however seemingly unbearable, of doing what one ought), but I prefer to think that taking up the cross means to participate willingly in a process that will eventuate in your figurative death; in the dissolution of your ego. The key passage here, to my mind, is "whoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it", where this doesn't mean losing one's literal life, nor even losing those things one takes as fundamentally important to one's life, but rather losing one's life; losing that which keeps one clinging to one's life and thereby gaining real freedom and peace.
  7. Earth
    Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    2190
    09 Mar '07 05:46
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I do not think there is—nor do I have any “hope” for—an individual after-life, whether that entails reincarnation, resurrection or some kind of immortality of the “soul.” My chosen religious expression(s) was not determined by that fact, however, but by how I understand my existence in the cosmos, and what makes sense to me.

    I am curious about how a beli ...[text shortened]... bology would need reinterpretation from the conventional view. I only offer it as an example...
    We (mankind) have reached a point in our development that we believe we know it all. We have landed on the moon, split the atom, mapped the genome, .... These achievements are starting to give us the God syndrome.

    I do not mean to belittle human achievement. But let's face it, when it comes to understanding the universe and all that is in it, we are barely scratching the surface. We don't even know why we suffer from the Common Cold let alone cure it. We are trapped on this planet which is quickly running out of resources, and our unmanned probes have barely traveled outside this little solar system, which is a spec of dust in our galaxy, which itself is a spec of dust in the universe.

    There is a lot we do not understand. There is more to our existence than just eating. Man does not live by bread alone. I believe we are not just physical beings. I am not going to get into goofy after life experiences and intuitions etc. But there have been some indications of certain actions prescribed by religions that affect humans in a positive way. To give one example, studies have shown that for whatever reason, prayer causes people to live healthier, happier lives.

    Is it possible that underneath all the man-made garbage that surrounds religions, there is something that affects us in ways we do not yet understand?
  8. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157646
    09 Mar '07 06:41
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Hi Whodey,

    First let me say that I am not sad. By having no hope, I did not mean to imply any sense of loss or despair, or anything like that. Simply a refusal to pin hope on something I do not believe is real.

    With regard to “vanity.” The Hebrew word is hebel, which signifies vapor, breath, mist—that kind of thing. If by vanity, you mean so ...[text shortened]... r-life, most believe in immortality of the soul and/or transmigration of souls—not resurrection.
    vanity

    We had this discussion before.
    Kelly
  9. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    09 Mar '07 07:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    I did not mean to say that the man was to be crucified instead of Christ or along with Christ. I was only pointing out the symbolism of the man carrying the cross up a hill that was ment for Christ to die on.

    I have a question for you. If such symbolism is way off base why did Christ tell us to take up our cross and follow him in Matthew 16:24?
    Your reading was nonsense. Here's that passage:

    24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    "Take up his cross" is clearly referring to making some kind of voluntary self-sacrifice. Simon of Cyrene wasn't doing a favor as you seem to imply - he was forced to carrying Jesus' cross. And Jesus didn't do anything in Simon's stead. Thus, your symbolism is way off base to the story of Simon the Cyrene and Jesus.
  10. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    09 Mar '07 20:41
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I do not think there is—nor do I have any “hope” for—an individual after-life, whether that entails reincarnation, resurrection or some kind of immortality of the “soul.” My chosen religious expression(s) was not determined by that fact, however, but by how I understand my existence in the cosmos, and what makes sense to me.

    I am curious about how a beli ...[text shortened]... bology would need reinterpretation from the conventional view. I only offer it as an example...
    I tend to hear more about the immortality of the soul or a surviving spirit in church circles. But doesn't Christian theology teach that we will receive a new body? In my thinking this is even harder to believe in.

    An after life, however, you may see it, does not determine my adherence to a faith. It either will be or won't be. Anything after this life is "gravy." Hoepfully good gravy. But I try to live my life focused not on this but rather the benefits of a life of faith and gratittude.
  11. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    10 Mar '07 09:342 edits
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I do not think there is—nor do I have any “hope” for—an individual after-life, whether that entails reincarnation, resurrection or some kind of immortality of the “soul.” My chosen religious expression(s) was not determined by that fact, however, but by how I understand my existence in the cosmos, and what makes sense to me.

    I am curious about how a beli ...[text shortened]... bology would need reinterpretation from the conventional view. I only offer it as an example...
    This is the kind of stuff that I think cuts right to the heart of theistic belief. It ties in with another thread where the central question was something like 'why do some people believe rubbish?' First, I'd say a lot of theistic 'belief' is properly nothing like belief at all. Or at least, it's certainly nothing like the "cool assent" of the intellect (pace Hume). It's more like noncognitive expression that stems from introspection, self attachments. These are typically passionate minds who shrink from the very confrontation that Camus thinks we ought to tackle directly. They simply cannot bear any thoughts related to the cessation of their own perspective, and they simply cannot imagine happiness or peace of mind within the Sisyphean adventure. Consider the crowning moment for the Sisyphean hero: he turns; starts the long descent (again!); stands in a present awareness that is authentic and genuine; continues on in that present awareness. [Think Kabir: "Kabir says this: just throw away all thougts of imaginary things, and stand firm in that which you are."] Some are not prepared to bear that present awareness, and they mask the absurd, they live with appeal.

