Does everyone want eternal life?

[rossum]

So no time off for good behaviour then. No parole board. The key is thrown away. lucky we don’t use that as an example of how justice should work in the here and now.

Which was my point. Purgatory is a much better model than hell, because the length of time can be varied to suit the crime.

But Rossum’s point about none of us being the same person is an interesting one. Yes, if you paint a house a different colour, then it’s still the same house (just finished painting mine actually). But what if you gradually replace all the bricks and timber and windows and doors. It’s still the same home, but it’s not the same house.

Similarly, I am still the same ‘Brad’ as I was when I was younger. But I’m almost certain I am not the same man as I was. Certainly physically, as everything has been replaced over time. But if I was to meet my younger self from thirty years ago, then I’m not sure I’d recognise him.

We can see both change and continuity in the world. You are the same as you were, yet you are different too. The Abrahamic religions tend to emphasise the continuity; change is not as fundamental as continuity.

Buddhism is the opposite. It emphasises change over continuity. Change is fundamental while the apparent continuity is merely a veneer over the underlying change.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Eternity is an idea that we as humans cannot grasp, but does the notion of eternal life really appeal to everyone? Would we have any concept of time passing as we did in our earthly existence?

I’m honestly not sure how I feel about it. Maybe **eternal rest **is the preferable choice.

Thoughts?

But isn’t “eternal rest” a euphemism for eternal nothingness?

Who really wants eternal nothingness?

 

[tonyrey]

Hell is not a imaginary torture chamber but the self-imposed isolation of those who love themselves at the expense of others.

You are overlooking the term “self-imposed”. We are the ones who have the key to our destiny, whether we like it or not…

But Rossum’s point about none of us being the same person is an interesting one. Yes, if you paint a house a different colour, then it’s still the same house (just finished painting mine actually). But what if you gradually replace all the bricks and timber and windows and doors. It’s still the same home, but it’s not the same house.

Similarly, I am still the same ‘Brad’ as I was when I was younger. But I’m almost certain I am not the same man as I was. Certainly physically, as everything has been replaced over time. But if I was to meet my younger self from thirty years ago, then I’m not sure I’d recognise him.

In a lawcourt you are held responsible for what you did thirty years ago. In daily life everyone regards you as the one and only Brad they have known since they met you.
The fact that you have changed doesn’t alter your identity as stated on your birth certificate, passport and other documents.

You may not recognise your “younger self” but “self” gives the game away. A normal person only has one!

 

[GEddie]

But isn’t “eternal rest” a euphemism for eternal nothingness?

Who really wants eternal nothingness?

“Eternal rest” has a mournful sound to it because in English, this term is used as a comforting euphemism for death. Death is nothingness, insofar as the human body is concerned.

But the human being is more than the mass of his solid body, and will in fact receive a “spiritual body” (pneumatikon soma.)

Even a body can be “at rest” without being dead.

Rest does not equal nothingness.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bradski]

You are overlooking the term “self-imposed”. We are the ones who have the key to our destiny, whether we like it or not…

if you steal a loaf of bread you may get a fine. If you murder someone you may get life. Is there somewhere we can check to see what will get me burned alive for all eternity? If I’m going to do the time, I need to know the crime.

In a lawcourt you are held responsible for what you did thirty years ago.

Only for very serious crimes. And any half decent lawyer would insist that you are not the same person as you were 30 years ago. In fact, that’s why we have parole. It gives an opportunity for the criminal to show that he is indeed not the same person who committed the crime and should therefore be released. Maybe you’ve seen The Shawshank Redemption?

The fact that you have changed doesn’t alter your identity as stated on your birth certificate, passport and other documents.

My emphasis…

 

[wmw]

Continuing in a spiritual realm where nothing decays and we live forever is easier for me to imagine than to do so without a change from lack-of-grace to grace. The idea that our lot is fixed at the end of this life and no such change is allowed in a self-imposed state of hell is something I find hard to imagine, but that is my thing with which to grapple yet accept.

