Post-Mortem: A Discussion on the Afterlife

[Dante]

Are you trying to dodge the insults by saying things which have no bearing on the topic at hand? Because I can do that too.

Banana... Supernova!

[Lord J]

Acriku: Sorry for mispelling your name :(

interesting. My wife recently came across a similar rationalization for why some people are born with dark skin, even though, according to the Mormon faith of the 70's, they could not be ordained ministers (which is pretty important for maximizing your afterlife experience, if you're Mormon). Essentially, the argument is that in the prehuman existance, these individuals made choices that resulted in them being born with the mark of Cain. Similarly, people who are born into poor families, or with mental or physical limitations, the cause is rooted in prehuman spiritual dealings.

[AUselessServant]

What can I say? Some of us have principles that are opposed to tyranny.

Its not tyranny, you have the choice, to live with God or without Him. The thing is...your spirit will be miserable (=hell) without God, as He is the source of life.

But the choice is yours. God could easily force every human being, including you, to worship Him, but He has given us free choice and allows us to choose to worship Him or not. Because He only wants followers who follow Him out of a pure heart, that is why He gave His son, so that we would see and understand His love and love Him back. Think about it...would you give your son to safe someone who hates you? Keep in mind that for a parent its easier to sacrifice oneself than to sacrifice his child.

Anyways, afterlife is quite simple...to live with God or without Him. Without Him its hell, you will live forever there, or you can live with Him who didn't spare His son for you. Its a choice we make. Regardless of what we would like to believe, this is the truth. I say this, not because someone convinced me, but because I have met Christ and live with Him.

Many people would like life to end after death, thats the easy way out...no judgement, you can sin as much as you like and then it all ends and thats it. This desire will result in a search for arguments that we somehow cease to exists after death.

But the truth is simple, we see creation and thus there is a creator (a table didn't evolve from a tree, someone made it, no one would argue that it evolved from a tree naturally). Since there is a creator, we have to answer to Him and He decides how we spend eternity...and remember, thats a long time.

[Dante]

You are mad. You suffer from a form of insanity that manifests as delusions. So does Hwi. So does Eracist. Even Wolf does, to a far lesser (and socially acceptable) extent. I want you to know that, because if we interact further it will explain my behaviour towards you. It will be much the same as a Victorian gawper looking down at the bound inmates of Bedlam, chained to the walls and dribbling happily as they soil themselves. Amusement, disgust and pity.

It is tyranny, for what monster creates free will only to dictate how it should be applied? What selfish tyrant insists on controlling not only actions, but thoughts? What kind of creator refuses to let the creation develop?

What kind of parent insists on keeping their child at home, forever, promising them the world if only they will stay? No, I will have no part in such cruelty.

Edit: *cough* You're right, Lord J. Lets just... pretend that never happened, ok?

[ErasOmnius]

Are you trying to dodge the insults by saying things which have no bearing on the topic at hand? Because I can do that too.

Banana... Supernova!

Is it Frankie Goes to Hollywood? Or that when a Q dies inthe civil war they had, a supernova occurs?

[Wolf]

I would argue that my understanding of metaphysics operates so within the realm of factual ambiguity that any comment regarding objective reality is confined to mere supposition and where charges of "delusion" are unfounded. I also want to point out that my view is "socially acceptable" in as much as... some people accept it. Others don't. And my attempt to render forth understandings of metaphysics that are also logically comprehensible and fundamentally just has actually been met with a lot of outrage. Despite what people who intentionally seek to misrepresent my posts might say, I do not try to "please" everyone. Far from it.

[Dante]

Everyone's a little bit mad. And everyone has little illusions to make life a bit more tolerable. My point was that while you and I operate within a boundary of madness which society defines as "normal" - that is, a degree of insanity not too far removed from the average - there are some nutjobs whose mental illness is so far removed from reality that they merit some measure of condescention, or simply humouring them as one generally does with the mentally disabled. Your metaphysical philosophising and my own issues are on a whole different level to "meeting" an invisible sky wizard.

Eracist seems to have finally lost his grip on the family brain cell, so I suppose I'll just ignore him for a while. About time too.

[ErasOmnius]

Eracist seems to have finally lost his grip on the family brain cell, so I suppose I'll just ignore him for a while. About time too.

