Jump to content

The Afterlife


spiritseeker

Recommended Posts

David,

 

My trust and faith is that whatever we have been doing to each other :o will bear fruit by the Grace of Reality-as-is. "For the earth brings forth fruit of herself."

 

It seems obvious that there is nothing left to say.

 

The rest is silence.......

 

All the best

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

 

The thing about 'answers' is that to another person it is simply an opinion, interpretation, hypothesis, speculation, whatever you want to call it. I have refused to get into a debate over 'answers' because there is simply nothing we could say here that hasn't already been said. I am not a scholar or an expert, but I am not new to the kinds of questions, and answers, you are positing. What I mean is that the point of view you espouse is not being read by new eyes. And I've questioned intently and openly enough to know that 'an answer' is always easy to come up with. If it's answers you want, I can fire dozens of them at you. Granted, some are more inclusive than others, but they all share the same limitations ultimately.

 

Now, as for logic, it may be true that it is basically universal, but logic comes in many layers and applications. The rules of the game have to be specified, and which rules are counted to be important has drastic consequence for the outcome. It is not a matter of plugging your premises into a syllogism. Just think of the rules for a classical computer vs a quantum computer.

 

But if I accept the premise that logic is universal, and for practical purposes I do, I would say that nothing is detracted from the complexity of the situation. Presuppositions are not something easily dismissed, as they color one's world. Does sight itself have a color? How would you know? In the same way it is difficult to distinguish reality from one's interpretation of it.

 

Suffice it to say that I do not feel the need to counter your answers with another answer, as if the burden of proof were on me, and as if the debate that would ensue would not just drag on and on indefinitely, until we both wind up in the same spot - disagreeing with each other's presuppositions.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Edited by Mike
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

Joseph,

I appreciate all of your study and experience. With your assertion that my statements were less than true, perhaps you could enlighten us of where I was wrong.

The quote you provided may leave you with a little disadvantage.

 

 

God's Grace to you,

David

 

Thank you David. My assertion is not that your statements are less than true but rather that my subjective experience has brought me to conclusions in opposition to your assertions and it is obvious , at least to me, that further dialog on this matter will benefit neither one of us. I would ditto Mike's last response to you as I think he has said it well.

 

Peace and Love to you my friend David,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It has been my position that truth actually exists so it can be understood by man, because, he has been made to reason by a personal and infinite God who created all else.

 

 

I am reluctant to enter a debate which has been continuing for some time, but I wanted to comment on this one point, where I think you are somewhat mistaken in your interpretation of what being a reasoning creature entails.

 

The ability to reason does not give the logical conclusion that we can determine all truth, any more than understanding mathematics means that we can determine the conclusive value of pie. We can learn more every day, but we will never learn all that there is to know.

 

'The truth' is not attainable by man until the day we stand face to face with God. Until then, we see through a glass darkly, just as every other person of every other faith does.

 

In Christian theology, Christ himself is the Way, the Truth and the Life. To assume that, through Christ, we can attain his level of Truth for ourselves is to go beyond what the Scriptures say, and into rather dubious areas verging on blasphemy (man assuming properties or qualities that belong only to God). Man - even redeemed man - remains fallible and finite. We do not get to understand all that there is to understand, by following Christ. We get a promise that one day we will understand, and one day we will see ourselves and others as God sees. But not yet.

 

Without having a beginning, how can any talk of the afterlife be relevant?

 

You are correct. Afterlife is an irrelevant term in relation to eternity. Eternity is outside time, and has no relation to any term such as 'before', 'after', 'during' or whatever. There is no 'before God'; the concept is meaningless.

 

However, 'afterlife' is a meaningful term when used by mortal creatures, to discuss concepts of immortality.

 

God is in eternity, not in time. We are in time, not in eternity.

Edited by Anglocatholic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen how some very mild things I believe appear to shock people, I'm terrified to post my view of the afterlife ;) LOL

 

I wish this thread were back in the Progressive section. I'd love to talk about it, but I truly loathe debate. Sadly this is where all the interesting threads are! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

TO:

My hope is everyone had a Merry Christmas as we look forward to the New Year.

