The problem of death

[Ranklyfrank]

Hi, Rf, thanks for the reply. I really intended the question to be about the effects that our pending death has on us-and how our lives might be different for better or worse if the “threat” of non-existence were definitively ruled out in our minds, with little more knowledge than that.

That practice, along with the practice of feeling the Presence of God is way not unique to Catholicism. Carlos Castaneda told of his Benefactor, Don Juan Matus, advising him to imagine death sitting on his left shoulder. Other such stories and practices are common, as are virgin birth and resurrection stories about which my opinion is not the usual non-christian one. But the notable thing about the Castaneda stories that is common with, or contrary to, ordinary religion is that the actual meaning of teaching is not in the realm of reason, but of experience precipitated by the agency of a savant of some sort. Or Grace. but that is a whole other story of exceptional interest and value, as it again reflects poorly, or at best neutrally, on religion.

That is my experience, the particulars of which I will not go in to for the reasons above. But I do know for certain that religion as it is commonly understood and practiced is just a veil over what’s actually possible. That’s not a hypothesis on my part. It is my experience. But it is an experience that was costly in terms of my ordinary understanding of the world. The world as we publicly understand it, especially after Descartes and in our society, is very very limited in scope, despite its techy wonders.

Religions, though I’m only really experienced in Catholicism, have a similar but opposite limitation, and both of those deal on just one side of the issue. You CAN"T know what all that stuff is about unless you go past it in the same way that a problem is insoluble in its own terms. Science and religion have a contrary relationship, yet the same mind can comprehend both. That ought to be a clue, but neither “side” will admit of what is common ground. Go figure.

There must be a HUGE investment in self image in sticking to a story of what things are about that is defective, else it would pragmatically resolve, include, and go way beyond either religion or science taken as parts. That exists. It is not wanted. It requires a world view that is contrary to but fundamental to both. I’m still stumped as to what to do about that. I’m usually advised “Let them find out for themselves; they will or they won’t. Don’t agitate.” Well, I just think it’s a loss, but so far what I’ve seen of stating what has been the actual case of millenia and applicable to each and every one does nothing but engender reactivity and contrariness even among those who “want to know.” They soon get uncomfortable because not only is this way close to home, it’s more than close. Very much like not wanting to get into the water.

I don’t know what to do. I’m discouraged from stating the case because that is a refutable proposition on the grounds of faith, but in this case faith as we know it today and as Catholics is way off target, despite evidence from it’s own Saints. It fulfills the definition of “sin” which defines it as “missing the point.”

I hear you guys in Cali are getting a pounding from a storm going through. Good luck!

 

[atheistgirl]

If that is the only thing people realised it would be an enormous force for evil in the world. Many would think they get only one shot at making a difference for** themselves**, so make it now!

Whats the biggest threat to world peace at the moment, and is any type of faith behind it?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

And have other faiths been behind other conflicts or atrocities?

I’m not an atheist by any means, but statistically religion is obviously not a soulution (sic) by itself. Some piece of connectivity insufficiently addressed by faith, prayer, and devotion is missing. Yet it exists and is not adopted.

 

[You]

Whats the biggest threat to world peace at the moment, and is any type of faith behind it?

Materialism is behind it all. The biggest threat to world peace at the moment is dwindling resources, or rather the perception of same. e.g. In feudal times in the middle-ages princes had the same problems we have and some used people like Martin Luther as a focus around which they would build support for their political ambitions of acquiring more territory and power. Luther’s sponsors probably had no time for either Luther or religion.

 

[fhansen]

That practice, along with the practice of feeling the Presence of God is way not unique to Catholicism. Carlos Castaneda told of his Benefactor, Don Juan Matus, advising him to imagine death sitting on his left shoulder. Other such stories and practices are common, as are virgin birth and resurrection stories about which my opinion is not the usual non-christian one. But the notable thing about the Castaneda stories that is common with, or contrary to, ordinary religion is that the actual meaning of teaching is not in the realm of reason, but of experience precipitated by the agency of a savant of some sort. Or Grace. but that is a whole other story of exceptional interest and value, as it again reflects poorly, or at best neutrally, on religion.

That is my experience, the particulars of which I will not go in to for the reasons above. But I do know for certain that religion as it is commonly understood and practiced is just a veil over what’s actually possible. That’s not a hypothesis on my part. It is my experience. But it is an experience that was costly in terms of my ordinary understanding of the world. The world as we publicly understand it, especially after Descartes and in our society, is very very limited in scope, despite its techy wonders.

