Does everyone want eternal life?

[rossum]

The soul is not replaced but sanctified

Then the soul is different and ipso facto has changed. If there is no difference then Baptism has had zero effect. If Baptism had an effect then the soul is different.

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…

There is a continuity, but it is not the continuity of an identity. It is a continuity of causation. The present me is conditioned by the past me, but the present me is not the same as the past me.

Moreover the soul doesn’t consist of parts; it is an invisible and indivisible entity unaffected by spatial and temporal factors.

If it is unaffected by temporal factors, then the soul before Baptism is the same as the soul after Baptism, and we are back to your type of soul requiring the uselessness of Baptism.

If Baptism causes a real change in the soul, then the soul has really changed, obviously. If the soul is unchanging then neither Baptism nor anything else can change it.

What you cannot have is an unchanging soul that is changed by Baptism. That is obvious nonsense.

We are dynamic because we have a spiritual source of energy which is independent of physical causes.

Anything that is dynamic changes. How can an unchanging soul be dynamic?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The soul is not replaced

Change alone does not alter a person’s identity:

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…

There is a continuity, but it is not the continuity of an identity. It is a continuity of causation. The present me is conditioned by the past me, but the present me is not the same as the past me.

Being conditioned doesn’t account for responsibility. Otherwise animals would be responsible for what they do.

Moreover the soul doesn’t consist of parts; it is an invisible and indivisible entity unaffected by spatial and temporal factors.

If it is unaffected by temporal factors, then the soul before Baptism is the same as the soul after Baptism, and we are back to your type of soul requiring the uselessness of Baptism.

If Baptism causes a real change in the soul, then the soul has really changed, obviously. If the soul is unchanging then neither Baptism nor anything else can change it.

What you cannot have is an unchanging soul that is changed by Baptism. That is obvious nonsense.

Baptism is a symbolic act which refers to a **spiritual **state.

We are dynamic because we have a spiritual source of energy which is independent of physical causes.

Anything that is dynamic changes. How can an unchanging soul be dynamic?

To change does not entail being changed. The soul causes change without changing - just as God creates but remains uncreated. Everything cannot come from nothing nor can everything be constantly changing! There would be no immutable acts or absolute principles which are the basis of rational thought.

 

[rossum]

Change alone does not alter a person’s identity:

Then the soul’s identity is not sanctified by Baptism, but some other part of the soul is. You are arguing for a multi-part soul, where one part stays unchanged by Baptism while the other part changes from an unsanctified part to a sanctified part.

If Baptism changes a soul from unsanctified to sanctified, then at least some part of the soul has to change. You cannot have change without something actually being different.

Otherwise animals would be responsible for what they do.

They are. Reincarnation includes animals as well as humans and others.

To change does not entail being changed. The soul causes change without changing - just as God creates but remains uncreated.

I was not talking about the soul causing change, but about Baptism causing change. Does Baptism cause change? Does Baptism cause the soul to change from unsanctified to sanctified?

If Baptism does not cause any change then it is useless. If it does cause a change, then the soul changes from unsanctified to sanctified. You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it. You seem to want an effective Baptism without a changing soul.

rossum

 

[opusAquinas]

Then the soul’s identity is not sanctified by Baptism, but some other part of the soul is. You are arguing for a multi-part soul, where one part stays unchanged by Baptism while the other part changes from an unsanctified part to a sanctified part.

If Baptism changes a soul from unsanctified to sanctified, then at least some part of the soul has to change. You cannot have change without something actually being different.

They are. Reincarnation includes animals as well as humans and others.

I was not talking about the soul causing change, but about Baptism causing change. Does Baptism cause change? Does Baptism cause the soul to change from unsanctified to sanctified?

If Baptism does not cause any change then it is useless. If it does cause a change, then the soul changes from unsanctified to sanctified. You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it. You seem to want an effective Baptism without a changing soul.

rossum

How would a donkey be a better donkey to become a cow?