-

 

Mike,

God is not beyond thought. You and I seem to think about Him all the time.

 

Logic depends on the existence of objective truth/reality. We can then argue over the details from each of our subjective positions. But, if together we can't presuppose that truth and reality actually exist independant of our subjectivity, then we have no hope for any meaning to any answer, and there will be the impass between us.

 

Reality and truth objectively exist. That is, truth and reality are absolutes, or nothing exists. Since things do exist, the answer is inescapable.

 

Derek,

I believe our choices are not without meaning. I believe God has explained to us why. I believe that God's grace can be mediated to human beings in a way other than that set by your own conceptual framework.

 

Must I say, any conceptual framework where all roads have the same destination cannot be seen, quite frankly, as "reality-as-is". When all "roads" have the same result, any personal or individual choices are meaningless. If you and I both end up in the same place eventually, how would either belief have any meaning or purpose? What difference would they make? How could any argument/discussion over any point of view be relevant? Man would have no purpose and questions would be fruitless. No answer could ultimately be differentiated from any other answer. Subjectivity would be meaningless. Man would be meaningless. All would just be- silence.

 

Since Man has observed his choices do vary in their results, it gives a man's individual choice it's meaning. It also gives meaning to the word "freedom". God is not silent on this issue.

 

AngloCatholic,

"The ability to reason does not give the logical conclusion that we can determine all truth, any more than understanding mathematics means that we can determine the conclusive value of pie. We can learn more every day, but we will never learn all that there is to know."

 

(Is that apple or cherry?)

I quite agree. I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary.

 

Joseph,

I'm sorry Joseph but by saying Buddhism and other faiths were not as Davidk asserts, is about as specific as one could be in saying I'm wrong about them.

 

Does your equivocation as well as the unsupported accusation merit censure?

 

 

God's gracve to you all (y'all),

 

Davidk

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO:

My hope is everyone had a Merry Christmas as we look forward to the New Year.

-

 

Derek,

I believe our choices are not without meaning. I believe God has explained to us why. I believe that God's grace can be mediated to human beings in a way other than that set by your own conceptual framework.

 

Must I say, any conceptual framework where all roads have the same destination cannot be seen, quite frankly, as "reality-as-is". When all "roads" have the same result, any personal or individual choices are meaningless. If you and I both end up in the same place eventually, how would either belief have any meaning or purpose? What difference would they make? How could any argument/discussion over any point of view be relevant? Man would have no purpose and questions would be fruitless. No answer could ultimately be differentiated from any other answer. Subjectivity would be meaningless. Man would be meaningless. All would just be- silence.

 

Since Man has observed his choices do vary in their results, it gives a man's individual choice it's meaning. It also gives meaning to the word "freedom". God is not silent on this issue.

 

 

 

God's gracve to you all (y'all),

 

Davidk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David,

 

Many thanks for the Christmas greetings and New Year wishes. Personally I didn't get all I wished for for Xmas, but the socks and Y-Fronts will come in handy. And I have spent some time on another forum, where the Bible bashing is so bereft of the Sprit of Christ that I can only say...."come back Billy Graham, all is forgiven!". Well, it makes me truly appreciate your own grace in dialogue, and I say that with sincerity.

 

One thing the Buddha spoke ofwasof how we should see ourselves with regard to others............as niether there superiors, nor their inferiors, nor as their equals. I haven't "cracked" much in this life, but I've made just a little progress on this one. all I'm saying is, I do not seek to teach, nor to talk down to. More a conversation.

 

There was a quote given to us by Dutch on the "Poetry and Quotes" threrad - a good little thread though I say so myself :rolleyes: - , a few words by C.S.Lewis.

 

life is not like a river but like a tree. It does not move towards unity but away from it and the creatures grow further apart as they increase in perfection. Good, as it ripens, becomes continually more different not only from evil but from other good.

