Post-Mortem: A Discussion on the Afterlife

[Wolf]

I believe you are incorrect, Anathasios. Firstly, "a greater whole" need not encompass a divine, self-aware being. Divinity can exist in the form of enlightenment, as well: to my knowledge, Buddhists do still believe in an immaterial existence that occurs following death, and that is the argument at hand here. Secondly, if God exists, Buddhism is not "out," because, presumably, Buddhism would have reflected the same transcendent enlightenment that others achieved through theism.

[ErasOmnius]

Well...

[chatfsh]

And it'd be nice to think all religions point to the original Truth.

The Narrow and Wide Gates

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.  (Matthew 7:13 -14)

"I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." (John 10:9)

[Acriku]

Well of course the Bible is not going to agree with what I said Hwi, it's sole purpose is self-replication on the grand scale of believers. Nothing kills a good meme like one that demotes its superior standing.

[Wolf]

Of course, it's difficult to discern what her point is given that all we're seeing is a completely decontextualized quotation, that is itself a metaphor. Ultimately, we're all left to our own interpretation as to what that passage means... is it an argument against syncreticism? If so, then how does this square with Christianity's highly syncretic nature (it and its doctrines and traditions being a blend of Judaic, Hellenic, Teutonic, and Celtic beliefs)? What evidence is there to suggest that the passage rises above more than a general admonition to follow "the true path"--without giving an indication of what that path might be? Perhaps the "wide gate" refers to the "easy path" that many take, which, for its ease and the laziness it engenders, leads one to inevitable material losses--not necessarily only spiritual. The narrow gate--the one that would naturally be harder to traverse, that few choose to take--is difficult, and perhaps Jesus might be referring to the spiritual strengthening of fortitude that occurs with one's triumph over his challenges.

John 10:9 does not contemplate a Christian monopoly on salvation, as "whoever enters through me will be saved" is not exclusive. It also falls prey to the same issues as anathasios' objection: it is absolutely possible for "me" to refer to the deeper essence at the core of all religions--indeed, they may all be "true." And once again, there is no distinction made between form and essence in this quote. Christ can say, "believe in me, and ye shall be saved," but this is itself highly nuanced: if God's true identity is as we suspect--a primeval, omnipotent, omniscient, universal creator--then although the speakers may vary, "me" would always refer to the same essential "being." Christianity itself, I think, is a very good lens for understanding this idea, through the notion of the trinity (which not all Christians even believe in).

But, I have a question for Hwi: what do you think the afterlife is like?

[ErasOmnius]

If so, then how does this square with Christianity's highly syncretic nature (it and its doctrines and traditions being a blend of Judaic, Hellenic, Teutonic, and Celtic beliefs)?

Interested in the Teutonic and Celtic aspect(s), could you elaborate?

[Wolf]

Ever celebrate Christmas? Ever been to a church in the British Isles? Indeed, the word "Easter" comes from the name of a Germanic and Celtic holiday marking the midpoint between the solstices. (You may not believe it, but the Celts actually once populated most of Central Europe). The list of Pagan influences on Christian traditions, doctrines, organization, culture and architecture are extensive. Old English churches frequently feature carvings of "green men"--a traditional Celtic kind-of gargoyle--to frighten people into being good.

EDIT: But this is all off-topic. Out of things to say on the afterlife?

[Caid Ivik]

Hardly not, but this is on an infinite scale. Nobody could ever deserve it. Just like nobody should ever deserve an eternal hellfire of an existence. Hitler shouldn't deserve it, Mao shouldn't. The worst person in the world is still only ~70 years of horror. To equate that to an eternity of gnashing and weeping and hell is just bad math. Anyone who thinks anybody deserves that certainly does not deserve the opposite.

And it'd be nice to think all religions point to the original Truth. Well not for me since I don't proscribe to any of them, but perhaps my way of living is my religion. Does it need a name? Perhaps the Divinity Above sees beyond my petty deeds and finds the good in me. But if I find myself rising to a level of bliss and infinite reward, I'd seriously ask to be sent back to the oblivious state of death. Well, hopefully anyway.