 

[rossum]

How would a donkey be a better donkey to become a cow?

By making the correct choices. Animals can make choices; those choices have consequences.

rossum

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Another Thread with a Zillion words when just a few will do…

Would I like Eternal Life ?
only a nut, or a rather boring type person would want to be nowhere…
I Don’t never ever ever ever want to die and become nothing but a faded memory to my
sons… I want to be around to annoy them… Revenge is not all bad !
to exist is an Incredible experience … I wish to exist for eternity …
Just think of all the things you could do…explore whatever there is to explore,
God willing… I Pray that I will… because the alternative seems a bit to bleak…

 

[tonyrey]

Change alone

Souls are not like material objects; they are entities which do not have parts.

If Baptism changes a soul from unsanctified to sanctified, then at least some part of the soul has to change. You cannot have change without something actually being different.

It is not the soul that changes but its relationship with God and other souls. We don’t lose **our unique identity **which distinguishes us from everyone else.

Otherwise animals would be responsible for what they do.

They are. Reincarnation includes animals as well as humans and others.

Responsibility implies an enduring identity. If we weren’t the same persons we could deny we are guilty of past offences.

To change does not entail being changed. The soul causes

change without changing - just as God creates but remains uncreated. I was not talking about the soul causing change, but about Baptism causing change. Does Baptism cause change? Does Baptism cause the soul to change from unsanctified to sanctified?

If Baptism does not cause any change then it is useless. If it does cause a change, then the soul changes from unsanctified to sanctified. You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it. You seem to want an effective Baptism without a changing soul.

It is not the soul that changes but our relationship with God and other souls. We don’t lose **our unique identity **which distinguishes us from everyone else. If we changed from one moment to the next it wouldn’t make sense to refer to “we”. There would just be a series of separate, distinct individuals whose existence is atomic and inconsequential. Reality would be fragmented, valueless, purposeless and meaningless…

 

[rossum]

Souls are not like material objects; they are entities which do not have parts.

Then a sanctified soul is different from an unsanctified soul, and we do not have just a part changing. Therefore it mush be the entire soul changing, and we have a changing soul. Alternatively, Baptism is ineffective and does not affect the soul of the person being baptised.

We don’t lose **our unique identity **which distinguishes us from everyone else.

Retaining out unique identity does not require that we do not change. I am not the same weight I was when I was born, but that does not stop me being unique. I have a unique causal link to that baby.

Responsibility implies an enduring identity. If we weren’t the same persons we could deny we are guilty of past offences.

And if we were the same person then we could also deny those offences. I had not committed any crimes when I was born, so if I am the same person as when I was born, I can legitimately deny all crimes committed since my birth, because “I” did not commit them at birth and I am still that same innocent “I”.

Responsibility for actions requires both a causal connection and change. I am different from that baby, but I am causally connected to it, and am similarly causally connected to all his actions in the intervening time.

It is not the soul that changes but our relationship with God and other souls.

Then you are saying that Baptism has no effect on any souls, but only has an effect on a relationship. I am not sure that this is standard Catholic theology: that Baptism has no effect on actual souls but only has an effect on relationships.

We don’t lose **our unique identity **which distinguishes us from everyone else. If we changed from one moment to the next it wouldn’t make sense to refer to “we”. There would just be a series of separate, distinct individuals whose existence is atomic and inconsequential. Reality would be fragmented, valueless, purposeless and meaningless…

We are causally connected to some atomic individuals, but not to others. I am causally connected to the baby that grew into me. I am not causally connected to the baby that grew into you. What we see as an individual is actually more like a movie – a series of still pictures connected on the same piece of film.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Souls are not like material objects; they are entities which do not have parts.

Change occurs within the soul. It is illogical to dispense with the principle of identity.

We don’t lose our unique identity which distinguishes us from everyone else.

Retaining out unique identity does not require that we do not change. I am not the same weight I was when I was born, but that does not stop me being unique. I have a unique causal link to that baby.