    Honestly, I am completely, utterly unsympathetic toward the sort of hope that marks in a general way theism, after-life notions, etc. Maybe that's not entirely consistent of me; maybe it's the case that -- at bottom -- the noncognitivist expression that comprises such hope is the same "stuff" that comprises my own passions; maybe it's the case that we all work with the same material but sculpt it into different forms based on personal aesthetics. But in general, I'm just more than a little repulsed when organization becomes prevalent in the expression, overwhelming whatever it is that makes the expression worthwhile -- the dance becomes mechanical, the music becomes forced (I think you probably know what I'm trying to say here). I think that sort of organization and rigor undermines the Sisyphean adventure. I would say the vast majority of it is completely regrettable and constitutes nothing more than a pathetic and silly sort of idolatry. But maybe I should add that's just me.

    I'm sure a lot of the after-lifers are spurred on by a fear of the permanent cessation of conscious experience. In some sense, I'm really not sure why: it's nothing to be like a dead human. I'm sure I have posted this before in this forum (probably more than once), but I really like the following words of Rosencrantz from Tom Stoppard's movie. They do a good job demonstrating the sort of absurdity that informs the irrational side of this fear. The passage also demonstrates, to an extent, the heavy grip of self attachment -- Rosencrantz cannot disentangle the self from the non-self:

    "Do you ever think of yourself as actually dead lying in a box with a lid on it? Nor do I really. It's silly to be depressed by it. I mean, one thinks of it like being alive in a box, and one keeps forgetting to take into account the fact that one is dead...which should make all the difference... shouldn't it? I mean, you'd never know you were in a box, would you? It would be just like you were asleep in a box. Not that I'd like to sleep in a box, mind you, not without any air, you'd wake up dead for a start, and then where would you be? In a box. That's the bit I don't like frankly. That's why I don't think of it. Because you'd be helpless. Stuffed in a box like that, I mean, you'd be in there for ever. Even taking into account the fact that you're dead, it isn't a pleasant thought. Especially if you're dead, really...ask yourself, if I asked you straight off...I'm going to stuff you in this box now, would you rather be alive or dead? Naturally, you'd prefer to be alive. Life in a box is better than no life at all, I expect. You'd have a chance at least. You could lie there thinking well, at least I'm not dead."
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    10 Mar '07 12:20
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your reading was nonsense. Here's that passage:

    24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    "Take up [b]his
    cross" is clearly referring to making some kind of voluntary self-sacrifice. Simon of Cyrene wasn't doing a favor as you seem to ...[text shortened]... s stead. Thus, your symbolism is way off base to the story of Simon the Cyrene and Jesus.[/b]
    Well Christ COMMANDED his followers to take up a cross as well. Do you not see the parellel? You are right that following him is voluntary, however, if you choose to you are commanded to take up your cross much in the same way Simon was commanded to take up the cross for Christ.
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    10 Mar '07 12:24
    Originally posted by bbarr
    It could mean any number of things (e.g., accepting the consequences, however seemingly unbearable, of doing what one ought), but I prefer to think that taking up the cross means to participate willingly in a process that will eventuate in your figurative death; in the dissolution of your ego. The key passage here, to my mind, is "whoever shall lose his life ...[text shortened]... g that which keeps one clinging to one's life and thereby gaining real freedom and peace.
    I get a whole different read on the subject. When Christ said that whoever "loses" his life will find it, I interpret that as being my life is not my own but Christ that lives in me, which is quoting another verse. Therefore, the life I live now I voluntarily allow Christ to have the reigns, so to speak, rather than doing my own thing. Then after I have voluntarily surrendered my life to Christ, I will then inherit eternal life in the life to come.
  14. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    10 Mar '07 15:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    I am sorry you have given up on an after-life vistesd. For me this would mean that ALL is vanity. We then become "dust in the wind" so to speak and nothing more. It reminds me of Ecclesiastes when Solomon realized that despite having all the money in the world and all the wisdom in the world and all the women in the world he could want he surmized that all ...[text shortened]... o in the present life because the life to come will make such suffering trivial in comparison.
    Do you mean vanity as egotism or as meaninglessness?
  15. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    10 Mar '07 15:46
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    This is the kind of stuff that I think cuts right to the heart of theistic belief. It ties in with another thread where the central question was something like 'why do some people believe rubbish?' First, I'd say a lot of theistic 'belief' is properly nothing like belief at all. Or at least, it's certainly nothing like the "cool assent" of the i ...[text shortened]... uld lie there thinking well, at least I'm not dead."
    In a Camusian perspective, would euthanasia or suicide ever be justified?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree