Heaven & Hell

[thormas]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

I quote Spong ..... "“Heaven and Hell have got to go” and  “Until we dismiss all concepts of reward and punishment, we can’t walk into concepts of life after death.” and “Nobody knows what the afterlife is all about; nobody even knows if there is one"  So logically i would doubt that his statement you referenced meant he believed in an afterlife . It might fit into more of an interpretation i postulated above.

This is correct as Spong is talking about a traditional, theistic understanding of heaven and hell and the accompanying concepts of reward and punishment. It is also correct that nobody knows what the 'afterlife' is about and since we're talking knowledge, no one can know if there is (or is not) an afterlife; it is belief. I agree with this. 

What you postulated above and Spong's idea of the human person 'sharing in infinity" and that "this life is not the end of life" possibly have a great deal in common. So indeed, not by any means a traditional take of the 'afterlife' but he does profess 'life after death' in which the human person shares being and is 'transformed into the divine.' Not a bad afterlife at all and in line with other progressive Christian (panentheistic) thinkers.

The title of his book is: Eternal Life: A New Vision - and this is one!

 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by thormas

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Life after death? Yes for Infinity/Self but not for the created creature person that in a dichotomy sense houses that which is Self and is sustained by it,  and is designed to live and die at the pleasure of its Self.

But not in Spong's vision.

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, thormas said:

Now there are not only opinions (which is fine) but now you relativize logic? This sounds like the Trump argument about alternate facts. 

What I am trying to help you understand about logic is that logic hinges on an initial premise, which in this case is an opinion.  Subsequently, the logic that you use to derive your outcome is in my opinion, faulty, because it starts with a premise that is opinion only.  That's what opinion does - influences logic and logical outcomes.

Quote

Maybe you're reading a book by Charlie Spong?

The Spong I read says, "I have found in the quest for personhood an ability to embrace infinity which leads me to the conclusion that I can and must share in that infinity." and "I believe deeply that this life that I love so passionately is not all there is. This life is not the end of life." And this from a chapter entitled 'I believe in Life beyond death.'

Then there is one of my favorites: ".......finitude finally fades into infinity, earth is the doorway to heaven and the human is and can be transformed into the divine." 

Joseph captures what I was trying to point out about Spong's view.  Personally, I think you misread Spong through a lens of your own, but that is just my opinion.

I actually think similarly to Spong - I think there is an infinity to the cosmos and that 'we' will always be a part of that, but I don't think it will be in a manner that you understand the 'we' to be.

The conglomerate of atoms called 'Paul' dies so to speak but the atoms that made Paul Paul, return to the ecosystem and continue to be part of the eternal cosmos.  Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in some other form.  What that all means for 'us', for our consciousness, for our egos, remains to be understood, if it can be.  But I am certain that even without my ego or consciousness that I understand to be Paul, my life is meaningful.  It cannot be otherwise or else it wouldn't exist.

Quote

Actually you consistently misstate my opinion: I say that life is meaningful because of what we believe about God (and man) and that belief - as it does for Spong - continues into life beyond death, the sharing in the infinity that is God. Life is meaningful, man is meaningful, because man's journey begins and is lived in the infinity of God and culminates in that infinity. It is all of a piece. In this view,  the light of man is never extinguished and burns brighter into infinitely - and beyond :+}

Is your life still meaningful if there is no life beyond death?  I know you don't believe no life after death to be true, but if it were that way?  If you do happen to be mistaken with your initial premise that leads you logically to believe that life after death exists, does your life have meaning without life after death?  I say mine does but you initially said life was meaningless without life after death.  Which is it?

Quote

This life is so meaningful (given it's source and destiny) that of necessity it spills over into infinity or fullness.

I don't agree with any such 'necessity', but that is my opinion and understanding of what speaks to me.  Each to their own.

Quote

The problem and the question with the position you presented, in light of the timelessness of the cosmos, is what is man, what is his meaning? You admit it is all about the atoms continuing so man is just a dim light in endless time that fades as soon as it lights. I it not meaningless because there is no afterlife, it is meaningless because of its view of man: he is a bit player, off the stage before he is even on it. Why does man exist? No real reason: he is a happenstance, a product of evolution: here and gone, signifying nothing. Whether is is Harry or Tom or Jill or Joan - it doesn't matter any more than a tree is a pine or an elm or a cedar Christians don't buy this: it is man that is meaningful or finds meaning in this life, it is man, the self-conscious being, who shares in universal consciousness that is God: man is meaningful .

You see it as a problem - I don't.  I don't measure meaningfulness of this life with needing to exist or be remembered after it.  I'm not sure how else I can share with you how I find my life meaningful without the belief in an afterlife, even if you don't.  I don't agree with your rationalization of what meaningful means I guess.

Quote

Here too we differ: I acknowledge coming from the stuff of the Big Bang but, unlike you, my position is there is that which is prior to anything, including the Bang: Being/Self/Awareness/God

I only said that we came from the same atoms that were created during the Big Bang.  My point is that a spiritual discussion leaves room for something energizing the BB, so in that sense I am simply suggesting that there could be more to atoms than we realize.  You scoff at the notion of atoms having awareness.  I don't know if they do or don't, but do see that strange things around atoms are being discovered with modern science which we never previously understood, so I am open to thinking about it.  You don't seem to be.  Fair enough.

Quote

It doesn't exist, it didn't come to be and it isn't somewhere - it is before all that does exist. Am I correct you also disagree with Joseph's presentation on this?

Again, my point was that there are lots of different views around matters like this, none of which can be substantiated much past people's individual opinions.  To ridicule another's point of view and calling it absurd because it doesn't fit your own logic, is my point you seem to be missing.  You cannot substantiate to another your view of God, any more than another can to you about life having meaning without the promise of eternal life.  It is opinion.

So it's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with Joseph but rather trying to point out that yours/Joseph's/my postulations about life after death may all seem ludicrous to another, just as you scoff at any consideration that atoms may have awareness.

Quote

However, you have still not explained how anything is me aningful given the timelessness of the cosmos and your emphasis on atoms.

I have - but it seems to me that you cannot comprehend it because of what you are already certain about.  In short, timelessness of the cosmos means nothing to me about meaningfulness of this life.  To me, the continuation of the cosmos after my atoms have long been dismantled and the being 'Paul' ceases to exist, doesn't affect what I consider the meaningfulness of this life.  You say how can it not?  I can only tell you that it doesn't, irrespective of what you think it needs to be.

Are we at an end yet?

[JosephM]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

The conglomerate of atoms called 'Paul' dies so to speak but the atoms that made Paul Paul, return to the ecosystem and continue to be part of the eternal cosmos.  Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in some other form.  What that all means for 'us', for our consciousness, for our egos, remains to be understood, if it can be.  But I am certain that even without my ego or consciousness that I understand to be Paul, my life is meaningful.  It cannot be otherwise or else it wouldn't exist.

Very profound statement in my view. I would only suggest this small change to this sentence.  "Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in some other form. "   to   ....Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in the formless. 

Yes, life itself is meaningful else it wouldn't exist. It seems to me, many egos assign their own meaning to life but it cannot be know to the ego only to Life itself.   

[thormas]

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

Joseph captures what I was trying to point out about Spong's view.  Personally, I think you misread Spong through a lens of your own, but that is just my opinion.I actually think similarly to Spong - I think there is an infinity to the cosmos and that 'we' will always be a part of that, but I don't think it will be in a manner that you understand the 'we' to be.

The conglomerate of atoms called 'Paul' dies so to speak but the atoms that made Paul Paul, return to the ecosystem and continue to be part of the eternal cosmos.  Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in some other form.  What that all means for 'us', for our consciousness, for our egos, remains to be understood, if it can be.  But I am certain that even without my ego or consciousness that I understand to be Paul, my life is meaningful.  It cannot be otherwise or else it wouldn't exist.

I agree with Spong in his reference to the traditional theistic positions - as do most Christian non-theistic thinkers. I also included the relevant quotes that shows his belief. 

If you are similar to Spong then you now believe that, as Spong said, "the human person shares being and is 'transformed into the divine." And 'the manner that I understand' shares Spong's understanding and others. Spong doesn't equate God with atoms or the cosmos. God is and Spong's 'we' is 'human person(s)'  - interestingly, Spong also talks about 'becoming fully human.

I have no problem with the continuation of the atoms or the energy that made Paul continuing after his death. The difference is that I and Spong profess that Paul, the human person, is divinized and shares infinity...........as human person. If you declare that Spong says differently, please point it out so I can also reference it.

As you said: "What that all means for 'us'................remains to be understood..." Spong's profession of faith enables him to say it means that the human person shares the infinity of God.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Is your life still meaningful if there is no life beyond death?  I know you don't believe no life after death to be true, but if it were that way?  

Already answered.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

I only said that we came from the same atoms that were created during the Big Bang.  My point is that a spiritual discussion leaves room for something energizing the BB, so in that sense I am simply suggesting that there could be more to atoms than we realize.  You scoff at the notion of atoms having awareness.  I don't know if they do or don't, but do see that strange things around atoms are being discovered with modern science which we never previously understood, so I am open to thinking about it.  You don't seem to be.  Fair enough.

Ok, that's a helpful clarification. I do not accept that atoms are aware/conscious. I think what comes from the particular arrangements of atoms can have no awareness, awareness or self-awareness - but not the atoms. Actually, conscious atoms would make for a good horror movie.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Again, my point was that there are lots of different views around matters like this, none of which can be substantiated much past people's individual opinions.  To ridicule another's point of view and calling it absurd because it doesn't fit your own logic, is my point you seem to be missing.  You cannot substantiate to another your view of God, any more than another can to you about life having meaning without the promise of eternal life.  It is opinion.

So it's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with Joseph but rather trying to point out that yours/Joseph's/my postulations about life after death may all seem ludicrous to another, just as you scoff at any consideration that atoms may have awareness.

There are different views and specifically we were focusing on the view of your position (and secondarily on mine). Again, I am not ridiculing anything, I am considering the position you presented and stating that, as presented, human life has no meaning and is absurd (this is a philosophical statement, absurdism is a philosophy; this is not a comment on an individual). I have made that clear a number of times. Neither of us can substantiate anything, I am simply commenting on the position/belief put forward. I have recognized from the get-go that 'positions' on God. the afterlife. etc. are.......beliefs.