A causal link is insufficient to account for moral responsibility. Your “former self” would not be responsible for what your “present self” does nor viceversa - any more than you are responsible for what your predecessors did…

Responsibility implies an enduring identity. If we weren’t the same persons we could deny we are guilty of past offences.

And if we were the same person then we could also deny those offences. I had not committed any crimes when I was born, so if I am the same person as when I was born, I can legitimately deny all crimes committed since my birth, because “I” did not commit them at birth and I am still that same innocent “I”.

You are conveniently omitting the age of reason and responsibility…

Responsibility for actions requires both a causal connection and change. I am different from that baby, but I am causally connected to it, and am similarly causally connected to all his actions in the intervening time.

Responsibility for actions requires a causal agent who has not vanished!

It is not the soul that changes but our relationship with God and other souls.

Then you are saying that Baptism has no effect on any souls, but only has an effect on a relationship. I am not sure that this is standard Catholic theology: that Baptism has no effect on actual souls but only has an effect on relationships.

Our relationship with God and other souls causes change within our soul. You don’t become another person every time you have a thought or make a decision. An atomistic view of reality is necessarily incoherent.

We don’t lose our unique identity which distinguishes us from everyone else. If we changed from one moment to the next it wouldn’t make sense to refer to “we”. There would just be a series of separate, distinct individuals whose existence is atomic and inconsequential. Reality would be fragmented, valueless, purposeless and meaningless…

We are causally connected to some atomic individuals, but not to others. I am causally connected to the baby that grew into me. I am not causally connected to the baby that grew into you. What we see as an individual is actually more like a movie – a series of still pictures connected on the same piece of film.

Movies consist of still pictures produced by a mechanical device which gives an **illusion **of continuity. You are equating reality with a film of reality in a vain attempt to demonstrate that everything is in a state of constant flux. If this were true you would be incapable of drawing rational conclusions or making rational decisions because nothing would ever be the same. The terms you use would lack any precise reference to specific individuals because we would cease to exist from one moment to the next.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You know this question, I have read it with the Saints and I can’t remember where, I’m of the impression, everyone knows they will be judged by God. I think we deem ourselves much to quickly unworthy and set a course of self indulgence to medicate the denial. I’ll add the teaching when I find it. I think we all do this. We become the reality by denial of truth. Christ states this also in scripture, “As you believe, so it will be”. Don’t believe in the world too strongly in denial of the Lord.

The question of, does everyone want eternal life. Think about Elijah, he wanted to die. Its not a matter of wants, its a matter of accepting what is as opposed to being crushed by fear. God created you to exist, be as it may that this is true? Then you cannot not exist.

The denial is of human conjecture.

 

[rossum]

Change occurs within the soul. It is illogical to dispense with the principle of identity.

You cannot have both change and identity simultaneously. Change requires that there be some difference between before the change and after the change. In the case we are discussing, there is a change from unsanctified to sanctified. Unsanctified is different to sanctified, it is not identical to unsanctified. If the change is happening within the soul, then the necessary difference is within the soul. Some part of the soul has changed or the entire soul has changed. Yet you tell us that the soul has no parts and you tell us that a soul does not change.

It is you who is being illogical. You want something that changes and at the same time stays the same. You want to have both change and no change simultaneously. That is an obvious logical error, which breaks the law of the excluded middle. Something cannot be both X and ~X simultaneously.

Change requires difference, not identity. Identity implies no change; change implies non-identity. You want to have both change and identity which is logically nonsensical.

A causal link is insufficient to account for moral responsibility.

That may be the Christian position; the Buddhist position is different. One of the five components of a human being is all the ‘carried forward’ moral responsibility for our accumulated actions. That carry-forward is part of us.

You are conveniently omitting the age of reason and responsibility…

Karma includes that automatically.

Responsibility for actions requires a causal agent who has not vanished!

Responsibility is carried in the samskāra part of every human being.