Then there is this question of wanting eternal life. We are made with an immortal soul. This is another thing we accept from Christ and the Church. We have no freedom to not exist, We will either exist with God or without him. I think it is part of the error and sinfulness of suicide that we attempt to claim this freedom that we claim an allowance to not exist. In our culture of “rights” and “freedoms” we tend to resist any lack of a right, but we just don’t have all the “rights” and “freedoms” that we can come up with. So, this is also something many have with which to grapple and yet accept.

These things with which we grapple are difficulties, but as Fr. Sheen often said a thousand difficulties are not a single doubt.

 

[fred_conty]

Bradski,

if you steal a loaf of bread you may get a fine. If you murder someone you may get life. Is there somewhere we can check to see what will get me burned alive for all eternity? If I’m going to do the time, I need to know the crime.

The crime is selling one’s birthright for some sinful pleasure.

Only for very serious crimes. And any half decent lawyer would insist that you are not the same person as you were 30 years ago. In fact, that’s why we have parole. It gives an opportunity for the criminal to show that he is indeed not the same person who committed the crime and should therefore be released. Maybe you’ve seen The Shawshank Redemption?

If the person isn’t the same person that committed the sin, they they would be sorry for having done what they did. God is merciful and wants the sinner saved if he is willing to reform his life or not be that same person again who sinned. In that case the birthright is restored.

God is more adament about that person going to his reward that we could ever be. But then allowing the bad to mix with the good is not a good solution. But if there is reform to good, then the all merciful and kind Lord rejoices for the good fortune of that person and welcomes him with open arms.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski,

The crime is selling one’s birthright for some sinful pleasure.

Like making to love to someone before you get married? Eternal damnation with no time off for good behavious seems a bit harsh to me.

 

[tonyrey]

*You are overlooking the term “self-imposed”. We are the ones who have the key to our destiny, whether we like it or not…
*

Are you responsible for your conclusions and decisions? If so why should you ever become incapable of doing so?

The “crime” is to live for oneself and “to hell with the others!” There seem to be a fair number of people in this world who think and behave like that…

QUOTE]In a lawcourt you are held responsible for what you did thirty years ago.

Only for very serious crimes. Precisely! that gives the game away…

And any half decent lawyer would insist that you are not the same person as you were 30 years ago. In fact, that’s why we have parole. It gives an opportunity for the criminal to show that he is indeed not the same person who committed the crime and should therefore be released. Maybe you’ve seen The Shawshank Redemption?

It gives an opportunity for the criminal to show he has turned over a new leaf - and he is reformed not replaced.

The fact that you have changed doesn’t alter your identity as stated on your birth certificate, passport and other documents.

                             My emphasis...

Your identity has not changed even though some aspects of your personality have. You are an enduring entity whether you like it or not. We can never escape from ourselves even if we want to. Happily we are told to love others as ourselves…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

if you steal a loaf of bread you may get a fine. If you murder someone you may get life. Is there somewhere we can check to see what will get me burned alive for all eternity? If I’m going to do the time, I need to know the crime

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

 

[tonyrey]

Can one soul be both sanctified and non-sanctified? Can one thing have two opposed properties?

The two statements: “my soul is sanctified” and “my soul is not sanctified” are a contradiction. Hence we either have two different souls or we have a logical contradiction.

The soul is not static!

 

[rossum]

The soul is not static!

Then we have two different souls at two different times: soul-on-Wednesday is not the same as soul-on-Thursday. They cannot be the same soul because one is sanctified and the other is not.

rossum

 

[opusAquinas]

Then we have two different souls at two different times: soul-on-Wednesday is not the same as soul-on-Thursday. They cannot be the same soul because one is sanctified and the other is not.

rossum

Your signature is a contradiction. The truth is there is no truth. Get it? May be you should figure out which myers-briggs personality type you are? This might explain your preference for no logic.

 

[tonyrey]

Then we have two different souls at two different times: soul-on-Wednesday is not the same as soul-on-Thursday. They cannot be the same soul because one is sanctified and the other is not.

rossum

When you make choices you do not become a different person. Otherwise you wouldn’t be responsible for what you have done in the past and could plead not guilty for any offence you have committed.

