The problem of death

[Pieman333272]

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.

First of all, this is totally flaming and off-topic, and for a large part demonstrates a lack of understanding of the philosophical nature of heaven. Second, in heaven we either are oblivious to the notions which we cannot understand and our souls function well, normally, or we gain the ability to comprehend it. If the latter, it is possible that the immaterial, spiritual side of a person can comprehend it now but that it is limited by the brain.

 

[levinas12]

The universe has existed for tens of billions of year before there was even a you

There is another way of thinking … According to Heidegger, Being is not “there” if there are no human beings … without us, who would it be “there for” …

 

[Asemodeus]

First of all, this is totally flaming and off-topic, and for a large part demonstrates a lack of understanding of the philosophical nature of heaven. Second, in heaven we either are oblivious to the notions which we cannot understand and our souls function well, normally, or we gain the ability to comprehend it. If the latter, it is possible that the immaterial, spiritual side of a person can comprehend it now but that it is limited by the brain.

Philosophical nature of heaven? Empty words for a empty argument. One cannot be helped but be unconvinced by arguments that have no basis in reality. All you can hope for is a sense of vague assurance for a ill defined scope of existence. My ideal of the after-life, however, is actually grounded in reality. I have no reason to assume that I will care for the after life, since I didn’t care for the before life. Life is what is important, after all.

If the latter, it is possible that the immaterial, spiritual side of a person can comprehend it now but that it is limited by the brain.

If that were true, then you would cease being you. Humans are defined by their limitations, and to assume that we could be magically free of such definitions, it would make any sense of individuality disappear. You are you by what you can and cannot do, and to take that away is sickening.

 

[JDaniel]

Sadly there is already an emormous amount of cruelty to the elderly, the disabled, the young. Just look at the amount of charities tasked with filling the gaps for these groups. And this is in a society where the majority are believers in some faith or other.
I cant help wondering if people realised they couldnt just do as they wanted then seek forgiveness in whatever form, but knuckled down and made the best of every minute here on earth, not looking forward to anything beyond, we would indeed see a better world. The existence of the worlds religions doesnt seem to me to have prevented the abuse of the elderly, young and disabled.
This in no way what so ever implies the worlds religions have not done great good. Merely their existence doesnt seem to have stopped great harm also being done.

Sarah x

Sarah:

Not long ago, I learned that the Churches, in America, represent about half of the donations to the old, poor and disabled. Can you imagine the starvation and suffering if Churches were not here? And that doesn’t take into consideration private giving by donors who just happen to be religious.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You can do an empiric test, though it will take some time unless you are specially graced, that will lead you to that certainty. But it is not in the terms your faith would have it. It can’t be. Therefor we have some inexplicable statements from some of the Saints. But if you “got it” you wouldn’t need your faith, but might keep practicing it. Or not. And neither are many interested in doing it; precious few in fact. But the price is: don’t do–don’t see. Then you are stuck with just dogma and a hope.

Frank:

Question: Who or what do you think Jesus is?

God bless,
jd

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah:

Not long ago, I learned that the Churches, in America, represent about half of the donations to the old, poor and disabled. Can you imagine the starvation and suffering if Churches were not here? And that doesn’t take into consideration private giving by donors who just happen to be religious.

God bless,
jd

This doesnt surprise me. In fact, in some ways it’s only to be expected. Churches and people of faith do some incredible and fantastic work. But on what basis do you say can you imagine the starvation and suffering if the churches werent there? Do you not think we, as people, would still continue to give to support our fellow man, or that a secular society wouldnt organise itself to deal with the relief of suffering. I should mention here the Red Cross, Medicine sans Frontier, Amnesty International, Engineers without Borders, Unicef, SHARE, Seed, Oxfam.
If churches were no longer around, these groups and others would carry on with, or take up the mantle.

Sarah x

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, but God could’ve annihilated us altogether. Instead, physical death is delayed in this life, a repreive, so to speak, affording us the time to have a change of heart from the one inherited from our first parents. I think the specter of death was meant to have the beneficial effect of providing a limited and certain time span within which to work out our salvation, so our actions can be weighed against the seriousness of such a life. Punishment, yes, but still reformative in intent, a part of God’s plan of salvation, already mapped out and kicked into gear from the get-go, IOW.