Our relationship with God and other souls causes change within our soul.

Then there is an internal part within the soul which changes. Yet you have said that the soul has no parts. Please make up your mind: change or no change; parts or no parts.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Change occurs within the soul. It is illogical to dispense with the principle of identity.

We are not concerned with things but persons.

Change requires difference, not identity.

The very reality of change implies **an unchanging concept **in an unchanging mind. If there were no continuity in the identity of the person who is thinking there would be no rational basis for understanding anything.

Thought implies the existence of a thinker who doesn’t disappear from one instant to the next!

Identity implies no change; change implies non-identity. You want to have both change and identity which is logically nonsensical.

A causal link is insufficient to account for moral responsibility.

That may be the Christian position…

That is the universal legal position.

… the Buddhist position is different. One of the five components of a human being is all the ‘carried forward’ moral responsibility for our accumulated actions. That carry-forward is part of us.

How is moral responsibility ‘carried forward’? How did the five components of a human being originate and who discovered them?

You are conveniently omitting the age of reason and responsibility…

Karma includes that automatically.

How?

Responsibility for actions requires a causal agent who has not vanished!

Responsibility is carried in the samskāra part of every human being.

A word is not an explanation…

Our relationship with God and other souls causes change within

our soul. Then there is an internal part within the soul which changes. Yet you have said that the soul has no parts. Please make up your mind: change or no change; parts or no parts.

“within the soul” does not imply the existence of parts. It is a metaphor because the soul is intangible and beyond time and space but I don’t know why you even refer to the soul because a true Buddhist doesn’t believe it exists. It would be more logical to believe there are no entities whatsoever, just an immense collection of parts, i.e. disparate particles which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever, harking back to the ancient doctrine of Heraclitus: “All is flux”. The problem is that it would make nonsense of karma and responsibility!

 

[rossum]

We are not concerned with things but persons.

The same argument still applies. Change the word to “entities” if it makes you happier. You cannot simultaneously have a person changing and staying the same. Either you analyse the person into a changing part and an unchanging part, or you have a logical contradiction. However, you have previously said that souls do not change so all you are left with is the logical contradiction.

The very reality of change implies **an unchanging concept **in an unchanging mind.

I disagree. All that change requires is 1) time and 2) a comparison between entities at different times.

If there were no continuity in the identity of the person who is thinking there would be no rational basis for understanding anything.

There is continuity in causation, there is not identity. Continuity is not identity. My body is continuously derived from the body that was born many years ago. It is not identical to the body that was born many years ago. There is continuity without identity. That is why it is possible for my body to have changed over time.

Thought implies the existence of a thinker who doesn’t disappear from one instant to the next!

Why not? Pythagoras has disappeared. Did his thought disappear with him?

A causal link is insufficient to account for moral responsibility.

In Christian theology, maybe. Buddhist theology is different.

How is moral responsibility ‘carried forward’?

From your previous life, in a gandhabba, which is one of the three components, along with egg and sperm, needed to form a human being.

How did the five components of a human being originate and who discovered them?

Samskāra come initially from the gandhabba. The other four develop between conception and birth. For example, perception (samjñā) can only be present after the sense organs have grown and are attached to the brain.

How?

There is a limit on the size of posts here. If you want an essay on the workings of karma then I suggest that you search the web for one.

A word is not an explanation…

“God” is a word. Does that word not explain anything? It is not the word that explains things, but the idea to which the word refers. See here.

“within the soul” does not imply the existence of parts.

But your insistence of mixing change and stasis does. Otherwise you fall into logical error. If Baptism causes a change from unsanctified to sanctified then there is difference. If the soul is unchanging then Baptism can have no effect on the soul.

I don’t know why you even refer to the soul because a true Buddhist doesn’t believe it exists.

I do not believe that souls exist, but you do. The Madhyamika-Prasnagika method of argument is to point out the inconsistencies in the opponent’s position. I am pointing out the inconsistency between your belief in an unchanging soul and in the efficacy of Baptism. You believe in a soul, so it is you who has to justify that belief.