You see, your comment about Supernova, banana, could mean a lot of things...

It could mean:

1. On the kids show "Yo Gabba Gabba", where they sing to kids about bananas, from a song by the band Supernova.

2. Or the Nokia Phone -- the Supernova. Bananas though?

3. Or it could mean two types of marijuana, but that's bad for people, so it probably doesn't mean that.

4. Or it could mean the singing group , Frankie Goes to Hollywood from the 1980s, from the song 'PleasureDome'. And maybe Frankie likes to eat bananas?

5. Of course, Kanye West has a song about supernovas, as well. Don't know about bananas part.

It will be much the same as a Victorian gawper looking down at the bound inmates of Bedlam, chained to the walls and dribbling happily as they soil themselves. Amusement, disgust and pity.

It is tyranny, for what monster creates free will only to dictate how it should be applied? What selfish tyrant insists on controlling not only actions, but thoughts? What kind of creator refuses to let the creation develop?

In a way, living according to The Book to have a better life, and after-life, could be viewed as a type of tyranny--from the point of view of a person who simply wants to do whatever they want in life.

Develop? So what's my penalty for following The Book intently, phrase by phrase. I have a happy life -- a wife, four kids, contentment.

Trade it for what? Drugs, adulterous sex, drunken bouts? What is it exactly that I want that I don't have?

I have studied almost every facet or Evolution and Intelligent Design, and have come down on the side of ID. Is it perfect? No. I believe it's closer than Evolution. So what am I missing?

As far as tolerance goes-- An alcoholic man just threw up on me last night at the Center. I washed myself off, got help, washed himself off good. Put him in a cot, and when I left the Center six hours later he was still asleep. I cared for him, hopefully he remembers that someone cared enough for him to stop drinking grain alcohol.

What is it that I am missing in Formal Education? I have two degrees, married to someone who has two.

Am I missing Influence? I don't want to have lunch with my Congressman (representative in the national legislature--the House), because all he wants is a donation and a vote. I don't go to Dinner Banquets or Parties. To do what? Basically gossip, and talk about how much power and prestige, or cars and cigars, monetary income can buy? A Christian does not care about such things. What exactly am I missing?

Yesterday, my son and I talked about some of Frank Herbert's concepts in Dune Messiah. So I'm not missing out on enlightening conversation.

What kind of parent insists on keeping their child at home, forever, promising them the world if only they will stay? No, I will have no part in such cruelty.

I don't feel like my parent, the Father is cruel. He just wants what's best for me, and mankind.

[Wolf]

Do you have any idea just how solidly you proved Dante's point?

[Dante]

He wants you to do as you're told. Obey, or suffer.

Say a parent wishes their child to become a lawyer, marry well, live affluently. They only want what's best for their offspring. But the child hates law, wants to move to Paris and become an artist, marry a waitress and live in a studio loft. The child's decision may not be what the parent wishes, but to throw a hissy fit and condemn the child to the wilderness is an overreaction, as well as a sign of a pathologically controlling personality.

There comes a time when all children have to grow up and move beyond their parents' decisions. Unless, of course, they like living at home and making no decisions for themselves. A brilliant waste of free will.

Develop? So what's my penalty for following The Book intently, phrase by phrase. I have a happy life -- a wife, four kids, contentment.

Trade it for what? Drugs, adulterous sex, drunken bouts? What is it exactly that I want that I don't have?

Any spark of independent thought. Wait, do you even have the intelligence to want that?

I imagine livestock would be quite content in a pen too. Regular meals, comfortable surroundings, and all you sacrifice is freedom. Sweet deal, eh? You would know.

Besides which, your argument rather falls over when you consider that I too am perfectly content with my life. I have a job that I enjoy (more than most people can say, eh Hwi?), a place to call my own, social contact with people who aren't mouth-breathing troglodytes... And all while ignoring the bible, save as a handy doorstop.

I have studied almost every facet or Evolution and Intelligent Design, and have come down on the side of ID. Is it perfect? No. I believe it's closer than Evolution. So what am I missing?

Comprehension. Next question.

What is it that I am missing in Formal Education? I have two degrees, married to someone who has two.

Congratulations, you're a qualified idiot.

It occurs to me that the rest of your post, indeed, the entirity of your post, is basically a claim that life is good for you, and therefore following god isn't a mistake. Well, unsurprisingly, you rather missed the point of my argument, which is that god claims absolute authority and punishes disobedience, which is the behaviour of a tyrant. A tyrant who is good to those who kowtow sufficiently, granted, but a tyrant nevertheless. What you lack, and what every parent should wish for their child, is self-determination.

[Wolf]

For the most part I think that's right, but I want to present an alternate interpretation. While it is true that his words on their face boil down to the assertion that "I believe in God, and my life is good," the feverish, seemingly insecure, and almost desperate self-assurances that one's life is "good" strike me as... well, a sign that one feels somewhat dissatisfied with one's life. Clearly, something is missing, right? Otherwise you wouldn't go on a Dune forum to discuss books you seemingly don't know and talk to people you seemingly don't like. Here, again, I think Dante has the right of it: you (and to the same extent, Hwi) have pushed--constantly--not for any more legitimately correct view of religion, but for a more rigid and inflexible view of religion. You don't seem to desire our "salvation," or even really yours (otherwise compassion would have been the touchstone of your posts, not spite)--what you desire is nothing other than the perception that you have power in the world. An inflexible God--that we must recognize on your terms, or die--provides exactly this. But, you must know, that it is (1) a fantasy and (2) precisely the opposite of what any actual God would want from you, or what salvation would actually require. If meekness has been identified as the essential element of salvation, well, then I must confess I see the quality in short supply here.

[Rene]

You don't have to keep moving all of the time, Rene. I figure if you have infinite time, you can use it generously. Spend a year in one town. A decade in one country. A century in an ocean. Watch civilisations grow and crumble, or not, if you prefer. Pick up travelling companions. Found a nation. Etc. A romantic could stay in one place for long enough to fall in and out of love before moving on. A pragmatist could stay only as long as it took to accomplish a task (build a house, catch an animal, change a society, breed a new species of goat...). Or simply allow movement to be dictated by whim.

I meant tired in a metal way. I imagine that eventually, everything will become like some sort of routine. Maybe not exactly boring, but some kind of 'been there, done that' feeling.

On the other hand, in this world I love to work on computer graphics. Every time something new works I think back of the vast amount of math, software design and nights of coding involved in that image, and seeing the result simply feels great. As long as I can continue learning and developing, I don't think I will ever get bored. This would require an afterlife where some form of technology exists.

I think issues or boredom are peculiar only to us and the present state of consciousness that we possess.

But that brings us back to the question if I am still I if I change a lot. Maybe not a perfect analogy, but when someone dies, and his body is put in the ground, his body will become earth. Would this earth still be that body?

[Wolf]

Edvard Munch is well-known to all of us who are avid Call of Duty players. I wonder whether there is some form of primal sub- or semi-consciousness that exists for all matter, in any arrangement. Certainly, enlightened societies have believed this to be the case before.

[ErasOmnius]

But mankind calling the Father a tyrant shows how far down makind has fallen.

Your analogy about living in a loft in Paris is lacking one thing...what happens when a crisis hits? That's when man is at his or her worst.

When your 'couple' living in a loft in Paris conceive a child, and one of them doesn't want that child (usually the man), and convinces the woman to abort -- then the 'quick and easy' remedy of abortion of life enters the fray. So then we have a dead human being, and all of the long term guilt and ramifications thereof.

But if the couple would have listened to (the Father/their father), they'd have gotten married first, gotten a decent education, and conceived a child -- and happy story.

But the aborted couple is well on the way to splitting. She feels used, will probably start drinking; letting guys have her more and more often, eroding her self-respect. The guy will feel some guilt, but then start to change his mind, as he experiments with drugs, and use women even more. We have a vicious circle, and a vicious cycle.

Multiply this scenario times millions and millions of times throughout The West.

And of course, you talk about freedom. There is no such thing as freedom. The freedom to drink a lot of alcohol always leads to alcoholism. The freedom to take recreational drugs always leads to addiction. Small time gambling leads to gambling addiction. The freedom to have wanton sex always leads to 'Why am I doing this?' sometime soon after the 'sexual event'.