Religions, though I’m only really experienced in Catholicism, have a similar but opposite limitation, and both of those deal on just one side of the issue. You CAN"T know what all that stuff is about unless you go past it in the same way that a problem is insoluble in its own terms. Science and religion have a contrary relationship, yet the same mind can comprehend both. That ought to be a clue, but neither “side” will admit of what is common ground. Go figure.

There must be a HUGE investment in self image in sticking to a story of what things are about that is defective, else it would pragmatically resolve, include, and go way beyond either religion or science taken as parts. That exists. It is not wanted. It requires a world view that is contrary to but fundamental to both. I’m still stumped as to what to do about that. I’m usually advised “Let them find out for themselves; they will or they won’t. Don’t agitate.” Well, I just think it’s a loss, but so far what I’ve seen of stating what has been the actual case of millenia and applicable to each and every one does nothing but engender reactivity and contrariness even among those who “want to know.” They soon get uncomfortable because not only is this way close to home, it’s more than close. Very much like not wanting to get into the water.

I don’t know what to do. I’m discouraged from stating the case because that is a refutable proposition on the grounds of faith, but in this case faith as we know it today and as Catholics is way off target, despite evidence from it’s own Saints. It fulfills the definition of “sin” which defines it as “missing the point.”

I hear you guys in Cali are getting a pounding from a storm going through. Good luck!

Man, you aren’t kidding about the storm. We had several usually warm weeks in the 70’s and even 80’s and now it’s making up for it all in the last couple days.

I don’t know why you’re discouraged. The situation will always be that seekers will be the ones who find, at least eventually. In fact, my finding came first, then I made my way to Catholcism, the saints who’ve had “mystical experiences” being instrumental in my journey. Not sure about Castaneda, tho. I never was much impressed with his writings.

But I don’t think any of that applies here really. My question wasn’t, is there a way to know-or at least be satisfied- that there’s an afterlife but rather if that knowledge was universally had, how might it change us? Maybe you can offer some light on what kind of world we’d have if death no longer played its part, whatever that may be.

 

[fhansen]

Whats the biggest threat to world peace at the moment, and is any type of faith behind it?

Human selfishness and self-righteousness, regardless of the guise its presented under.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Man, you aren’t kidding about the storm. We had several usually warm weeks in the 70’s and even 80’s and now it’s making up for it all in the last couple days.

But I don't think any of that applies here really. My question wasn't, is there a way to know-or at least be satisfied- that there's an afterlife but rather *if* that knowledge was universally had, how might it change us? Maybe you can offer some light on what kind of world we'd have if death no longer played its part, whatever that may be.

Sounds like you might be in the Sierras! I hope you “weather” the storm!

From my perspective, being driven from Catholicism, not having the clarity I now purport about those mystics, the case is simple: the whole life/death issue is inadequately and misleadingly framed in religious terms, not just Catholic. If life and death were framed in terms I now subscribe to, evil as an act perpetrated on man or beast or Nature would be psychologically or any other way impossible. I would require and result in an actual civilization, not for what passes as such in our society. Maybe you’ve heard of Gandhi’s take on that? And it would inevitably embody The Great Commandment and The Golden Rule as an empirical necessity of self.

Religion only has that as a goal, and its methods are veiled in terms not expedient for success. It even hints that such accomplishment is reserved for after physical death. That is NOT so. And there is more, but I’m not about to tread on toes here. I’ll leave it that this is not a hypothesis or a personal delusion. It is Ancient and True in the sense that
“Catholic” might originally have meant.

That’s my two cents worth, though I’m far from binary in my thinking. But I’ll add this: Many Catholic mystics spent a LOT of time thinking about death. I submit that this practice is a religionized version, though still effective, of a purer practice that yield the same or even perhaps less parochial results. Maybe that is why those folks include some Catholic Saints in their adoration, while Catholics are far less likely to return that advantageous favor.

 

[TimothyH]

I would rephrase the question and wonder how much better the world would be right now if people realised this was it - you get one shot at making a difference, so make it now. I think it would be an enormous force for good in the world.

Sarah x

The facts today do not bear this out.

What you describe now exists this very day. Many people may have some form of belief in an afterlife but they do not live with an eye toward heaven, living instead “for the moment” because this is their one shot at having a good time. Exactly the opposite of what you suppose is true today where most people live as you say, realising that “This was it” and the result is that selfishness and hedonism is the rule of the day. Abortion, pornography addiction, one half of all black children born into housholds with no father - all direct results of being told that the hightest form of enlightenment is instantaneous personal gratification of every desire.

I think you have too much confidence in fallen human nature.

-Tim-

 

[levinas12]

My question wasn’t, is there a way to know-or at least be satisfied- that there’s an afterlife but rather if that knowledge was universally had, how might it change us? Maybe you can offer some light on what kind of world we’d have if death no longer played its part, whatever that may be.