It would be more logical to believe there are no entities whatsoever, just an immense collection of parts,

That is getting closer to the truth. Remember that those parts are themselves constantly in flux and are not permanent. Everything changes.

i.e. disparate particles which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever,

Reason and purpose both exist. The reason we both exist is because of our actions in our previous lives. We each set our own purposes, whether wise or foolish.

harking back to the ancient doctrine of Heraclitus: “All is flux”.

You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.

The problem is that it would make nonsense of karma and responsibility!

Karma is part of the changing flux. By our actions we are constantly adding to it. What happens to us is subtracting from it. Karma transfers responsibility for our actions forward in time and ensures that we see the consequences of those actions in future.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The same argument still applies. Change the word to “entities” if it makes you happier. You cannot simultaneously have a person changing and staying the same. Either you analyse the person into a changing part and an unchanging part, or you have a logical contradiction. However, you have previously said that souls do not change so all you are left with is the logical contradiction.

Your argument is flawed because it based on the assumption that persons exist - which you don’t believe. Moreover logical contradictions don’t exist in your scheme of things because there is nothing to be contradicted! Chaos does not permit such a concept which is based on order and regularity.

All that change requires is 1) time and 2) a comparison between entities at different times.

You have implied that entities don’t exist. How can comparisons be made if there is no enduring entity to make them?

There is continuity in causation, there is not identity. Continuity is not identity. My body is continuously derived from the body that was born many years ago. It is not identical to the body that was born many years ago. There is continuity without identity. That is why it is possible for my body to have changed over time.

Belief in causation - which is a constant - is inconsistent with the absence of order.

Thought implies the existence of a thinker who doesn’t disappear from one instant to the next!

Why not? Pythagoras has disappeared. Did his thought disappear with him?

The process of thinking implies a thinker who doesn’t disappear from one instant to the next.

A causal link is insufficient to account for moral responsibility.

In Christian theology, maybe. Buddhist theology is different.

Physical causes don’t explain moral responsibility.

How is moral responsibility ‘carried forward’?

From your previous life, in a gandhabba, which is one of the three components, along with egg and sperm, needed to form a human being.

Physical causes don’t explain moral responsibility.

How did the five components of a human being originate and who discovered them?
Samskāra come initially from the gandhabba. The other four develop between conception and birth. For example, perception (samjñā) can only be present after the sense organs have grown and are attached to the brain.

There is no scientific evidence for this hypothesis.

If you want an essay on the workings of karma then I suggest that you search the web for one.

How did karma originate?.

“God” is a word. Does that word not explain anything? It is not the word that explains things, but the idea to which the word refers. See here.

An idea should be based on evidence.

“within the soul” does not imply the existence of parts.

But your insistence of mixing change and stasis does. Otherwise you fall into logical error. If Baptism causes a change from unsanctified to sanctified then there is difference. If the soul is unchanging then Baptism can have no effect on the soul.

If nothing is ever the same no description is intelligible because the principle of identity ceases to be valid. Lack of continuity makes logical thought impossible.

I do not believe that souls exist, but you do. The Madhyamika-Prasnagika method of argument is to point out the inconsistencies in the opponent’s position. I am pointing out the inconsistency between your belief in an unchanging soul and in the efficacy of Baptism. You believe in a soul, so it is you who has to justify that belief.

Not if your position is incoherent. You are assuming consistency and opponents exist but they don’t in your scheme of things.

It would be more logical to believe there are no entities whatsoever, just an immense collection of parts,

That is getting closer to the truth. Remember that those parts are themselves constantly in flux and are not permanent. Everything changes.

If that were the case it would be impossible to understand anything.

Reason and purpose both exist. The reason we both exist is because of our actions in our previous lives. We each set our own purposes, whether wise or foolish.