 

Hopefully you can understand the problems I face here on a basically Christian Forum, constantly needing almost to "translate" my own terminology into Christian terms - though it does aid in helping me see that the "word is not the thing", it can lead to confusion, not least to myself! I've often spoken of heaven, and you seem to see it as a "final destination". Why? Why does the "journey" ever stop, or need to? As its said, sometimes, within the Buddhist Faith, the path IS the destination. So, no, we do not all end up in the same "place" eventually, and our choices do mean everything.

 

Well, thats it. I appreciate the thought you have given to the debates we have had, and how you have sought to say "yes" where you can.

 

But again, now I have tpo say that I do not wish these words ofmine to be the opening salvo of yet another exchange. I really don't want it. Thats not tosay you cannot answer, obviously you can. But for me, thats it.

 

All the best

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO:

My hope is everyone had a Merry Christmas as we look forward to the New Year.

-

 

Mike,

God is not beyond thought. You and I seem to think about Him all the time.

 

Logic depends on the existence of objective truth/reality. We can then argue over the details from each of our subjective positions. But, if together we can't presuppose that truth and reality actually exist independant of our subjectivity, then we have no hope for any meaning to any answer, and there will be the impass between us.

 

Reality and truth objectively exist. That is, truth and reality are absolutes, or nothing exists. Since things do exist, the answer is inescapable.

 

Derek,

I believe our choices are not without meaning. I believe God has explained to us why. I believe that God's grace can be mediated to human beings in a way other than that set by your own conceptual framework.

 

Must I say, any conceptual framework where all roads have the same destination cannot be seen, quite frankly, as "reality-as-is". When all "roads" have the same result, any personal or individual choices are meaningless. If you and I both end up in the same place eventually, how would either belief have any meaning or purpose? What difference would they make? How could any argument/discussion over any point of view be relevant? Man would have no purpose and questions would be fruitless. No answer could ultimately be differentiated from any other answer. Subjectivity would be meaningless. Man would be meaningless. All would just be- silence.

 

Since Man has observed his choices do vary in their results, it gives a man's individual choice it's meaning. It also gives meaning to the word "freedom". God is not silent on this issue.

 

AngloCatholic,

"The ability to reason does not give the logical conclusion that we can determine all truth, any more than understanding mathematics means that we can determine the conclusive value of pie. We can learn more every day, but we will never learn all that there is to know."

 

(Is that apple or cherry?)

I quite agree. I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary.

 

Joseph,

I'm sorry Joseph but by saying Buddhism and other faiths were not as Davidk asserts, is about as specific as one could be in saying I'm wrong about them.

 

Does your equivocation as well as the unsupported accusation merit censure?

 

 

God's gracve to you all (y'all),

 

Davidk

 

 

Hi David. I hope you had a very blessed Christmas and New Year.

 

I would say that logic is no guarantor of truth, in fact it is very limited. Logic, especially syllogistic logic, is little more than a computation - a program - that will spit out a conclusion based on the mathematical validity of the premises. Whether or not the premises or conclusion is actually true has nothing to do with logic itself. Logic is a formalism that seeks proper structure, but the 'substance' dwells entirely elsewhere. This is what the mathematician Godel showed, that logic/mathematics is fundamentally incomplete and that it cannot actually 'get at' reality. Logic cannot actually yield absolute truth, because the truth does not exist in such a way, it is not a concept.

 

I probably have not been clear in my language or attempts to express my thoughts, but I never meant to argue that reality does not exist independently of our subjective experiences. But I would say that as such reality does not exist in such a way that we can distance ourselves from it and object-ify 'it'. I would also say that reality and truth are synonymous, what I would argue against is placing too much value or emphasis on objectivity, as if objectivity is what life is all about, and as if it can actually disclose the inner secrets of reality. Therefore I would argue against the ultimate validity of any objective methodology. All such attempts are incomplete and must look beyond themselves for any kind of confirmation. I reason that if objectivity fails, it is because reality is not an object or truly amendable to such concepts.