Hello, Fhansen:

It’s interesting that early man (biblical men) lived for 900 - 1,000 years. Then, that lengthy lifespan was shortened, successively, to its low, of 40 - 50 years, then back up to its present 70 - 85 years. God’s way of assuring the continuity of man (souls) until the reuniting?

God bless,
jd

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Have to agree with 'girl here. She actually named only a few of those organizations. And for what it’s worth, the subtexted agenda for Churches doing such work is spreading their brand of faith. Have you ever been in a LDS warehouse in your area? You just would not believe what they do. And while they help people in need, as do Catholics and others, you can bet that there is a message that goes along with it.

And I’m not necessarily against having a message, but a classic maneuver in brainwashing is to give someone a new paradigm after creating a condition of extreme stress. I’m agin it. Help and shut up. And then there was the minster who claimed that huge storm back east was designed by God to stop homosexual activity and another who blamed a tsunami on God’s wrath for hedonism. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Fact is that in any situation that is disastrous, people help. Well, after they stop denying that something happened. It is a human, not a religious response. And like so much that happens, people who have a faith like to attribute good and evil to the battle between God and satan for souls. But sometimes, more often than not, a cigar is just a cigar.

But if examined closely for motivation, that help response that is cross cultural and irrespective of religion could be a clue to where religions actually comes from before getting dogmatized into books and rules.

 

[JDaniel]

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!

Tony:

Exactly. More people should spend some time at prisons, where so many prisoners return to God and Religion. People would learn quickly that prior to getting caught and interred, most prisoners thought only of themselves.

God bless,
jd

 

[atheistgirl]

Hello, Fhansen:

It’s interesting that early man (biblical men) lived for 900 - 1,000 years. Then, that lengthy lifespan was shortened, successively, to its low, of 40 - 50 years, then back up to its present 70 - 85 years. God’s way of assuring the continuity of man (souls) until the reuniting?

God bless,
jd

Is ‘‘early man’’ neolithic man? That is around 9000 BC? Because the skeleton record seems to indicate that life expectancy ranged from 15 to 30 years. See John Hedges on the Isbister Chambered tomb for example. Or when you say Biblical men, are you refering to another time period?

Sarah x

 

[JDaniel]

This doesnt surprise me. In fact, in some ways it’s only to be expected. Churches and people of faith do some incredible and fantastic work. But on what basis do you say can you imagine the starvation and suffering if the churches werent there? Do you not think we, as people, would still continue to give to support our fellow man, or that a secular society wouldnt organise itself to deal with the relief of suffering. I should mention here the Red Cross, Medicine sans Frontier, Amnesty International, Engineers without Borders, Unicef, SHARE, Seed, Oxfam.
If churches were no longer around, these groups and others would carry on with, or take up the mantle.

Sarah x

Sarah:

I don’t think so, Sarah. The first thing we citizens have to contend with is taxation. It is leaving many with less and less to give towards donations. I guess, if we could do something about that, there might be more left over. But, nevertheless, most churched people do not trust secular organizations to distribute the donations properly, or honestly. You hope that those groups would “take up the mantle,” but, we have had a few too many instances of fraud and embezzlement, including some in the groups you mention. Oh, and thank God, religious people generally give more than the IRS allows, with all of their cash and non-cash donation rules. In the town where I live, there’s only one place where the downtrodden can find food, warmth and shelter for the night. It was started by the area Churches precisely because of the deafening absence of help from the community or government. And this is repeated all over America.

BTW, I’ve been there, serving in the food lines, with six boys from my Church as volunteers.

God bless,
jd

 

[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!

And yet, strangely, it isnt. Look at the list of secular humanitarian organisations out there. The fact is most prisoners have a faith. Most abusers have a faith. Some of the worst atrocities against humanity in recent times have been committed by people of faith. And all those faiths assure their adherents there is an afterlife.
Disclaimer until I can get this into a signature - I recognise and appreciate the fantastic work that is also done by people of all faiths and various churches in the relief of human suffering. I am just addressing the point made that **many **would just think of themselves, and pointing out that is not what the evidence suggests to me, and I am in no way conflating belief in god and an afterlife with people doing horrific things in this life. Again, on the point that it would be an enormous force for evil in the world, Im just pointing out that most crimes are committed by people who have some form of faith and a belief in the afterlife.
phew

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

BTW, I’ve been there, serving in the food lines, with six boys from my Church as volunteers.