You are not entitled to use the term “we” because you reject enduring entities.

You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.

Which obviates any insight into reality - in addition to the absence of a being with insight.

Karma is part of the changing flux. By our actions we are constantly adding to it. What happens to us is subtracting from it. Karma transfers responsibility for our actions forward in time and ensures that we see the consequences of those actions in future.

Karma is based on the assumption that our actions and omissions have definite consequences which is at odds with the view that there is no order, purpose or regularity in an irrational universe which just happens to exist for no reason whatsoever. Truth, justice and enlightenment are fantasies if there is no one to be enlightened:

"Vanity of vanities… and all is vanity. "

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Karma is part of the changing flux. By our actions we are constantly adding to it. What happens to us is subtracting from it. Karma transfers responsibility for our actions forward in time and ensures that we see the consequences of those actions in future. . .

I haven’t quite ever heard it put in those terms. I suppose that is your meaning.
The word is used by billions of people who have different points of views.
With Eastern religions, you need a Guru or Master to guide you.

Karma is action and is associated with the principle that what we do, changes, rather makes us who we are in the present (where everything happens).
Most Buddhist thought considers the self illusory. It is through the acting on desire, that Karma keeps the illusion going, attached to what is transient, creating the cycle of rebirth.
Because there isn’t a concept of sin, it’s not so much about responsibility as it is that by doing good or bad things, we become a good or bad person.
Nirvana involves the cessation of the craving and ignorance, which lead to suffering/rebirth. A good person ultimately transcends his goodness, ascending to a totally selfless state.

I just wanted to clarify how most people who use the term Karma, would use it.
I believe that there is lots of room here for mutual understanding rather than conflict.

 

[rossum]

Your argument is flawed because it based on the assumption that persons exist - which you don’t believe.

It is not my beliefs that I am criticising, but yours. You believe in the real existence of a self/soul, and it is that belief of yours that I am criticising. Specifically I am pointing out the contradiction between a permanent self/soul and the ability of that self/soul to change. I am using the specific example of the effect of Baptism as an example of change.

You have implied that entities don’t exist. How can comparisons be made if there is no enduring entity to make them?

Entities exist, but they are not enduring. What we think of as a single entity is a series of different, but causally connected, entities. I have used the example of a human body. Our current bodies are not the same as the body that was born, but there is a causally connected series of different bodies linking that initial body to our current body.

Belief in causation - which is a constant - is inconsistent with the absence of order.

It is disorder to believe that something, such as a soul, is both unchanging and that it can be changed by Baptism. That destroys logic by contradicting the law of the excluded middle. When logic is destroyed then you have disorder.

Physical causes don’t explain moral responsibility.

Murder is a physical action. Does a murder incur no moral responsibility?

There is no scientific evidence for this hypothesis.

And your scientific evidence for the existence of an immaterial semi-immortal soul is?

How did karma originate?

How did God originate?

If nothing is ever the same no description is intelligible because the principle of identity ceases to be valid. Lack of continuity makes logical thought impossible.

If nothing is ever different that all you can have is stasis. It is only because things are not the same that we can have change. Is your body the same body you were born with? Has it changed since your birth? Do you want to have exactly the same body for your entire life, or do you want it to have changed since your birth?

"Vanity of vanities… and all is vanity. "

Correct. Remember, that in those times the word “vanity” meant something closer to “empty” or “useless”, as in the phrase “all in vain”. The concept of emptiness (śūnyatā) is fundamental to Madhyamika Buddhism:

Avalokita, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high, he beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own-being they were empty.

Here, O Shariputra, form is emptiness, and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, nor does form differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

– Hṛdaya Prajñāpāramitā sutra

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Avalokita, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high . . .