There is only the supposed freedom that people feel, which is actually licentiousness, that leads to bondage. We were not meant to be 'free', but as the New Testament says, under the 'yoke' of Jesus. This concept of total freedom is a Greek philosophy -- and always leads to people lounging around, voting in representatives who will vote for massive government deficits.

Wolf, as far as this Forum goes, it is just a symbol of the last 31 years of my life reading the DUNE books, and the various works by KJA & BH. I can come here, and share other aspects of what I believe -- and I know that two people will always answer me, within hours. D & W!

Where else can I find such lively banter? A video gamer fellow from the north of Britain who can write fairly well, and a lawyer from I'm guessing Texas who knows something of Gnostic thought and writings.

[athanasios]

Comprehension...

Congratulations, you're a qualified idiot...

::)

But you seem brilliant enough to fail to read between the lines of the Genesis account so you interpret it literally like the Creationists do. You lost its message/lesson.

Idiots are the ones that follow on the steps of our first parents Adam and Eve.

[Dante]

I don't interpret Genesis literally, moron, I don't interpret it at all.

Eracist, the father in my parable wanted their child to marry someone they didn't want to, get a job they didn't enjoy, and live somewhere they hated. Know where that leads? Alcoholism as escapism until that no longer works and then suicide. Congratulations, your dogmatic father figure killed the protagonist. That's what happens.

It doesn't matter who first coined the concept, self-determination is freedom that matters, and it is a freedom that is denied to - indeed, willingly sacrificed by - idiots like yourself who would rather remain tied to the apron strings for their entire lives, having everything done for them, right down to their very thoughts of themselves. That you happily believe that mankind was never "meant" to be free only reinforces what a numb-brained little robot you are.

God says jump, you jump.

God says cry, you cry.

God says work, you work.

God says think X, you think X.

God says believe you're happy, you believe you're happy.

God says obey a series of whimsical, pointless orders just because I say so, you obey a series of whimsical, pointless orders just because he says so.

You're barely human, really.

[chatfsh]

Your analogy is inappropriate due to the confining restrictions placed upon the child in your example.  God may dictate the standards governing sexual morality

[Wolf]

Wait, why Texas?

[Dante]

So if devout Christians are barely human anymore, it

[AUselessServant]

You are mad. You suffer from a form of insanity that manifests as delusions. So does Hwi. So does Eracist. Even Wolf does, to a far lesser (and socially acceptable) extent. I want you to know that, because if we interact further it will explain my behaviour towards you. It will be much the same as a Victorian gawper looking down at the bound inmates of Bedlam, chained to the walls and dribbling happily as they soil themselves. Amusement, disgust and pity.

It is tyranny, for what monster creates free will only to dictate how it should be applied? What selfish tyrant insists on controlling not only actions, but thoughts? What kind of creator refuses to let the creation develop?

What kind of parent insists on keeping their child at home, forever, promising them the world if only they will stay? No, I will have no part in such cruelty.

Edit: *cough* You're right, Lord J. Lets just... pretend that never happened, ok?

If I insulted you, then I apologize, because your post makes it appear as if I somehow insulted you. Anyways, may God bless you.

Regarding freedom, people often do not understand true freedom. We can get philisophical about this...

When you where born, your dna/genes gave you a set of charactaristics and you are the 'slave' of these charactaristics. The fact that someone likes salty food more then sweet food is not his choice made in freedom, its determinded by his genes. In fact, every desire we have has such roots. The desire to sin comes from our ancestor Adam.

For example:

- A hetero male cannot not desire females, if he would CHOOSE not to look at girls when walking on the streets, he would not be able to do so (I invite all hetero males here to try to do that, for 1 week CHOOSE not to desire or think about girls...see if you are truely free).

But through Jesus Christ one can get true freedom and really choose to desire or not. Jesus can set us free from any desire, but leaves us the choice to desire or not, so one who knows Jesus is no longer a slave of his desires, but can choose his desires.

- Can a person choose not to have bad/evil thoughts? Can a person choose to love his enemy? Every time a person sees or hears about his enemy, in him wrath and hatred will work...is this person free?

True freedom is through Jesus Christ, He sets us free from any desire and we can then choose what we would like, anyone who does not know Jesus cannot choose his desires, he inherets them and is a slave of them. Humans cannot:

not hate, lie, steal, insult, desire, kill etc. While some will not do it externally, they will perform these things in there hearts.