You never answered about agreeing or not with Joseph who seems to be saying something very different than you are.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

I have - but it seems to me that you cannot comprehend it because of what you are already certain about.  In short, timelessness of the cosmos means nothing to me about meaningfulness of this life.  To me, the continuation of the cosmos after my atoms have long been dismantled and the being 'Paul' ceases to exist, doesn't affect what I consider the meaningfulness of this life.  You say how can it not?  I can only tell you that it doesn't, irrespective of what you think it needs to be.

Are we at an end yet?

All you said is that you think it's meaningful - why? If all there is is an endless cosmos (14 billion years and counting and let;s say it continues for another 100 billion more years and beyond) and you live a mere 70 years - what did what you felt, thought matter, what did it impact? Whatever you did or didn't do - it's all the same, the cosmos continues irregardless. If you say, it affected X who you had an influence on - fine but when they are gone after 70 years - and all are gone - what did any human effort or action mean, impact, change?  Given this position, the only answer is nothing and it points to the absurdity of all human effort (a philosophy not an accusation). Isn't it the ego saying "it means something?" What did it mean, how could it mean anything - it was not even a flicker in the nothingness of the cosmos (which is also meaningless). 

If there is more to it, I'm interested, if not then..........It is at an end for you which is fine.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Very profound statement in my view. I would only suggest this small change to this sentence.  "Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in some other form. "   to   ....Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in the formless. 

Yes, life itself is meaningful else it wouldn't exist. It seems to me, many egos assign their own meaning to life but it cannot be know to the ego only to Life itself.   

Yet there are some who say life is an accident, a fluke and it has no meaning - yet it exists.

All egos assign meaning while it is only known by the Self/Life yet someone like a Spong asserts that it is the human person (the ego freed of its own self-importance) who is valued and called by Self to divination and created to share Life/infinity. 

[JosephM]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Yet there are some who say life is an accident, a fluke and it has no meaning - yet it exists.

All egos assign meaning while it is only known by the Self/Life yet someone like a Spong asserts that it is the human person (the ego freed of its own self-importance) who is valued and called by Self to divination and created to share Life/infinity. 

When the human ego is freed from the creature, only the Self shines and  remains, even though the body still lives and life goes on.   Chop wood, carry water. 🙂

[thormas]

33 minutes ago, JosephM said:

When the human ego is freed from the creature, only the Self shines and  remains, even though the body still lives and life goes on.   Chop wood, carry water. 🙂

Mayhaps but the greater 'beauty' might be in the Self shining in and through the human person (Spong's divinization). Tend gardens, chop down trees.

Edited April 16, 2020 by thormas

[PaulS]

16 hours ago, thormas said:

I agree with Spong in his reference to the traditional theistic positions - as do most Christian non-theistic thinkers. I also included the relevant quotes that shows his belief. 

I think you interpret his quotes incorrectly.  I do not think you are representing his beliefs accurately. 

Quote

If you are similar to Spong then you now believe that, as Spong said, "the human person shares being and is 'transformed into the divine." And 'the manner that I understand' shares Spong's understanding and others. Spong doesn't equate God with atoms or the cosmos. God is and Spong's 'we' is 'human person(s)'  - interestingly, Spong also talks about 'becoming fully human.

It should have been clear to you that I was referring to my similar view of Spong's concerning the infinity of the cosmos and how 'we' will always be a part of that, however that may play out.  Transforming into the divine could mean many other options other than retaining one's human consciousness and I think Spong is honest about that and does not try and assert that our consciousness must live on for us to transform into the divine.

Spong doesn't specifically equate God with atoms or cosmos but often points out how typically we understand God with human-like qualities because that is all we can comprehend, much like if a horse imagined God it would likely be in a horse-like fashion.  It seems to me that you are doing the same thing by understanding our relationship to God to only be like that of a human life and consciousnesses.  

Quote

I have no problem with the continuation of the atoms or the energy that made Paul continuing after his death. The difference is that I and Spong profess that Paul, the human person, is divinized and shares infinity...........as human person. If you declare that Spong says differently, please point it out so I can also reference it.

No, Spong does not say that we will share infinity as a human person.  If you say he does - show me - in actual Spong words and not your interpretation if you can please.

Quote

As you said: "What that all means for 'us'................remains to be understood..." Spong's profession of faith enables him to say it means that the human person shares the infinity of God.

And how that infinity is shared, what it actually looks like when a human person (is there another type of human?) ceases to exist, is acknowledged by Spong to be beyond his understanding.  That doesn't stop him from hoping, of course.  He too has ego just like you and I.

Quote

Already answered.

Is it possible that you can imagine there being no life after death?  And if you can stretch your imagination as such, can you then imagine that there are others who do not believe in life after death?  And as a final stretch, if you can imagine such a person, can you imagine that they may see life as meaningful even if they believe they won't live after death?  And if you have gotten that far, then you have answered the question - life is meaningful without the promise of life after death.  For such a person life has meaningfulness, even in the face of non-existence after this life.  That's why I am asking you those questions - to try and help you understand another's understanding of meaningfulness.  

Quote

You never answered about agreeing or not with Joseph who seems to be saying something very different than you are.

What do you think Joseph is saying and what part of it do you question whether I agree or not with?

Quote

All you said is that you think it's meaningful - why? If all there is is an endless cosmos (14 billion years and counting and let;s say it continues for another 100 billion more years and beyond) and you live a mere 70 years - what did what you felt, thought matter, what did it impact? Whatever you did or didn't do - it's all the same, the cosmos continues irregardless. If you say, it affected X who you had an influence on - fine but when they are gone after 70 years - and all are gone - what did any human effort or action mean, impact, change?  Given this position, the only answer is nothing and it points to the absurdity of all human effort (a philosophy not an accusation). Isn't it the ego saying "it means something?" What did it mean, how could it mean anything - it was not even a flicker in the nothingness of the cosmos (which is also meaningless). 

If there is more to it, I'm interested, if not then..........It is at an end for you which is fine.

Yeah, I think this bit is at an end.  You seem to not comprehend that the lack of existence for me after this life doesn't render my life meaningless to me and that in fact, I find my life meaningful, if nothing else, simply because I exist at this time.  I'm not sure how I can demonstrate that which I experience and that which I see as your misunderstanding of meaningfulness because for you, the experience seems to be that unless your life can be reflected on at some point in the future, that it is otherwise meaningless.  I simply don't see it that way.  I am content to die and no longer exist, and in the meantime I will enjoy the meaningfulness of my life.  Like you, I see life as meaningful, but I don't extend it to your necessity of it meaning we have to exist forever.  Even if the cosmos never remembers me, the fact that 'I' existed, is the meaning.

What did my life mean - it meant I lived.

 

 

[PaulS]

15 hours ago, JosephM said:

Very profound statement in my view. I would only suggest this small change to this sentence.  "Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in some other form. "   to   ....Even when this universe possibly ceases to exist in billions and billions of years time, the substance that was Paul will still exist in the formless. 

Yes, life itself is meaningful else it wouldn't exist. It seems to me, many egos assign their own meaning to life but it cannot be know to the ego only to Life itself.   

Yes, I suppose that is logical.  If there was only formlessness prior to the Big Bang, then the ultimate existence to which we could return may be that formlessness.

It seems to make sense to me that the ego is a product of the thinking mind.  That there is 'life' beyond the thinking mind is still a work in progress for me.  

[thormas]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think you interpret his quotes incorrectly.  I do not think you are representing his beliefs accurately. 

As previously asked, give me references where you think I am incorrect. 

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

.........my similar view of Spong's concerning the infinity of the cosmos and how 'we' will always be a part of that................Transforming into the divine could mean many other options other than retaining one's human consciousness and I think Spong is honest about that and does not try and assert that our consciousness must live on for us to transform into the divine.

Spong doesn't specifically equate God with atoms or cosmos but often points out how typically we understand God with human-like qualities because that is all we can comprehend, much like if a horse imagined God it would likely be in a horse-like fashion.  It seems to me that you are doing the same thing by understanding our relationship to God to only be like that of a human life and consciousnesses.  

 

Actually, Paul you and Spong are saying different things. Transforming into the divine (or the afterlife or infinity) might and does mean different things for different believers but Spong says it is the human person who shares that infinity. Spong speaks of the self-consciousness that is man 'entering/sharing' the universal consciousness that is God - and he repeatedly speaks of 'I' or the human person: "There is one consciousness (God), but self-conscious people alone can know it. I am finite but I share in infinity, I am mortal but I share in immortality." And, "I can...share in that infinity." 

He is speaking not of Paul's atoms but of Paul, the self-conscious person, sharing infinity. It is apparent that if he wanted to say it was our atoms or sharing in the cosmos (not God), he would have had no reservations and he would have stated that clearly. Spong is honest and he does assert that the self-conscious human person 'can and must' share infinity and he does assert the divination of the human being. He explicitly says what you said he did not??

Of course he refutes the anthropomorphic take on God: that is tradition theism which he rejects. You miss that as Spong rejects theism he shares a new vision and I am referencing that new vision in this discussion and in his own words.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

No, Spong does not say that we will share infinity as a human person.  If you say he does - show me - in actual Spong words and not your interpretation if you can please.

Paul, you always play this game. I asked you for references, you never provide them and then you say 'show me' your references. I have provided references above in a number of posts, your turn.

Just one more for you, "....a new awareness that self-conscious human life shares in the eternity of God."

 

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

And how that infinity is shared, what it actually looks like when a human person (is there another type of human?) ceases to exist, is acknowledged by Spong to be beyond his understanding.  That doesn't stop him from hoping, of course.  He too has ego just like you and I.

Of course Spong speaks of his belief .......  and even thought he does not have the ability to provide details of 'heaven'(like do we need clothes, where do we hang out) - he repeatedly asserts that it is the human person who is doing the sharing..........not the atoms which formerly made up that human person. 