I think if everyone had a deep efficacious belief in a Christian afterlife (with all this entails) the level of anxiety in the world (the cause of war) would be greatly reduced … everyone would know that God would take care of them … not let them go down into the pit …

 

[Warrenton]

BTW, what is “sati”??? I assume you put that there??

ICXC NIKA

Sati is the Hindu custom whereby (usually) the wife immolates herself upon her husband’s death.

The practice of sati was probably always uncommon, and has now fallen into almost total disuse, although every now and again someone does it.

 

[Warrenton]

Whats the biggest threat to world peace at the moment, and is any type of faith behind it?

Certainly, many utopian thinkers have hoped that a realistic acknowledgment that days, and only days, are where we live would lead to a more harmonious existence.

Equally certain, many religious thinkers have hoped that the promise of heaven and the fear of hell would lead to a more harmonious existence (here on earth).

Our desires, however, seem stronger than either our reason or our faith, much of the time.

Presumably, that is why natural selection (if you believe in it) or God (if you believe in Him) have left the vast majority of humanity in a state of uncertainty. That way, for most of us, there is the potential to change for the good, regardless of our belief in God or not.

To your second point, namely, what is the threat to world peace?

The threat is the mindset that some men have the power to decide whether all men live or die, coupled with the mindset that some men have the right to live off of the labor of other men, not pay fairly for the privilege, and that they have the right to use violence to support their position of privilege.

It is the same threat that has always destroyed world peace, since the world began.

If there is an element of faith to this threat, I would say it is neither atheist nor believing, but a combination of the two. It is the belief held by one man that he is a god.

 

[4Horsemen]

One of the reasons I ask is because, from my understanding, Eastern Churches generally consider physical death to be the chief consequence of Original or Ancestral Sin. And the result is said to be that man, being trapped like a caged animal between the boundaries of birth and death, ends up with concupiscence, more or less like the “grab the gusto” scenario GEddie mentioned, with the obvious outcome of sin. The remedy-the major part of the healing- is Jesus’ triumph over death, the final enemy, where man is released from the fear of annihilation.

Isn’t it true also of Roman (or Western) Churches that death is punishment, the consequence of Original Sin? Yet, Adam’s sin has been referred to in the liturgy (I think!) as said, “O happy fault” meaning that “Death brought life into the world.” It was thought that God the Son came into the world to save us from eternal punishment, but it is possible that God still would have come into the world in human form had Adam and Eve not sinned. Still, man has ended up stuck in the mire of concupiscence. As you said, through Jesus’ triumph over death, “man is released from the fear of annihilation.” (Try telling that to atheists. They’d insist they have no fear of annihilation and would rather have it that way than believe in heaven, hell and purgatory).

And so it makes me wonder, if man was certain of his continued existence, nothing more than that, perhaps having no more control over or knowledge about the hereafter than the control and knowledge he had when birthed into this world, but probably assuming his existence would at least be similar, how would it affect the way he lived? Would concupiscence lose its power of persuasion? Would man be less selfish, thinking his time was at least no longer limited, or more so, emboldened by his immortality?

Going back to the OP, it seems to me that most people don’t think much about the hereafter anyway, at least not directly or consciously, for the most part. So they are living as if life will go on and on and death will come, but then they think they will just keep living as if nothing changes except perhaps being in another dimension. At least that’s how some modern movies present life after death. One fairly recent one is “These Lovely Bones” (I think that’s what it’s called). An older one is “The Sixth Sense.” There are probably more. So they call the afterlife heaven and many, if not most, don’t believe in hell or purgatory anyhow. I doubt concupiscence would be extinct. If humans were certain that death was like walking through a portal (as in the “Narnia” movies), they’d probably do as said: “grab the gusto.”

It’s an interesting question to me because the specter of death must have a powerful influence over us whether we’re conscious of it or not.

I agree. The influence is there, but it seems that it’s mostly suliminal. Or on the occasions that it rises to the surface (like when a family member dies), it’s often quickly pushed back again. Who likes to obsess on death? Many of the great saints not only encouraged thinking about one’s passing, but said it was necessary for the spiritual life.

Another related question from the Christian perspective might be, why did God ban man from eating from the Tree of Life, so that he may live. Is the awareness of a limited lifespan hanging over us somehow beneficial for fallen man?

Wasn’t it the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

The awareness of a limited lifespan hanging over our heads like a noose certainly makes us get our priorities in order, IF we are conscious of the four last things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell.