I'd also question how we cope with eternity. Seems like I wouldn't be the same person if I could spend eternity in the clouds and not go insane. Seems like I wouldn't be me.

Where Christianity and Islam teaches an eternal reward for the life, the logic is that God is eternal and can "grant" something like it. It isn't human, who participates by what he deserves. In comparison, I can reward your post with mere attention and criticism, but I can also make a holy scripture and way of life for me. As a creator of humans, God is also considered a sufficient authority to do so or so without a need to discuss. We can rather ask Christians or Muslims why do we ever need to be judged after death? Why should the Divinity Above ever care for my petty deeds or the good in me? In my view, such a moment exceeds the human expectations for freedom of decision, justice or identity.

[athanasios]

... Indeed, the word "Easter" comes from the name of a Germanic and Celtic holiday marking the midpoint between the solstices. (You may not believe it, but the Celts actually once populated most of Central Europe).

WRONG (or partially correct)! Once again a misleading wikipedia article, even though it mentions about a Greek goddess there.

It comes from the Greek goddess Astarte. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astarte for some details, because again it hide the truth. For a more detailed explanation Google for a christian page of your choice.

And I neither celebrate Easter nor Xmas; these are pagan celebrations. First Christians didn't celebrate them either. No! Christian faith has nothing to do with pagan celebrations.

[ErasOmnius]

Ever celebrate Christmas? Ever been to a church in the British Isles? Indeed, the word "Easter" comes from the name of a Germanic and Celtic holiday marking the midpoint between the solstices. (You may not believe it, but the Celts actually once populated most of Central Europe). The list of Pagan influences on Christian traditions, doctrines, organization, culture and architecture are extensive. Old English churches frequently feature carvings of "green men"--a traditional Celtic kind-of gargoyle--to frighten people into being good.

EDIT: But this is all off-topic. Out of things to say on the afterlife?

You and I agree. They are all Pagan influences. I stripped all Christianized Celtic 'holidays' out of my life. I only observe Jewish holidays now.

The AFTER-LIFE: I could say a great deal on the after-life.

But I would like things to be quiet for a while. It's not really important right now to comment. I've had a nice long weekend [even though I don't celebrate the USA's Independence Day] of travelling with the wife and kids. Don't want to rile anybody up.

[chatfsh]

What do I think the afterlife will be like?

[Lord J]

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra

Awesome episode. Lots of interesting and disinteresting viewpoints here.

Well, I believe that our self-awareness/consciousness depends entirely on the body for its existence, so when the body dies, we simply cease to exist.

Which brings me to my actual beliefs.... Or lack thereof. On the one hand, I agree with SandChigger here. If the physical reality is all there is, then eternal oblivion is the best hope we have. However:

....what's to this thread beyond mere guessing and/or recounting various religious doctrines? We could as well discuss the nature of reality (which sounds more a philosophical question, by the way) - is it for real? an illusion? a dream? does some "objective reality" exist independently of our perception? or is the only reality we may know constructed by our own minds? etc. etc.

 One may assume that the physical reality is an illusion or inadequate. Is there something else out there? Are we brains in a vat? Are we individual consciousnesses that communicate via the physical reality? Are we Gods dream, or even just gods, dreaming? I don't know. Part of the answer, I think, is in psychology. One thing I know for a fact is that human behavior (just as nonhuman, animal behavior) may be accounted for within a context of contingency. In other words, we do things, things happen (or not), and we repeat that behavior class, or not. This suggests to me that at least some facet of what we are is grounded in this physical existence.