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Is it possible that you can imagine there being no life after death?  And if you can stretch your imagination as such, can you then imagine that there are others who do not believe in life after death?  And as a final stretch, if you can imagine such a person, can you imagine that they may see life as meaningful even if they believe they won't live after death?  And if you have gotten that far, then you have answered the question - life is meaningful without the promise of life after death.  For such a person life has meaningfulness, even in the face of non-existence after this life.  That's why I am asking you those questions - to try and help you understand another's understanding of meaningfulness.  

Of course there are such people and they can think their 60 odd years are meaningful but, for the reasons previously provided, the stance you presented does not allow for meaningfulness: in the timelessness of the cosmos and the enduring existence of atoms only, their actions, feelings, accomplishments are meaningless.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

What do you think Joseph is saying and what part of it do you question whether I agree or not with?

Again with the games. Read previous posts.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Yeah, I think this bit is at an end.  You seem to not comprehend that the lack of existence for me after this life doesn't render my life meaningless to me and that in fact, I find my life meaningful, if nothing else, simply because I exist at this time. ............... I am content to die and no longer exist, and in the meantime I will enjoy the meaningfulness of my life.  Like you, I see life as meaningful, but I don't extend it to your necessity of it meaning we have to exist forever.  Even if the cosmos never remembers me, the fact that 'I' existed, is the meaning.

What did my life mean - it meant I lived.

You seem not to comprehend your own argument and its ramifications.

For me life is so meaningful, man is so meaningful that death cannot contain Life and man shares in the fullness (infinity) that he was born to in his first moment. Such is God, such is Life.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

What did my life mean - it meant I lived.

So did the snail.

Edited April 17, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually, Paul you and Spong are saying different things. Transforming into the divine (or the afterlife or infinity) might and does mean different things for different believers but Spong says it is the human person who shares that infinity. Spong speaks of the self-consciousness that is man 'entering/sharing' the universal consciousness that is God - and he repeatedly speaks of 'I' or the human person: "There is one consciousness (God), but self-conscious people alone can know it. I am finite but I share in infinity, I am mortal but I share in immortality." And, "I can...share in that infinity." 

He is speaking not of Paul's atoms but of Paul, the self-conscious person, sharing infinity. It is apparent that if he wanted to say it was our atoms or sharing in the cosmos (not God), he would have had no reservations and he would have stated that clearly. Spong is honest and he does assert that the self-conscious human person 'can and must' share infinity and he does assert the divination of the human being. He explicitly says what you said he did not??

Of course he refutes the anthropomorphic take on God: that is tradition theism which he rejects. You miss that as Spong rejects theism he shares a new vision and I am referencing that new vision in this discussion and in his own words.

Spong isn't referring to the afterlife because he admits  “Nobody knows what the afterlife is all about; nobody even knows if there is one". What he is referring to is life here now and that we "can and must" share (present tense) as a person in that infinity ( divine nature/ God). And of course we all do because we are divine at our deepest level whether we are aware of it or realize it or not. It could not be otherwise, especially since it seems to me that you  believe that God is the very source of our existence and God is in and through all.  So,  it stands to reason that we are now sharing in that divinity/infinity. Unfortunately, we shed the body and all physical aspects of the body which was created and in time vanishes back to the formless.  

From what i have said , after this life or series of lives (take your pick 🙂), you can then reason that you are not the  body or anything that is physical in the  body but rather that portion that returns to the formless that i call God/ The unmanifest which is now sustaining form. That is why i continue to say find out who the real I am/I is and you will see the illusion that you call and i call Thomas.

Your welcome. 🙂

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Spong isn't referring to the afterlife because he admits  “Nobody knows what the afterlife is all about; nobody even knows if there is one". What he is referring to is life here now and that we "can and must" share (present tense) as a person in that infinity ( divine nature/ God). And of course we all do because we are divine at our deepest level whether we are aware of it or realize it or not. It could not be otherwise, especially since it seems to me that you  believe that God is the very source of our existence and God is in and through all.  So,  it stands to reason that we are now sharing in that divinity/infinity. Unfortunately, we shed the body and all physical aspects of the body which was created and in time vanishes back to the formless.  

From what i have said , after this life or series of lives (take your pick 🙂), you can then reason that you are not the  body or anything that is physical in the  body but rather that portion that returns to the formless that i call God/ The unmanifest which is now sustaining form. That is why i continue to say find out who the real I am/I is and you will see the illusion that you call and i call Thomas.

Your welcome. 🙂

Spong is referring to the 'afterlife' and at times he is also referring to life before death - or it can be said he is simply referring to the totality of man's Life in God.  Furthermore, of course nobody 'knows' if there is an afterlife or what it is about but Spong is speaking from the backdrop of a new 'vision' for Christianity and presenting what that new vision or 'belief' is: the divinization of man and human beings sharing in the infinity that is God  (here and now and, ultimately always and everywhere).

Spong speaks of 'this life:' we are sharing divinity/infinity to various degrees (thereby becoming fully human) as shown in his comments on Jesus but he is also talking about 'life after death.' Again, that is the title of one of his chapters in which he presents his understanding (belief).

 

As an aside, I'm not sure what 'shedding the body' means to you - I do not have a definitive opinion on a body or a spiritual body after death but I do agree with Spong and others that 'person' shares the infinity of God. However, it is not so much a 'return' to the Absolute as it is a continuation, a fullness in the Infinity (already experience here and now) that is ever-present and eternal. Once experienced or, better, made manifest in the human, nothing can separate person from the Infinity that is God and that already has begun man's divinization.