Dante, since you and Eras seem to have some issues, I would like to know the following:

Can you, in your freedom, choose to love Eras as you would love a dear friend? Meaning, have nothing against him in your thoughts/heart and simply have a feeling of love that one has for a close friend?

If you cannot, then you are not free, because you cannot do what you want. But in Jesus Christ this is possible.

By the way, any Christian who cannot do any of the above things, needs to get to know Jesus and His truth, if you are not truelly free, then you do not know the truth, but you can learn and become free.

[Lord J]

RE: Freedom

In my opinion, freedom of choice is an illusion based on approach versus avoidance situations. If the choice is, "give me money or I'll punch you in the face," people tend to be less inclined to consider their choice "free" than if it is "give me money and I'll give you ice cream." In other words, "freedom" is the feeling of being given choices involving positive reinforcers, whereas "bondage" is the feeling of being given choices involving negative reinforcers (of course, true physical restraint is something entirely different, and that's not what we're discussing here at all).

This is where choice and preference come in: preference is typically given to the "tastier" outcome; what which occurs more frequently, is of higher quality, tastes/feels/smells better, requires the least work, or is more random (in gambling scenarios). Time, and time again these are the choices people make. What are some of the most difficult choices you've ever made? The ones involving outcomes that you had never experienced before or were of roughly equal value.

And this is why people are "mentally ill" regarding religion: we learn that the choices we make result in more encouragement and acceptance from family members and friends. When we espouse our love for Jesus, everyone in the church with us nods, and smiles at us. They shake our hands, rub our backs, and tell us we're good people. Your relationships with your family are stronger because you reward their beliefs and they reward yours (it's a "vicious cycle" ;) ).

You see, I understand why Eras, Hwi, Athan, and Useless are what they are and believe what they believe. It's just sad for me that they lose so many potential friends and family because they continue to emulate Paulian orders. Why do they do so? We, as humans, learn to imitate by generalization; if one instance of imitation results in encouragement, then a different instance of imitation results in encouragement, then imitation is very likely to continue, even if encouragement doesn't continue to occur, simply because of that history. If Eras et al., learned to imitate rudimentary religious behaviors (praying, worshiping, speaking in tongues) then it follows logically that they would learn to imitate more advanced concepts (hatred of gays).

You see, it's not that one person is really free and another isn't; it's just the case that one group of people are more-or-less satisfied with the insular encouragement they are receiving from their little group, and the rest of us are pleased with the encouragement we receive from living in the real world.

[athanasios]

And this is why people are "mentally ill" regarding religion: We learn that the choices we make result in more encouragement and acceptance from family members and friends. When we espouse our love for Jesus, everyone in the church with us nods, and smiles at us. They shake our hands, rub our backs, and tell us we're good people. Your relationships with your family are stronger because you reward their beliefs and they reward yours (it's a "vicious cycle" ;) ).

It is true that many denominations use that kind of pressure to enforce their rule and man made doctrines. But for a true Christian it is not that way. On minor issues you may have to restrict your own freedom to make other people happy. A Christian is to give not only to take. But when it comes on serious matters of faith what you mention does not apply at all to a true Christian. To put it simple so even the street man can understand:

I don't give a damn s*** what the family, friends, or the church members will say and do. What I care is what Jesus will say for me.

[ErasOmnius]

Eracist...

You know I have to address this first, of course. Once again, it causes me pain that a person from northern Britain is calling me a racist.

Especially since I am part-Italian, part-Arabic; and married to a part Native American. It is such 'happiness' to be stopped at Detroit Metro Airport and sent to the 'questioning room' for a half an hour simply because I am part Arabic. Oh the 'joy' of having my citizenship challenged by Homeland Security at the Bridge to Canada, when I simply want to drive over and spend the afternoon in Little Italy in Windsor, Ontario. I usually let my wife drive since she is part-Scot/French, in addition to her aboriginal ancestry.

No, you are angry and defining my stand against male homosexuality (who happened to have the highest income of any demographic group in The West) as a stand against racism. Wrong, and you know I won't let you do it.

Male homosexuals have a higher political influence in ratio to their percentage of the population, because they are able to give so much money to give to politicians. Unless they give in to their tendencies to alcoholism, drug addiction, and HIV; because they very rarely have children, they are able to devote themselves a large percentage of the time to 'their cause', gay rights.