Me too - it’s a wonder I wasnt struck down there and then by lightening

I dont deny for one moment the incredible work churches do for the relief of human suffering. I also secretly admire the unflinching stance the catholic church takes for the protection of the unborn.

I also dont deny corruption. It goes on everywhere. The common denominator is people. Churches have had the same problems.

I maybe just have a bit more confidence in my secular humanitarian fellow man than you do

Sarah x

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Yes, but God could’ve annihilated us altogether. Instead, physical death is delayed in this life, a repreive, so to speak, affording us the time to have a change of heart from the one inherited from our first parents. I think the specter of death was meant to have the beneficial effect of providing a limited and certain time span within which to work out our salvation, so our actions can be weighed against the seriousness of such a life. Punishment, yes, but still reformative in intent, a part of God’s plan of salvation, already mapped out and kicked into gear from the get-go, IOW.So how do people know that who haven’t been exposed to this way of thinking/believing? I’ve seen some figures on how many Catholics/Christians there are distributed over time and geography. Not many, really, since the taming of fire.

So that kind of pictures a dynamic I really don’t understand. I DO understand that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, but that as well is not necessarily a ready bit of information outside Christendom in its broadest sense. What I am convinced of is that anyone looking at the stary sky, a maimed battle victim, a newborn baby, or who considers their life beyond the thickness of a piece of paper in depth does ask themselves the Big Questions. And maybe to some extent their faith, whatever it might be, may be of help.

But ultimately, what is efficacious, within OR without a religious context, is a transformation in the realm of awareness. There are evidences of this everywhere. So one has to ask, “If, without respect to religion as a factor either adding to or subtracting from the result, how is it that there occurs in every human condition throughout history, spontaneous awakenings to a very similar explication of phenomenon and hierarchy of events?” Would that not encourage looking for some commonality in the very nature of humans that is hard wired before the acquisition of a parochial religion?

Accounting for the obvious necessity that a person will try to express their experience in the language of the paradigm, there are things that people go through that are considered “spiritual” which are astonishingly similar. That is out there for everyone to look at. So instead of wrangling dogmas and intellectual assertions in the realm where these things don’t happen, how about getting on finding a common language to talk about these things do we aren’t slamming or discounting folks with what might be exactly our own experience in another mode of discursive exegesis?

Right now, go back in these forums and I will bet that you find people of every description and background who reports some form of such a happening. For my part, I’m way more invested in saying, “OK, whats the same about these?” than saying “That can’t be right because you aren’t my religion!”

If you know anything about human psychology, you will also know that most religion is assimilated in the formative years when the mind is in a learning trance. So family and culture have great bearing here. But God, or the Invisible, or Mind, or Whatever is Universally True and the actual fundamental relationship we have to THAT is also Universally true. So why are we bickering over cultural particulars, and even sacred dogmas that can yet be read to fit this model instead of discovering how we are already experientially open in the same way and only linguistically opposed?

Death and the process of dying may very well include a process of recapitulation. And just go to any hospice and ask the workers there about how people die. What they think and what ceremonies are offered them are different. But what they do is the same. Think about that and what it might mean.

 

[fhansen]

So how do people know that who haven’t been exposed to this way of thinking/believing? I’ve seen some figures on how many Catholics/Christians there are distributed over time and geography. Not many, really, since the taming of fire.

So that kind of pictures a dynamic I really don’t understand. I DO understand that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, but that as well is not necessarily a ready bit of information outside Christendom in its broadest sense. What I am convinced of is that anyone looking at the stary sky, a maimed battle victim, a newborn baby, or who considers their life beyond the thickness of a piece of paper in depth does ask themselves the Big Questions. And maybe to some extent their faith, whatever it might be, may be of help.

But ultimately, what is efficacious, within OR without a religious context, is a transformation in the realm of awareness. There are evidences of this everywhere. So one has to ask, “If, without respect to religion as a factor either adding to or subtracting from the result, how is it that there occurs in every human condition throughout history, spontaneous awakenings to a very similar explication of phenomenon and hierarchy of events?” Would that not encourage looking for some commonality in the very nature of humans that is hard wired before the acquisition of a parochial religion?