 

Now, that God is beyond thought should come as no surprise, seeing that it is been consistently affirmed in Christianity from the beginning. The Trinity is a special example of how God transcends thought in Christian theology. Defended in traditional and orthodox circles as the centerpiece of Christianity, the Trinity is often 'spoken about' and 'thought about', but no one has ever actually known the Trinity by speaking or thinking. And if God fundamentally 'makes no sense', then he is a true Mystery (with a captital 'M'). Is he not then beyond words?, and if beyond words, beyond objectivity? After all, if God existed as an object among objects, subject to objective inquiry, there ought to be nothing very mysterious about him at all. Does not any element of unknowablity challenge objectivity - any methodology which expects reality to behave as an object to be under-stood - at its foundation?

 

I would also say that the Mystery is ultimately true of our own selves and the world around us. We talk about consciousness, sight, speech, touch, color, etc, we label them but we cannot actually know them by their labels. I think you spoke rightly by saying we 'think about' God all the time, but that is precisely the limitation. Language, concepts, and methodologies centered around them only skirt 'about' God.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO:

My hope is everyone had a Merry Christmas as we look forward to the New Year.

-

 

Joseph,

I'm sorry Joseph but by saying Buddhism and other faiths were not as Davidk asserts, is about as specific as one could be in saying I'm wrong about them.

 

Does your equivocation as well as the unsupported accusation merit censure?

 

 

God's gracve to you all (y'all),

 

Davidk

 

Davidk,

 

Thanks for the well wishes.

 

My conclusion is not that you are wrong but rather that our experiences differ as i said in post 71 ..... " Therefore it seemed fruitless to continue dialoguing in what i also considered pure assertions and then statements even concerning Buddhism and other faiths that i have also studied and practiced to a degree and experienced that they were not as the assertions that were made."

 

This is clearly my personal experience and opinion and I have found it personally of no value to continue the dialog in this subject area with you. Whether you are right or wrong is for you to determine, my personal conclusion is only that my experience differs as does that of some others here that have practiced Buddhism and spoken and it seems to me you are not open in that area.

 

As far as censure goes, perhaps you can discuss that with the other moderator (Soma) in private and i will submit and abide by any of his decisions.

 

Peace and well wishes in Christ,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"God is not beyond thought. You and I seem to think about Him all the time"

 

Davidk, this jogged my mind and I've looked it up. From the writings of the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart........

 

We should not content ourselves with a God of thoughts for, when the thoughts come to en end, so too shall God. Rather , we should have a living God who is beyond the thoughts of all people and all creatures. This kind of God will not leave us, unless we ourselves choose to turn away from him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek,

After you gave the Lewis quote you vowed to avoid further thread involvement. I don't wish to unnecessarily draw you back. But would you please provide from what writing the Lewis quote is from? Why do you ask questions on the way out the door???

 

It seems we've both recognized the real need to define words and terms before discussing them, for the very reasons you have pointed out. Without some mutual coherence in language, communication can easily be strained. I've found resistance in even the effort to define words and terms not to mention the concepts that rely on them. You would think that with the obvious trait of man as a verbalizer, there would at least be an effort toward a rational consensus, even if futile, to understand each others "language" in order to know what the several writers are wanting to say.

 

I understand the need of man for a destination, even in Buddhist philosophy. That is why the concept of the endless path toward perfection of right behavior need be redefined as a "destination", even though the designated destination of Buddhism is Nirvana; which is undefinable seemingly in order for the philosophy to be consistent with no defined beginnings.

If I'm not mistaken, Buddhism says we all ultimately end up in oneness with the Absolute (Nirvana), since all things, in Noble Wisdom, is already in Nirvana from the beginning?

This essentially eliminates the meaning or need for any individual to exist.

 

I'm asking you only supply the Lewis quote reference, please.

-

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

david,

 

C. S. Lewis, the Great Divorce, Preface..............as provided by Dutch on the Poetry and Quotes thread.

 

And, my apologies, but you are right, I am out of the door.....at least on this thread. Not seeking to be rude or anything, it just has to be.

 

All the best

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

Logic:

I stand corrected.