 

[rossum]

When you make choices you do not become a different person. Otherwise you wouldn’t be responsible for what you have done in the past and could plead not guilty for any offence you have committed.

I was not talking about choices, I was talking about the effects of Baptism on a soul – see post #59. If a soul cannot change, then Baptism cannot change it. Baptism can only have an effect on the soul if the soul can change. Any change requires difference: if there is no difference then there has been no change.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Your signature is a contradiction.

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[opusAquinas]

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

The tractatus does not say the unsayable. Nor does this unsayability imply our inability to KNOW the Truth. This person you quoted is an idiot and does not understand philosophy. I am an INTJ. Wittgenstein was as well as well as many others I can mention… I am not saying you have to be an INTJ to understand one but it REALLY does help. Most analytical philosophers are INTPs that’s why their logical arguments can lead nowhere because you have to BEGIN with good intuition and God’s help. This quote illustrates bad intuition and bad logic and bad reading comprehension. Buddha was an INTJ but he was wrong about a lot of things. Muhammad was an INTJ but he was a lunatic so was Goebbels. The Bahai guy was too but he means well but the path to good intention well you know and so was that Sikh guy… Joseph Smith was an ENFP trying to be an INTJ (you get a lot of that)

ALL other personality types are followers of one INTJ or another. In a way, Satan is an INTJ. Who do you follow? I follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I believe God became man you should know Him.

He is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[GEddie]

Say the unsayable ?

What the heqq???

That sort of mind fuzz is what happens when people get too enamored of philosophy.

IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[opusAquinas]

All the signs point to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. If you misread the signs - you are resisting grace from God. All receive at least sufficient grave.

 

[tonyrey]

I was not talking about choices, I was talking about the effects of Baptism on a soul – see post #59. If a soul cannot change, then Baptism cannot change it. Baptism can only have an effect on the soul if the soul can change. Any change requires difference: if there is no difference then there has been no change.

rossum

To which I replied:

The very fact that we use “we” implies that there is an enduring entity. A physical object like a house is still fundamentally the same house after it has been painted. A person is even more clearly the same person throughout his or her life. Otherwise the entire legal system would be based on a misconception of identity. Innocence and guilt would become illusions. How could we be responsible for what we did five minutes ago, let alone five years? Yet you have stated:

We are all responsible for the consequences of our own actions.

Past, present and future!

Just as well, otherwise our unsaved unbaptised soul at birth could not have been replaced by a saved baptised soul. Since a single soul cannot be both unbaptised and baptised, then we are talking about two different souls. I assume you are not saying that baptism has zero effect.

The soul is not replaced but sanctified:

1121 The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made ** a member of the Church according to different states and functions.

 	 		 			 				There is continuity in a person's life; otherwise we wouldn't be   responsible for what we did five minutes ago, we wouldn't have any legal   identity and the Buddhist belief in reincarnation wouldn't make   sense...

   		 			 				The continuity is causation.  What we are now is caused by what  we  were a moment ago.  We are not the same because e have different   memories and we are older.  Some of our cells have died while other   cells have grown.  We are continually changing; we are not static. If we  have changed, then we are not the same as we were.  Hence our old self  has disappeared and been replaced by our new self.  Just as well,  otherwise our unsaved unbaptised soul at birth could not have been  replaced by a saved baptised soul.  Since a single soul cannot be both  unbaptised and baptised, then we are talking about two different souls.   I assume you are not saying that baptism has zero effect.

It would have zero effect if the baptised person disappeared and were replaced by a totally different person!

  	 			 				The continuity is causation.  What we are now is caused by what we  were a moment ago.  We are not the same because we have different  memories and we are older.  Some of our cells have died while other  cells have grown.  We are continually changing; we are not static.

Causation by itself doesn’t explain identity, continuity or responsibility. If nothing were ever the same the principles of logic would be invalid. An analytic, atomistic interpretation of reality fails to account for synthesis and integration.** Modern medicine is based on a holistic view of persons** instead of being restricted to separate symptoms.

Moreover the soul doesn’t consist of parts; it is an invisible and indivisible entity unaffected by spatial and temporal factors. We are dynamic because we have a spiritual source of energy which is independent of physical causes.