 

[fhansen]

Isn’t it true also of Roman (or Western) Churches that death is punishment, the consequence of Original Sin? Yet, Adam’s sin has been referred to in the liturgy (I think!) as said, “O happy fault” meaning that “Death brought life into the world.” It was thought that God the Son came into the world to save us from eternal punishment, but it is possible that God still would have come into the world in human form had Adam and Eve not sinned. Still, man has ended up stuck in the mire of concupiscence. As you said, through Jesus’ triumph over death, “man is released from the fear of annihilation.” (Try telling that to atheists. They’d insist they have no fear of annihilation and would rather have it that way than believe in heaven, hell and purgatory).

Going back to the OP, it seems to me that most people don’t think much about the hereafter anyway, at least not directly or consciously, for the most part. So they are living as if life will go on and on and death will come, but then they think they will just keep living as if nothing changes except perhaps being in another dimension. At least that’s how some modern movies present life after death. One fairly recent one is “These Lovely Bones” (I think that’s what it’s called). An older one is “The Sixth Sense.” There are probably more. So they call the afterlife heaven and many, if not most, don’t believe in hell or purgatory anyhow. I doubt concupiscence would be extinct. If humans were certain that death was like walking through a portal (as in the “Narnia” movies), they’d probably do as said: “grab the gusto.”

I agree. The influence is there, but it seems that it’s mostly suliminal. Or on the occasions that it rises to the surface (like when a family member dies), it’s often quickly pushed back again. Who likes to obsess on death? Many of the great saints not only encouraged thinking about one’s passing, but said it was necessary for the spiritual life.

Wasn’t it the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

The awareness of a limited lifespan hanging over our heads like a noose certainly makes us get our priorities in order, IF we are conscious of the four last things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell.

Thanks, those were some good thoughts. It was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that man ate from. Afterward he was banned from eating from the Tree of Life, which had been available up to that point.

 

[Pug]

Maybe assassination would become more popular. Euthanasia too (abortion being a species of this when the child has a genetic disorder). These things would be called transition facilitation.

The government could rename the next life as the “better state”, to assist the populace to have a better outlook on life and to accept inevitable losses. Maybe this could lead to state sponsored serenity centers. These would be open to all faiths.

I’m speaking in a saucy voice, but I mean a general reduction in the value of human life now.

 

[4Horsemen]

Thanks, those were some good thoughts. It was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that man ate from. Afterward he was banned from eating from the Tree of Life, which had been available up to that point.

Regarding the OP, I found something like this on another thread:

“Some swear there’s no heaven, and pray there’s no hell.”

(Eat, drink and be merry, bring on the gusto!)

BTW, Christians should know there’s an afterlife if they have a genuine relationship with God.

 

[fhansen]

Regarding the OP, I found something like this on another thread:

“Some swear there’s no heaven, and pray there’s no hell.”

This dates me but I think the band was Blood, Sweat, and Tears and the line ran “I swear there ain’t no heaven, but I pray there ain’t no hell”.

BTW, Christians should know there’s an afterlife if they have a genuine relationship with God.

Of course, but a Christians’ faith/knowledge is broader- tied to there being justice to be realized at the end, with reward for living life according to the will of a good God. My question involves having a knowledge which would be considered relatively mundane concerning continued afterlife in general. How does pending death-that fact alone- affect us? How would it affect us to know with certainty that our existence didn’t cease at death here on this planet?

It’s also interesting to ponder it the other way, as atheistgal suggested. How would we live if we knew with certainty that this was it-no life after this? There have already been some comments on that.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

This dates me but I think the band was Blood, Sweat, and Tears and the line ran “I swear there ain’t no heaven, but I pray there ain’t no hell”.

Yep; And when I Die, B, S, & T, 1969, I believe.

Still snowing there?

 

[fhansen]

Yep; And when I Die, B, S, & T, 1969, I believe.

Still snowing there?

I’m a flatlander actually. Mucho rain but clearing today. Nearby coastal hills are covered, tho.

 

[levinas12]

a twist … what would happen if human beings knew for certain that they were not going to die … some philosophers (Heidegger) argue that they would cease to be human beings … we are only aware that we are here right now … in this specific place … at this specific time … because we are aware that we won’t be here … without being-towards-death, there would not be a here, or a there … there would be no now, thus no past, no future … ergo, no human being

 

[Asemodeus]

The afterlife is over-rated. For one thing, the capacity for humans to even comprehend eternity would drive all of us insane. Your one billionth second of life happens around in your 31st year of living. Now image that each of those seconds were in itself a lifetime, with each of those lifetimes seconds each having its own lifetime, and so forth forever. Each second of existence would be pure torture.

The universe has existed for tens of billions of year before there was even a you, and it didn’t bother you in the slightest. The universe will continue to exist for billions more, and it won’t bother you in the slightest either after you are dead and gone.