Logic depends upon its premise. It is the process of reasoning from the premise, regardless of whether the premise is true or not. If the premise it true, logic will reveal more truth, but not necessarily exhaustive truth.

 

While it is true that mathematics is a discipline which depends on logic, philosophy and religion also depend on such critical thinking.

 

If the premise is that all started with a personal beginning, then we logically have an adequate and reasonable explanation for the source and meaning of human personality, my personality, and the individual personality of others.

If all started with an impersonal beginning, then personality is no more than an illusion, unless we make an illogical mystical jump to have personality come from impersonality.

 

If we have an impersonal beginning, then logic would end up with only mechanics and the particulars, no universals.

 

The evidence of God is all around us, so we can know God truly, just not exhaustively.

The Trinity can be understood by observing what is there, including man. A full discussion on this would be more applicable to another thread. If you check back on the debate/dialogue section you may find my answer on a previous thread involving the Trinity. I'll try to find it and forward the posts.

---

 

Dereck,

Thanks.

---

Joseph,

I believe asking where I was wrong (or where we differ) demonstrates an openness you have not seen fit to acknowledge. I would appreciate more diligence is assessing the situation before making an accusation.

 

Any talk of censure was only intended as good humor.

 

God's grace to you all,

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

When all "roads" have the same result, any personal or individual choices are meaningless. If you and I both end up in the same place eventually, how would either belief have any meaning or purpose? What difference would they make?

Since Man has observed his choices do vary in their results, it gives a man's individual choice it's meaning. It also gives meaning to the word "freedom". God is not silent on this issue.

 

 

Even if we presume that no religion will be special if there is no hell, which do you think is the greater injustice? That a god who claims to be loving would torture someone for all eternity for the victimless thought crime of not believing the right religion or that Christianity might not be special? Is life really so bleak that the very meaning of your existence is dependent on the torture of everyone else? I don't think for a minute that without hell you can have no purpose or meaning in your life. In fact, there was a survey recently conducted by the CFI Michigan on the lives of non-believers which was the most comprehensive study done on atheists and agnostics. One of the interesting findings they found in their research was that non-believers who were certain about their non-belief had just as satisfied and meaningful lives as believers who were certain in their beliefs, so there's no evidence that you can't have meaning or purpose without hell when these people were able to find meaning and satisfaction in their lives who don't believe in god at all. And if the purpose of my life was dependent on another person being tortured for all eternity when the only thing they did "wrong" was not believe in the right religion, I'd rather have no grand purpose in my life than have my purpose be dependent on the torture of others. Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

I can only assume you are addressing me by your using a quote from one my posts in preface to your post.

 

Therefore, for you to come and imply that any position I've taken has in any way declared that the "meaning of (anyones) existence is dependent on the torture of everyone else" is patently absurd.

 

Likewise, it is equally absurd to say good and evil behavior have no differentiation in their consequences, for then God would be a liar.

 

Man has meaning, whether you believe in God or not. But if it were true that the personal infinite God did not exist, then there would be no real explanation for a meaningful existence. It would all just be some cruel hoax.

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is not believing in Christianity an evil action? What harm is not believing in Christianity? How are non-Christians or other Christians who are not conservative Christians doing something evil that deserves punishment? And how is being burned by fire for all eternity a justifiable punishment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I shouldn't do this the addict said.)

 

David,

 

The stories I tell are eclectic and any conceptual framework is jerry-rigged. If I can stay centered then I only do this for the exercise.

I'll risk this one more time. Without a personal beginning, all that exists would be impersonal.

 

I don't think this statement is true. If it were you and I would agree but we don't so it is not true - at least between us. And, yes, in my view it's "truthfulness" does depend on us.

 

This impersonality may be mass, energy, or motion, but all equally impersonal. It makes no difference which you start with. As soon as you accept this impersonal beginning everything is reduced to these impersonal factors. If all is impersonal, how do the particulars have any meaning? Nobody has given us an answer to that.

 

If that is not a cry for help then is it the right question to ask? I wonder.