You too :+}

[JosephM]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

As an aside, I'm not sure what 'shedding the body' means to you - I do not have a definitive opinion on a body or a spiritual body after death but I do agree with Spong and others that 'person' shares the infinity of God. However, it is not so much a 'return' to the Absolute as it is a continuation, a fullness in the Infinity (already experience here and now) that is ever-present and eternal. Once experienced or, better, made manifest in the human, nothing can separate person from the Infinity that is God and that already has begun man's divinization.

Shedding the body - falling off of the body / physical death    This leaves the one who created and sustained the body in the first place. From experience  in this life, when divinity is experienced the body is in a sense dead even though it it yet alive . The same is spoken of in Col 3:3 For you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God. This real life spoken of is not Joe or Paul or Thomas but rather Christ the Light of God now.  There is only One God but many forms of creatures sustained by God and when the creatures have perished there remains only the formless God that was in the beginning.  So as far as afterlife is concerned, Joe , Paul and Thomas were just characters in the evolution of creation much like a movie that was created for one's entertainment. It seems to me, there is no permanent self except in fairy tales, only Self which is God, the great I am.

[PaulS]

15 hours ago, thormas said:

As previously asked, give me references where you think I am incorrect. 

The misinterpreted statements you had already provided that I pointed to when I said that.  Essentially, those where you imply that Spong is claiming our self-consciousness (as we know it) will continue to exist after our death.  He never makes any such claim.  Similarly, where you imply that Spong considers our 'human personhood' to continue after death to be similar to the view you are promoting.  You have taken a liberty with Spong's words because of the lens with which you have applied to reading them, in my opinion.

Quote

Actually, Paul you and Spong are saying different things. Transforming into the divine (or the afterlife or infinity) might and does mean different things for different believers but Spong says it is the human person who shares that infinity. Spong speaks of the self-consciousness that is man 'entering/sharing' the universal consciousness that is God - and he repeatedly speaks of 'I' or the human person: "There is one consciousness (God), but self-conscious people alone can know it. I am finite but I share in infinity, I am mortal but I share in immortality." And, "I can...share in that infinity." 

Spong simply does not describe sharing infinity (what you interpret as eternal life) to be as a human person.  He talks about us sharing infinity yes, how and in what means/capacity is unknown to Spong.  He acknowledges that sharing that infinity could be in a manner we simply cannot fathom.  His vision, his hope, is that we may share it somehow with God as 'us' but he acknowledges it may not be like that.  Indeed he postulates about the self-conscious entering the universal consciousness, but it's your lens that can only read that as meaning self-consciousness as we know it is retained within that universal consciousness.  Maybe it is, but Spong simply isn't saying that is his belief.  What our consciousness becomes or indeed whether it even continues as we understand it now when it joins the universal consciousness, is open to question, as Spong speculates.

Either way, Spong is entirely comfortable because it is in God's hands and either way, we will share infinity as it is meant to be.  What I get most out of Spong's book is his belief that life is meaningful, irrespective of whatever may come, or not, after death.  He makes it very clear across all his writings, that an afterlife is of no matter to him - this life is meaningful as it is.

Quote

He is speaking not of Paul's atoms but of Paul, the self-conscious person, sharing infinity. It is apparent that if he wanted to say it was our atoms or sharing in the cosmos (not God), he would have had no reservations and he would have stated that clearly. Spong is honest and he does assert that the self-conscious human person 'can and must' share infinity and he does assert the divination of the human being. He explicitly says what you said he did not??

That may be 'apparent' to you, but I would suggest that's your lens.

Quote

You miss that as Spong rejects theism he shares a new vision and I am referencing that new vision in this discussion and in his own words.

I don't miss it and whilst you may use Spong's words, you interpret them with your own lens.

Quote

Paul, you always play this game. I asked you for references, you never provide them and then you say 'show me' your references. I have provided references above in a number of posts, your turn.

No games, just asking for you to provide one hard quote where Spong says that we will participate in an eternal life as the human person we now know ourselves as.  Not your interpretation, but an actual quote by Spong to clearly demonstrate that.  I would argue that there is no quote like that because to me it is apparent that if Spong wanted to say that we would live eternal life as the human person with God, he would have had no reservations and he would have stated that clearly.

Quote

Just one more for you, "....a new awareness that self-conscious human life shares in the eternity of God."

Yes, a 'new' awareness, not the old existing one.

Quote

Of course Spong speaks of his belief .......  and even thought he does not have the ability to provide details of 'heaven'(like do we need clothes, where do we hang out) - he repeatedly asserts that it is the human person who is doing the sharing..........not the atoms which formerly made up that human person. 

Of course there are such people and they can think their 60 odd years are meaningful but, for the reasons previously provided, the stance you presented does not allow for meaningfulness: in the timelessness of the cosmos and the enduring existence of atoms only, their actions, feelings, accomplishments are meaningless.

Again, that is simply your interpretation as you view things with your lens.  

Quote

Again with the games. Read previous posts.