 Now according to an interesting theoretical account, memory and consciousness is a matter of the development of neural pathways. If a given neural pathway is activated, BAM! that red tricycle you rode and skinned your knee on. Consciousness (or the illusion thereof) in this theory (or an analogous theory) is produced by an ongoing attention to stimuli, including muscle movement and sensory causality, and the history of correct predictions on the part of your brain for when your body will do something. In other words, we (as living organisms) seem to be extremely sensitive to the successive occurrences of stimuli, which gets to my concept of God, the universe, and everything (as it stands currently).

 Ok, so this is how human behavior works (at least, from everything I have seen). Now given the fact that human behavior is rooted in this physical existence (or at least the various things that happen here) i would seem to me that the soul (which, from all I can tell is the tendency of humans to rationalize their behavior by saying, "I meant to do that!" or "Because I wanted to!") is somewhat blameless in the choices that people make. But let's say that somehow this soul, this rationalization, this illusion lives on after the physical death. Why would God punish or reward them, a: for behavior they were compelled to perform by living in the real world; and b: eternally, with no alterations or chances for downfall or redemption?

 You see, I see God, if he/she/it/them exist(s), as the ultimate behavior analyst. Behavior is selected (much like individual species) for replication or alteration via a process of reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement and punishment only exist to change behavior! Once the behavior is changed, the lesson learned, why continue? And this is where I come to my eventual discard of mainstream abrahamic religions; these religions were clearly created by the the poor, oppressed, and unwanted to give them a feeling of relief, that one day they won't be hungry and poor (walls of jasper, streets of pearl, in heaven? Why) and eternal suffering (what they feel) for those that have done them wrong.

 So do I believe in an afterlife? I don't think so, not given any of the current evidence (this made my wife cry a little when I told her the other night :( ). Now that being said, just because I don't believe it so far doesn't make it not so. Maybe there is an afterlife. The Mormons believe that the saved will go out into space and make new worlds for the gods that have not yet experienced the physical reality (yeah, they don't talk about that stuff when you're being converted). Although I am by far not a Mormon (mmm... frappes), I think this is a more meaningful view of the afterlife than eternal suffering/bliss. But hey, at least if the Mormons are right, there's a chance most of us will still be able to make it some day (Mormons don't believe in Hell, per se).

[athanasios]

Hwi Noree: Very close to my beliefs. But all that about immortals and space exploration and ruling on other Earths... Our planet is not the center of the universe.

[ErasOmnius]

a la Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra

Or is it more like, the

Masaka, Ihat, and Korgano (ST:TNG-Masks) episode?

Or do we die, then are immediately judged (hint, most likley).

I have studied Revelation and Daniel for years, it is discernible.

Hwi Noree: Very close to my beliefs. But all that about immortals and space exploration and ruling on other Earths... Our planet is not the center of the universe.

Read about Doppler red shifts, how they fall into shell groups eminating outward from the center of the Milky Way:

[Acriku]

OT: Not really proving our centrality, just that every galaxy will experience the same thing. Space itself is expanding, much like a balloon blowing up. Although it's a bit odd to feel good from that theory since we're not in the center of the galaxy. Let's face it, we're on the random ass-end of space. Sagan's Pale Blue Dot really brings that concept home.

[Wolf]

Eras: I think it's a bit ridiculous to decline to celebrate Christmas and Easter (among, I'm sure, other holidays--I'm sure Michaelmas and Candlemas are on the chopping block, too) solely for the reason that they have originally "non-Christian" origins. Let's take this logic to it's rational conclusion. If anything that has non-Christian influence cannot be Christian, then what is essentially Christian? In truth: nothing save for the life of Jesus Christ. The religion itself is an outgrowth of Judaism, and though I do get the impression that you hold Jews in some regard, you do not seem to embrace their tenets fully--however, this is criticism best reserved for Eliyyahu to make. In short, you are not Jewish, and if you celebrate only Jewish holidays--which do not recognize the existence of Christ or his divinity--then how do you honor him?