 

But to your question of how can an impersonal beginning lead to anything personal I think Walter Goldschmidt in Bridge to Humanity: How Affect Hunger Trumps the Selfish Gene has a good answer.

 

He describes how several strands in the development of hominids came together around the nurturing relationship of mother and child. Walking upright, grammar/toolbuilding - I believe there are four and do not have my book handy (I have been moving) This confluence, fueled by the mother child relationship, created the conditions for such as culture, knowledge and learning, and morals.

 

God learned about the power of love as mother and child learned about the power of love - in the process of life itself.

 

Victors write the meaning of history. Perhaps then the rest just live it.

 

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

 

If it's not too much of a breach in protocol I'd like to respond to quotes from your last few posts.

 

If the premise is that all started with a personal beginning, then we logically have an adequate and reasonable explanation for the source and meaning of human personality, my personality, and the individual personality of others.

If all started with an impersonal beginning, then personality is no more than an illusion, unless we make an illogical mystical jump to have personality come from impersonality.

 

I do not see how it follows that it is necessarily illogical for the personal to come from the impersonal, anymore than for the impersonal to come from the personal. By such reasoning, then, the impersonal things we encounter must have no source or meaning since the beginning was personal? The impersonal must be no more than an illusion.

Unless we make some 'illogical' or 'mystical' jump, then in some sense everything must be personal, no?

Plus, why must we categorize the ultimate reality as anything? If the heart of Reality is, as I maintain, beyond thought, beyond category, then concepts like 'personal' and 'impersonal', like any other duality, are not ultimately useful. Not that I'm inherently opposed to the idea of a personal beginner or beginning, but the philosophical and skeptical side of me is not convinced of the necessity of its truth.

 

If we have an impersonal beginning, then logic would end up with only mechanics and the particulars, no universals.

 

Only in a modern scientific materialistic philosophy would this be true. To say that an impersonal beginning necessitates the existence only of particulars seems to deny much of what the speculative imagination can supply. Many modern atheistic scientists are neo-Platonist and believe in universals, truth, beauty, mathematical forms, etc.

 

The evidence of God is all around us, so we can know God truly, just not exhaustively.

The Trinity can be understood by observing what is there, including man. A full discussion on this would be more applicable to another thread. If you check back on the debate/dialogue section you may find my answer on a previous thread involving the Trinity. I'll try to find it and forward the posts.

 

I would be greatly more skeptical of the idea that the Trinity is actually evidenced in reality, or that any particular doctrine is for that matter. You cannot look at the world and arrive at the Christian God or any God just-so. If any evidence is found for the Trinity, to me it is basically already assumed and read into reality. Just look at the various religions, philosophies, etc, around the world, each studying very intently the same reality and arriving at different ways of relating to it.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Buddhism says we all ultimately end up in oneness with the Absolute (Nirvana), since all things, in Noble Wisdom, is already in Nirvana from the beginning?

This essentially eliminates the meaning or need for any individual to exist.

 

I would say that 'no man is an island'. The meaning of any individual cannot be found absolutely in its own self - that would be idolatry. Why does the New Testament speak of dying to an old identity, being risen with Christ? (Does not that challenge the 'need' for our individual identities [the old identity]?)Are we so complete in ourselves that we don't need meaning from the outside? From the greater whole?

I think some Buddhists might say that the meaning of the individual is rooted in the meaning of the whole universe, and vice-verse. The idea that all things 'ultimately end up in oneness', by the way, is hinted at in the Christian ideas of theosis and divinization, as in Catholic and Orthodox theology respectively, as well as in Paul.

 

It would also be a mistake to think of such 'oneness' as a plain numerical oneness as opposed to twoness. Buddhists would say that reality is neither two nor one - any image one may have a self literally dissolving into an absolute abyss as far as I understand would not be accurate.

 

I would also ask what you make of life's purpose once people reach their eternal abode? If man cannot possibly have meaning here without an ultimate destination, why is heaven such a great place? Why is heaven free of this rule?