It is their desire to merge gay rights with Native American/Hispanic/African-American rights that are wrong and misguided.

Now back to your story/parable...

...the father in my parable wanted their child to marry someone they didn't want to, get a job they didn't enjoy, and live somewhere they hated...

But through it all, the father loved the child immensely, and always wanted what was 'true and right' for the child. As far as the job goes, the father was wrong -- as long as the child accepted the income level of their choices (an artist makes less than a doctor). As far as living goes, it is more important, the child's life-style.

Know where that leads? Alcoholism as escapism until that no longer works and then suicide.

Let me tell you with my own son. He was a womanizer at 16, and an alcoholic at 17 -- and a rebel against everything I believe in. He finally had to admit at age 18 that he needed alcoholism treatment, and we go once a week to group therapy. What I learned there, and from my own alcoholism, is that people drink when they are undisciplined, and when they know what they are doing is wrong.

They are a few suicidal teens in his group. None of them are suicidal because they led good disciplined lives. They are suicidal because they feel that they cannot change from their misguided behavior.

[Dante]

Something that you should learn, Eracist, is that one form of bigotry is much the same as any other. Sure I could call you a bigot, and that would technically be more accurate, but it lacks the verbal punch of calling to mind a form of bigotry that you actually dislike (as opposed to the kinds which you do). So, you get to be a racist, because you're no better than one.

I find it rather presumptuous that you should decide why someone else is suicidal. I also find it interesting that you tacitly agreed with me, "As far as living goes, it is more important, the child's life-style." But that probably just indicates that you didn't understand what you were saying. And of course you ignored the points which actually showed your argument to be a load of tripe. Surprise surprise.

(I note that we're back to talking about homosexuality again. Can't seem to let that go, can you?)

Useless, I do not want to love Eracist. The wonderful thing about my philosophy is that I can be as kindly or as vindictive as I choose to be. Sometimes I choose to be nice, sometimes I choose to be nasty, and in this particular case I want to be nasty. And happily, I can do exactly as I want.

As for faith in god allowing one to overcome genetics, find me someone who can sprout wings through faith alone and then we'll have something to talk about.

You don't insult, me, you're just insane. Clinically.

Freedom:

Technically I can't prove that free will even exists, but if we assume that it does, freedom comes from self-determination. The ability to choose based on personal priorities, not some quasi-mystical mumbo jumbo from an outdated textbook. Freedom of thought, freedom of action. You people who think that freedom comes from submission, you'd be right at home in Airstrip One, wouldn't you? Working for Minitrue, perhaps.

[Wolf]

There's no way for you to justify your views on homosexuality. Once again, you are bringing up this personal obsession of yours that amounts to nothing more than an ugly prejudice, buttressed only barely by a perverse mangling of religious scriptures. If you want to embrace Jesus' actual message, then you must embrace all people, regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality or political view. You can't pick and choose which classes deserve your tolerance: it's all or none, and that is why Dante is justified in calling you a racist. Psychologically, what you do is identical to racism, anyway, and that you abuse your religion to do it, and persecute others within the same faith for not agreeing with you, is as sinful as it is ugly. But, on a final note: you really are a racist. Note that your only defense to charges of racism is the fact that you identify your and your wife's racial identities. Don't you get it? That's racist. Racism is allowing race to play any role in how you view the world, social policy, or relationships. If your race is your only defense to charges of racism, well, that itself is racist. The only way you could have responded to a charge of racism was with, "I treat all people equally, regardless of their racial identity." You didn't. You responded with: "I'm mixed race, and my wife is mixed race, how could either of us be racist?" Your ignorance is stunning, but the form your racism takes is pathetically common. For me, what makes you truly monstrous is your obsessive desire to subjugate male homosexuals to some "defective" status where they must "convert" or perish in some form or another.

But, once again, Liar, you're off-topic. Start a thread on homosexuality if that's what you want to talk about. Honestly, though, it would (and should) be deleted because what you have to say is so reprehensibly offensive that this forum does not tolerate it. Frankly, I'm surprised that you've gotten this far: I was certain racism and homophobia were explicitly banned by forum.