Again, no games.  Joseph has made several points.  Are you asking if I agree with everything he is saying or something more particularly?  It is too broad a question to simply ask "Do you agree with Joseph?".  I may not answer things to your satisfaction, how you think they should be answered, but I am not playing games.

Quote

You seem not to comprehend your own argument and its ramifications.

No, I do.

Quote

For me life is so meaningful, man is so meaningful that death cannot contain Life and man shares in the fullness (infinity) that he was born to in his first moment. Such is God, such is Life.

And for me, life IS meaning.  To me, there is no logic in saying it is 'so meaningful' that it transcends itself.  There is nothing to transcend.  Death is part of life.  I know I've already said this, but I can only see your interpretation of 'death not containing life' as a cry from the ego to say it doesn't want to not exist anymore.  You still will exist after death, just not along with your ego.  But what 'you' are is something that our comprehensions seem to disagree on.

Quote

So did the snail.

Precisely.  The snail without an ego perhaps.  To me it only seems to be the ego that feels it has to be more important than the snail.  The snail and you (and I) are all parts of the same life.  Oneness.  Such is God, such is life.

[thormas]

Paul,

The games and the avoidance continue: actually provide Spong quotes and some context. Did you read Spong?? Why no quotes, it only takes a couple of minutes? All you provide is accusations and nothing in Spong's words. 

 

Bottom line, you offered nothing.

Edited April 18, 2020 by thormas

[thormas]

16 hours ago, JosephM said:

Shedding the body - falling off of the body / physical death    This leaves the one who created and sustained the body in the first place. From experience  in this life, when divinity is experienced the body is in a sense dead even though it it yet alive . The same is spoken of in Col 3:3 For you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God. This real life spoken of is not Joe or Paul or Thomas but rather Christ the Light of God now.  There is only One God but many forms of creatures sustained by God and when the creatures have perished there remains only the formless God that was in the beginning.  So as far as afterlife is concerned, Joe , Paul and Thomas were just characters in the evolution of creation much like a movie that was created for one's entertainment. It seems to me, there is no permanent self except in fairy tales, only Self which is God, the great I am.

I'll think on it but that is not my experience. It is not the body that is dead (I realize you said in a sense), I think it is the self - selfishness - that is 'dying' as one 'takes in' or embodies the Love that is the Divine Self. The question is whether Col, is speaking literally of 'this life' or the things and objects - the idols - that man worships in place of 'real life.' That life (i.e. God) is hidden and revealed and given in Christ.

Col. is particularly interesting in this discussion since Paul, like Jesus, was an apocalyptic who believed that the living and the dead persons would share the Life of God - his Kingdom established - in this life or here. There is no talk of entertainment of mere characters; it is for human selves that the Christ presented God.

Thus, the real life spoken of is God but it is Joe, Paul, Tom and all who are called to live it as it becomes theirs. For this they were created by Life/Love.

There is only God/Being and a diverse creation sustained by God but the Christian belief is that the human person who is Joe or Paul are not characters in a natural evolution but those who are gifted and empowered by Life to share in the infinity that is God. The insight is that the Self 'let's be' a 'multiplicity' of selves to have abundant Life.

I guess part of our disagreement is that I don't see humans beings as characters created to entertain (who? God?) or Life having any need or desire of such creation if not to share that which 'I AM.'

 

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by thormas

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Paul,

The games and the avoidance continue: actually provide Spong quotes and some context. Did you read Spong?? Why no quotes, it only takes a couple of minutes? All you provide is accusations and nothing in Spong's words. 

Bottom line, you offered nothing.

Alright, I guess that ends that then.  I guess you must think I am lying then when I say I am not playing games,.

Whatever the case Thormas, you have your view of what Spong is saying, and I have mine.

Peace and goodwill to you.

Paul.

[thormas]

Paul,

As always you make it personal (saying "you must think I'm lying") when I am simply asking that you do the work and present Spong references/quotes to back your 'opinion.' Nada!  You never deliver.

I supported my 'view' with Spong's words.

[PaulS]

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

Paul,

As always you make it personal (saying "you must think I'm lying") when I am simply asking that you do the work and present Spong references/quotes to back your 'opinion.' Nada!  You never deliver.

Of course it was personal.  I said I wasn't playing games and in your very next comment you again accuse me of playing games. Obviously you think I am lying.

But whatever Thormas, I can accuse you of the same - failing to provide evidence when asked, but really, where is any of this getting us.

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

I supported my 'view' with Spong's words.

Yes, you have you interpretation of Spong's words and I wish you well with such.

Peace and goodwill.

Paul.

 

 

[JosephM]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Thus, the real life spoken of is God but it is Joe, Paul, Tom and all who are called to live it as it becomes theirs. For this they were created by Life/Love.

The creature is not the name Joe, Paul, or Tom. Its just a creature that has evolved a bit further in the process than others. God is in all and none are more special or loved than the other except possibly in their own mind.  Just ask the mouse or the Lion or the elephant.  

Quote

There is only God/Being and a diverse creation sustained by God but the Christian belief is that the human person who is Joe or Paul are not characters in a natural evolution but those who are gifted and empowered by Life to share in the infinity that is God. The insight is that the Self 'let's be' a 'multiplicity' of selves to have abundant Life.

