27 Apr 12
I think I started a thread on this topic once before, but it must have been a while ago and I cannot remember when.
The general claim at issue (GCAI): Religions are more centrally conjoined in belief/faith in life after death than in belief/faith in god(s).
As I recall, this is a claim that is made, for example, by Stephen Batchelor in Buddhism Without Beliefs.
I would like to investigate the GCAI further. As a starting point, if GCAI is true, then I guess we should on balance expect to find more examples of religions that feature belief/faith in life after death but not in god(s) than examples of religions that feature belief/faith in god(s) but not in life after death. This does seem to be the case when I try to think of examples that feature one article of belief/faith but not the other, but I would be interested in more input from other posters.
Also, I am intereted if others have input on candidate belief/faith (other than belief/faith in gods or belief/faith in life after death) that you think are more central to religions, broadly construed. These could, for instance, be related to any of their narrative, explanative, moral, etc, etc, etc, functions or aspects, etc, etc.
28 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloWe are one of the few theistic religions that i know of, perhaps the only one that does not believe in the immortaliry of the soul and immediate life after death.
I think I started a thread on this topic once before, but it must have been a while ago and I cannot remember when.
The general claim at issue (GCAI): Religions are more centrally conjoined in belief/faith in life after death than in belief/faith in god(s).
As I recall, this is a claim that is made, for example, by Stephen Batchelor in [i]Bud ...[text shortened]... ed to any of their narrative, explanative, moral, etc, etc, etc, functions or aspects, etc, etc.
28 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIndeed, I was already thinking about you as one such example, since I recall your saying as much before somewhere in one of the threads.
We are one of the few theistic religions that i know of, perhaps the only one that does not believe in the immortaliry of the soul and immediate life after death.
What do you mean when you say you do not believe in "immediate" life after death? Do you believe in non-immediate life after death?
28 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes the ressurection which i suppose is not really life after death but a re creation. I cannot think of any theistic religion other than ourselves which does not profess life after death can you?
Indeed, I was already thinking about you as one such example, since I recall your saying as much before somewhere in one of the threads.
What do you mean when you say you do not believe in "immediate" life after death? Do you believe in non-immediate life after death?
28 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not yet convinced that yours does not profess life after death in some material form.
Yes the ressurection which i suppose is not really life after death but a re creation. I cannot think of any theistic religion other than ourselves which does not profess life after death can you?
I just had a look at the following website:
http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Beliefs/their_beliefs.htm
This is what it states regarding "man's soul":
"Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a person is the soul the Bible speaks of, and when a person dies nothing lives on, the person is dead and is conscious of nothing. When the time comes for God to resurrect them from the dead He will create a new body for them from His memory."
Now, this seems to support your claim that you do not believe in "immediate" life after death. But, here's a question: when God resurrects what was you in accordance with His memory, is the resultant person you? That is, is it substantially the same person that you were before your death (notwithstanding the new body and all)? Is there the same personal identity here? If yes, then isn't this basically a profession of belief in life after death? If no, then what could you possibly care about this resurrection talk?
28 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes same person, although its different from say the traditional bwlieve that a part of us transvends death. our reasoning is that everlasting life is a gift bestowed upon the righteous not the wicked.
I'm not yet convinced that yours does not profess life after death in some material form.
I just had a look at the following website:
http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Beliefs/their_beliefs.htm
This is what it states regarding "man's soul":
[i]"Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a person is the soul the Bible speaks of, and when a person dies ...[text shortened]... y here? If yes, then isn't this basically a profession of belief in life after death?
28 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes same person, although its different from say the traditional bwlieve that a part of us transvends death. our reasoning is that everlasting life is a gift bestowed upon the righteous not the wicked.
I'm not yet convinced that yours does not profess life after death in some material form.
I just had a look at the following website:
http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Beliefs/their_beliefs.htm
This is what it states regarding "man's soul":
[i]"Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a person is the soul the Bible speaks of, and when a person dies ...[text shortened]... y here? If yes, then isn't this basically a profession of belief in life after death?
28 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay, thanks for the clarification.
Yes same person, although its different from say the traditional bwlieve that a part of us transvends death. our reasoning is that everlasting life is a gift bestowed upon the righteous not the wicked.
Based on this, however, I would reject your claim that your religion does not profess life after death. I think that claim is misleading at best. Yours does profess life after death in a substantial form, just not "immediate" life after death.
28 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloRobbie's just being Robbie. You know, nitpicking.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
Based on this, however, I would reject your claim that your religion does not profess life after death. I think that claim is misleading at best. Yours does profess life after death in a substantial form, just not "immediate" life after death.
I think you are correct in your OP. That overall, the one thing most religions have in common is some form of life after death, even more than their belief in God. I'm not sure where you're going with this concept, but yeah, okay, I'm with you so far.
28 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneLemonJello's OP contends that "Religions are more centrally conjoined in belief/faith in life after death than in belief/faith in god(s). "
Why is that? Do you not believe that he believes what he says?
robbie contends that his JW religion is "one of the few theistic religions" that does not "believe in the immortaliry of the soul and immediate life after death". But we see how he has slipped the word "immediate" into his post as if that somehow justifies robbie setting the JWs apart from what is described in the OP. I would call this verbal sleight of hand, of "furtive", on robbies' part. LemonJello was perhaps more polite than me when he said "Based on this, however, I would reject your claim that your religion does not profess life after death. I think that claim is misleading at best."
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
28 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy problem is with the word "same." If it is not that any part of us transcends death, what is it about a so-called resurrected person ("When the time comes for God to resurrect them from the dead He will create a new body for them from His memory" ) that makes it the same person resurrected, and not in fact, a new person?
Yes same person, although its different from say the traditional bwlieve that a part of us transvends death. our reasoning is that everlasting life is a gift bestowed upon the righteous not the wicked.
It is a tempest in a teapot theologically, afaiac. But if the persistence of a memory is intrinsic to the persistence of self, then one must have memories that persist, for the self to persist.
Surely Black Beetle must have something to say about this.
28 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357Hindu take on this. A person has gross body, subtle body, and the Atma or Karanasharir or soul. The gross body is cremated on death. The subtle body carrying past impressions and memories is attached to the Atman. It goes from one birth to other. The sages/yogis manage to destroy the subtle body, so that the Atma merges with God/Paramatma and there is no rebirth.
My problem is with the word "same." If it is not that any part of us transcends death, what is it about a so-called resurrected person ("When the time comes for God to resurrect them from the dead He will create a new body for them from His memory" ) that makes it the same person resurrected, and not in fact, a new person?
It is a tempest in a teapot theolo ...[text shortened]... sist, for the self to persist.
Surely Black Beetle must have something to say about this.