 

 

Likewise, it is equally absurd to say good and evil behavior have no differentiation in their consequences, for then God would be a liar.

 

Man has meaning, whether you believe in God or not. But if it were true that the personal infinite God did not exist, then there would be no real explanation for a meaningful existence. It would all just be some cruel hoax.

 

I think that is how you assess the situation, but there are plenty of people who would disagree. Every faith, for instance, that does not place any real emphasis on a personal deity seems to get along just fine without arriving at a nihilistic negation of life as a 'cruel hoax'. It could only be a hoax if we were somehow expected to believe in something that really wasn't there. But in reality there is no such requirement. I believe you are creating a box where there need not be.

 

If you and I both end up in the same place eventually, how would either belief have any meaning or purpose? What difference would they make? How could any argument/discussion over any point of view be relevant? Man would have no purpose and questions would be fruitless. No answer could ultimately be differentiated from any other answer. Subjectivity would be meaningless. Man would be meaningless. All would just be- silence.

 

Since Man has observed his choices do vary in their results, it gives a man's individual choice it's meaning. It also gives meaning to the word "freedom". God is not silent on this issue.

 

I could first say that it makes a lot of difference to the individual right now, how he sees himself and his place in the universe. Man's meaning could be found in his relation to God, where it must be found anyway.

 

What if the meaning of human existence is simply God? What if it is not primarily teleological but ontological? But if the meaning of the creation is the Creator? Additionally, if there is a purpose and destination, what could possibly be the meaning of that? What of the meaning of life once you've reached that destination (i.e. heaven)? Lastly, what is the purpose and meaning of God? Does God have teleological purpose? Does he have any meaning?

 

Secondly I do not see how 'freedom' is especially given meaning by the idea that God has placed before us only two paths: one of eternal joy, and the other of eternal torment. Not much of a choice to me. That life is all about getting to heaven, and that, by way of an extremely constricted path, does not embody the word 'freedom' to my mind, or best convey that our choices really matter. What about all the great people of the world who are not Christian? Their choices didn't matter much - they all went to the same place. But about all the great - and not-so-great Christians of the world? All going to heaven.

 

But ultimately I just do no see how it follows that without an ultimate destination, or if every one is going to the same destination ultimately, that therefore human life is meaningless. I simply don't agree, and do not see how it follows. It seems these arguments represent your own disposition about the matter but are not universal.

 

My this post is getting very, very long! Sorry about that. I blame it on being sick with a flu and having too much time on my hands.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Edited by Mike
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Neon:

 

If Christianity were not true, then there could be no harm.

 

Do you not think anyone unrepentant of evil deserves punishment?

 

If Christianity is true, then unrepentant sin will be dealt with in the manner God says it will be, rightly; and being aware of the stated consequences, we become personally accountable.

--

Dutch,

(one addict to another)

I don't agree with you. So it seems, based on the citeria you have established for yourself, much of your post can be regarded as- not true.

---

Mike,

I'm out of time for a proper response today. I'll have to "hitcha back"?

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Neon:

 

 

If Christianity is true, then unrepentant sin will be dealt with in the manner God says it will be, rightly; and being aware of the stated consequences, we become personally accountable.

 

Why is not believing in conservative Christianity an unrepentant sin that deserves to be punished?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

I will posit the premise this way for you:

 

If, "conservative" Christianity is true when it says: only "conservative" Christians are not punishable by God. Then: not being a "conservative" Christian would be punishable.

 

That would be, as I have come to agree with Mike on, logical!

 

However, I don't know of anyone making claim to the premise.

--

 

Dutch,

 

Surely you jest.

 

 

David

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even if it was true, why should anyone not a conservative Christian be punished for not being a conservative Christian? I'm not asking you if a non-conservative Christian should be punished. I'm asking why should they be punished just because they're not a conservative Christian. You haven't presented any evidence that not being a conservative Christian somehow hurts other people or that it hurts themselves in some way. If you believe God is all-powerful, then how can not being a conservative Christian hurt God? Why would God make not being a conservative Christian something that deserves to be punished just because God says so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service