Originally posted by epiphinehas
You seem to be inverting your earlier argument, vistesd. You argued a few posts back that life has enough intrinsic value in itself without having to posit an everlasting afterlife. Yet now you seem to be arguing that life does not have enough intrinsic value to be a worthy sacrifice - there must be an everlasting afterlife to lay down as well. Why is it not enough to lay down one's physical life for another human being?
No—I do find life intrinsically of worth (I really can’t see how it couldn’t be; how would we know?!).
Now—first of all—the passage that I roughly quoted uses the word
psuche, which is not simply biological life (
bios or
zoos). The question could be put this way: “How much are you willing to give up for your beloved?”
Part of my life
includes those whom I love. My life—not just as
bios or
zoos, but as my life fully lived out. Some people translate
psuche as “soul-life”; that is at least closer to an existential view of “life” than simple
zoos. What I do for one whom I love is not a matter of self-sacrifice: it is a matter of fully living out that life of which she (my wife is the immediate example) is part! She is alive in this life as I am!
The fact that she will die (or I will die before her) makes that relationship
more, not less, precious! (BTW, she just gave me a wonderful hug!)
Now—if the choice is either me or her for eternal torment (I know, you will say that is not a real choice: but maybe it is) then I will take her place in hell!
I do not know how to answer any differently and yet claim that I love! Do you get that last statement? I repeat: “I do not know how to answer any differently and yet claim that I love!”
Frankly, love (
agape) is the single message of Christianity that distinguishes it from other religions (except for Sufism). Christianity—like Sufism—claims that God
is agape (not “lov
ing”, but love). Now, I will add something to that: that
agape becomes incarnate. But most Christians I have met on my long journey (including all those years that I thought of myself as Christian) have gone to great pains to dilute the radicality of that message.
I put my existential faith in the
logos of
agape—that is a pragmatic and existential stance. (Do I really need to translate that further for you?) I frankly think that that is the Christian stance. But most “Christians” don’t seem to think so, so I don’t claim the label.
I make a lot of rational arguments on here. Love is not one of them. I make no rational defense there. If there is no afterlife, then I choose to love. If there is an afterlife, then I choose to love. Period. My loving does not require any everlasting afterlife.
EDIT: I do like how you press my buttons! Seriously! I relish that!