You are sharing in that infinity along with every other creature right now. Infinity is the state or quality of being infinite.God is infinite.  It comes from the Latin word without end. Every creature by default is sharing in that infinity/without end by virtue of the presence of God/Life that is required to sustain the creature. However the creature returns to dust and eventually the formless. So Spong doesn't have to be referring to  the afterlife when he say that we (the creature) can and must share in that infinity. Of course we can and must share  because as physical beings we do share in God even if we do do not realize it.

It really doesn't matter to me what Spong believes though from reading i do think he indicates he "believes in life beyond death" but you have to read his  book "Eternal Life" to find out what he means. In the book Spong jettisons the myth that God is other.  Spong proposes a way, one that involves being “fully human.” We are not really separated from God, he asserts. Rather “we are part of what God is and we are at one with all that God is.”  We are finite, but we share in infinity. We are mortal, but we share in immortality. Spong writes ,  “when I die I will rest my case in the ‘being’ of which I am a part . . . I step beyond words at this point into the wonder of a wordless reality.” To me, he rest his case in the being of God. All else was created is finite, is mortal and dies. If one lives afterlife it will be as a memory of God not the Joe, Paul, or Tom you know.

Quote

I guess part of our disagreement is that I don't see humans beings as characters created to entertain (who? God?) or Life having any need or desire of such creation if not to share that which 'I AM.'

I take back the word entertain. It was a poor choice of words by me the creature. The mortal always seeks reasons of why the immortal would desire creation. Perhaps you might agree with me saying creation is the nature of the Creator?

[thormas]

Joseph,

 

I phrase it differently but the question is whether it is just a cosmetic change or a substantial change.

I agree: if God is, among other names or descriptions, Infinity then all share in that infinity (now) but man as self-conscious being, can 'choose' to incarnate love (God) and thus become more human (by 'being' more divine/love). I agree that something returns to the dust, however I believe that the human person shares infinity differently (in degree or kind or both) than other creatures: as Spong indicates self-consciousness (i.e. man) enters into or shares Consciousness (he differentiates man from other creatures). Man is not created for formlessness, he is created for abundance.

Spong speaks of that sharing that begins now (in the process of becoming human) and he also speaks of it as continuing and enhancing after death (again the chapter is 'I believe in life after death').

I have read and re-read the book. He does jettison God as other, which is the typical depiction of God in theism - Spong jettisons all traditional theism. Spong, after he professes sharing in infinity now and continuing after death, pretty much stops, for what finite creature can wax eloquently on infinity?

He rests on the details (as I said kiddingly to Paul, Spong does not get into heavenly decor, dress or activities), but he does not say that death is the end of Joe, Paul or Tom.

God (for Christians) is Abba who is not satisfied with memories (as if he was in need of them or they add to the infinity that he always is), God as Abba wants relationship, wants man and woman to be his children and have abundant life in/with him - fully realized humanity sharing in the eternity of the divine.

Spong speaks of our participation in eternity. How can 'our' participation be real if we are but a memory? Spong also asserts that 'life beyond life' (eternity, infinity, oneness) is personal and in this same discussion he concludes that "I" can and must share in that infinity.........."i" do, "I" can and "I" will escape the barriers of both time and space." He even states, "so if any of us is to share in that which we call the eternity of God, those lives that are so deeply a part of who we are (others) must also share in that eternity with us."  

I agree with what you have said about Spong on this life - but on life beyond life, he says it is personal , he repeatedly uses the personal pronoun "I" and also that other persons will share eternity with us. He does not speak of formlessness or being mere memories or past entertainment for God - he is saying that the human person(s) shares eternity with God and others. 

 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

I take back the word entertain. It was a poor choice of words by me the creature. The mortal always seeks reasons of why the immortal would desire creation. Perhaps you might agree with me saying creation is the nature of the Creator?

Saw this after my initial response above.

I do agree that is is the essence of the Creator to create but as mentioned above God has no need of memories (he is already infinite) and he is in no need of 'children.' However, the Christian insight is that the eternal creative act of the Creator is love (sometimes called 'letting be') - which goes out from itSelf in and for the other so they might have life. 

[thormas]

3 hours ago, PaulS said:

Of course it was personal.  I said I wasn't playing games and in your very next comment you again accuse me of playing games. Obviously you think I am lying.

But whatever Thormas, I can accuse you of the same - failing to provide evidence when asked, but really, where is any of this getting us.

 

Again with the lying. I did not say anything about you lying, nor do I think you are. I do think you 'play' the same game in countless posts where you ask for references (after some/many have already been presented) but when asked to do the same, you never provide them - and you continue to ask - as you have done here. I call that not being serious and instead 'playing games.' 

Your other old stand by is "I can say that about you " as in saying I never provided 'evidence.' Hardly the case here or with the famous reliability/verifiability discussion. In both cases, I'm still waiting. Is this what infinity or is it merely timelessness?

[thormas]

3 hours ago, PaulS said:

Yes, you have you interpretation of Spong's words and I wish you well with such.

Not an interpretation, I actually provided references to show Spong's words.

How about you? Not so much, right?