:twocents:

Avalokita exists and grows in wisdom.
While in time, he has an eternal soul.
Who is that soul? Avalokita, of course.
He is Holy Lord because he has surrendered himself to God.
In heaven, eternally Avalokita returns, again and again giving himself completely to God,
in love, joining in the glory of the One true Lord.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not my beliefs that I am criticising, but yours. You believe in the real existence of a self/soul, and it is that belief of yours that I am criticising. Specifically I am pointing out the contradiction between a permanent self/soul and the ability of that self/soul to change. I am using the specific example of the effect of Baptism as an example of change.

I have pointed out that awareness of change implies an unchanging concept in an unchanging mind. If there were no continuity in the identity of the person who is thinking there would be no rational basis for understanding anything.

Thought implies the existence of a thinker who doesn’t disappear from one instant to the next!

You have implied that entities don’t exist. How can comparisons be made if there is no enduring entity to make them?

Entities exist, but they are not enduring. What we think of as a single entity is a series of different, but causally connected, entities. I have used the example of a human body. Our current bodies are not the same as the body that was born, but there is a causally connected series of different bodies linking that initial body to our current body.

Your analogy is unsound because persons are not bodies and minds are not brains.

Belief in causation - which is a constant - is inconsistent with the absence of order.

It is disorder to believe that something, such as a soul, is both unchanging and that it can be changed by Baptism. That destroys logic by contradicting the law of the excluded middle. When logic is destroyed then you have disorder.

Your “logic” is based on the false materialistic assumption that souls and minds are essentially the same as physical bodies.

Physical causes don’t explain moral responsibility.

Murder is a physical action. Does a murder incur no moral responsibility?

Physical causes by themselves don’t explain moral responsibility. Murder presupposes an intention.

There is no scientific evidence for this hypothesis.

And your scientific evidence for the existence of an immaterial semi-immortal soul is?

There is scientific evidence for the transcendence of the mind in its power to control the body.

How did karma originate?

How did God originate?

Karma is a finite process whereas God is eternal.

If nothing is ever the same no description is intelligible because the principle of identity ceases to be valid. Lack of continuity makes logical thought impossible.

If nothing is ever different that all you can have is stasis.

If nothing is ever the same there is no principle of identity or laws of thought. Concepts, definitions and descriptions would always be out of date and misleading.

It is only because things are not the same that we can have change. Is your body the same body you were born with? Has it changed since your birth? Do you want to have exactly the same body for your entire life, or do you want it to have changed since your birth?

The body is an inadequate model of reality and materialism is clearly false.

"Vanity of vanities… and all is vanity. "

Correct. Remember, that in those times the word “vanity” meant something closer to “empty” or “useless”, as in the phrase “all in vain”. The concept of emptiness (śūnyatā) is fundamental to Madhyamika Buddhism:

Avalokita, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high, he beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own-being they were empty.

Here, O Shariputra, form is emptiness, and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, nor does form differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

-- Hṛdaya Prajñāpāramitā sutra

Emptiness implies nihilism and lack of purpose. As Lear said, nothing shall come from nothing. A total void is sterile and incompatible with belief in Karma and spiritual development. “Wisdom” has destroyed itself and the meaning of everything else. Illusions themselves become illusory and everything descends into absurdity. The only result it achieves is to demonstrate that nothing worthwhile is ever achieved and it makes no difference whether we have existed or not : an ideal solution for those who consider life is worthless and meaningless - and that it would have been better if no one had ever been born. The death wish and desire for extinction are fulfilled perfectly in the Buddhist scheme of things: the philosophy of detachment destroys the value of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love and results in the exaltation of cynicism and the apotheosis of negativity.

 

[djames99]

The duration of purgatory that is felt may not be sensed as we know it. St. Dismas may on that day gain a place at “the Father’s table”, but all the same, I’m sure he will experience the equivalent of time that it would take to cleanse his soul. Everyone pays “to the last penny” for all their transgressions, minus the time reduced by the charity of the living who offer prayers,masses and sacrifices for the dead.

In purgatory the Saints visit the souls to give them encouragement. The Blessed Virgin will visit as well.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

In a word… Yes., Why the heck not ?