Accounting for the obvious necessity that a person will try to express their experience in the language of the paradigm, there are things that people go through that are considered “spiritual” which are astonishingly similar. That is out there for everyone to look at. So instead of wrangling dogmas and intellectual assertions in the realm where these things don’t happen, how about getting on finding a common language to talk about these things do we aren’t slamming or discounting folks with what might be exactly our own experience in another mode of discursive exegesis?

Right now, go back in these forums and I will bet that you find people of every description and background who reports some form of such a happening. For my part, I’m way more invested in saying, “OK, whats the same about these?” than saying “That can’t be right because you aren’t my religion!”

If you know anything about human psychology, you will also know that most religion is assimilated in the formative years when the mind is in a learning trance. So family and culture have great bearing here. But God, or the Invisible, or Mind, or Whatever is Universally True and the actual fundamental relationship we have to THAT is also Universally true. So why are we bickering over cultural particulars, and even sacred dogmas that can yet be read to fit this model instead of discovering how we are already experientially open in the same way and only linguistically opposed?

Death and the process of dying may very well include a process of recapitulation. And just go to any hospice and ask the workers there about how people die. What they think and what ceremonies are offered them are different. But what they do is the same. Think about that and what it might mean.

Maybe I can phrase it in more generic terms. This life has a purpose. That purpose is to find God/Truth. The good and the bad, the pleasures and the suffering, can all contribute to that end, if we choose to seek and take the path of discovery, which is open to all. Otherwise, we can lay on the couch and watch football or whatever and maybe ponder the meaningless of it all.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

I agree, Fhansen. That is a very good and accurate “what.” I’m deeply concerned with “how.”

 

[Pieman333272]

Philosophical nature of heaven? Empty words for a empty argument. One cannot be helped but be unconvinced by arguments that have no basis in reality. All you can hope for is a sense of vague assurance for a ill defined scope of existence. My ideal of the after-life, however, is actually grounded in reality. I have no reason to assume that I will care for the after life, since I didn’t care for the before life. Life is what is important, after all.

And you, my man, have empty rhetoric, are making ad homenims, and are only demonstrating how weak minded and self-contradictory your atheism is.

If that were true, then you would cease being you. Humans are defined by their limitations, and to assume that we could be magically free of such definitions, it would make any sense of individuality disappear. You are you by what you can and cannot do, and to take that away is sickening.

And you just showed me that you were closed minded, too. All naked assertions.

 

[levinas12]

Do you not think we, as people, would still continue to give to support our fellow man, or that a secular society wouldnt organise itself to deal with the relief of suffering. I should mention here the Red Cross, Medicine sans Frontier, Amnesty International, Engineers without Borders, Unicef, SHARE, Seed, Oxfam.
If churches were no longer around, these groups and others would carry on with, or take up the mantle.

Concern for the poor seems to be culture-specific … the ancient Greeks and Romans did not seem to care that much for the poor … and this was true of some other ancient civilizations … with the exception of the Hebrew prophets … and early Christianity … the organizations you mention may just be reflecting the afterglow of a dying Judeo-Christian culture … what happens after that culture which had a universalistic focus based on Genesis is completely gone … the world could descend into a new and terrifying tribalism …

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Concern for the poor seems to be culture-specific … the ancient Greeks and Romans did not seem to care that much for the poor … and this was true of some other ancient civilizations … with the exception of the Hebrew prophets … and early Christianity … the organizations you mention may just be reflecting the afterglow of a dying Judeo-Christian culture … what happens after that culture which had a universalistic focus based on Genesis is completely gone … the world could descend into a new and terrifying tribalism …

Wow. So despite God being All and we in That image and likeness, there is no hope for the ideal of charity ever anywhere for no other reason than that some members of a minority religion have had their day by the claim of one of it’s members? Heavy stuff, Dude.

 

[levinas12]

Wow. So despite God being All and we in That image and likeness, there is no hope for the ideal of charity ever anywhere for no other reason than that some members of a minority religion have had their day by the claim of one of it’s members? Heavy stuff, Dude.

I feel like I’m at a smack down.

History seems to refute the idea of an instinctive charity towards all human beings that cuts across all cultures. The specific world view matters.

It is not unreasonable to assert an historical connection between the Judeo-Christian ethic and altruism.

The question is: what new set of beliefs will be the basis for universal equality and dignity?

N.B. The Judeo-Christian ethic is only dying in certain areas of the world and among members of certain urban elites. It is alive and well elsewhere.