Indeed, there is no way to honor him without an independent invention of your own. Not that this is a bad thing--however, since you've consistently refused to recognize the validity of independent interpretations of the Bible or theological doctrines, it would absolutely smack of a certain unfairness on your part. I suppose you could honor Christ by attempting to lead the life most similar to his, and although I am certain that would be devoid of any "non-Christian" influences, I would hasten to remind you that Christ did not wear underwear, nor did he use the Internet.

Furthermore, I believe you are wrong about immediate judgment. Wiki has a list of of 131 verses that definitively support the notion of "soul sleep" and 11 verses that are ambiguous including many verses that are direct quotes from Jesus Christ.  ("The hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out.") These passages come from Genesis, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Job, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, James, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy. In terms of subsequent interpretations by religious leaders, scientists, politicians, and other celebrities, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Milton, Richard Overton, Thomas Hobbes and Isaac Newton all were proponents of the "soul sleep" theory. I think this is substantial scriptural and past interpretative support. Of course, we must all bear in mind that there is no actual consistency or agreement across the board on the Christian version of the afterlife. Almost all views have some Biblical support, and, indeed, scripture in some places evidently contracts scripture in others. We can play a game of stacking quotes (or not), but ultimately, it seems that God left this part of Christianity... open to interpretation.

Anyway. It's not an important distinction, I think, but it seems that "judgment" occurs at a definitive point at what I think is the end of the material universe. This solves a lot of logical issues with the notion of judgment in the afterlife (well, I think), and it seems to have significant Biblical support.

Hwi: I think a lot of the quotes you mentioned were actually metaphors--mainly those pertaining to the "thousand-year reign," as I know that usage of a "thousand" in ancient traditions was often a metaphorical way of saying "an uncountable number." I do not think it is meant to be taken literally. Also, I think that Revelations is precisely the sort of coded "Darmok and Jalad" message that had meaning for a very specific group of early Christians, who I suppose got the message, or not, but has very little discernible meaning to us today. In other words, I do not think Christ is going to return to slaughter us by the billions, save for 88,000 Jews. I also do not think that the afterlife is grounded in the mundane task of planet farming--anything that we can presently imagine is already something that will eventually bore us. I do not think we will get "human" bodies in the afterlife, (I think that was also metaphor) I believe the "glorified body" is actually a reference to the spiritual "bodies" that drive us, and are essentially fragments of God's divinity.

You seemed rather dismissive of the "pearl of God" idea, and I admit that it's a corny metaphor, but union with God not only has pretty substantial support in all Abrahamic traditions, but it is really the only we can square, logically, a lot of the things our religions teach us. How better to achieve immortality than to be reunited with the conscious essence at the center of creation? Or, to quote Bill Hicks, "all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all the same consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves." (To establish some context, Bill was making a joke about what a "positive" drug story on the news would read like--but he admitted later on that this was actually the only way he could reconcile religion. It's poignant.)  How else to be judged fully? How else to exist apart from the material universe? Basically, eventual reunion with God is pretty much the only way we're going to exist in the afterlife, be able to remember and comprehend the lives we lived, and not get bored. (Besides, for wall we know, perhaps we are reunited with God already? Oh, Heinlein, you creep.) I even think this notion of eventual transcendence is reflected in the Eastern traditions (mainly Buddhism and Taoism). At least, that's what I think.

[Lord J]

You seemed rather dismissive of the "pearl of God" idea, and I admit that it's a corny metaphor, but union with God not only has pretty substantial support in all Abrahamic traditions, but it is really the only we can square, logically, a lot of the things our religions teach us. How better to achieve immortality than to be reunited with the conscious essence at the center of creation? Or, to quote Bill Hicks, "all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all the same consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves." (To establish some context, Bill was making a joke about what a "positive" drug story on the news would read like--but he admitted later on that this was actually the only way he could reconcile religion. It's poignant.)  How else to be judged fully? How else to exist apart from the material universe? Basically, eventual reunion with God is pretty much the only way we're going to exist in the afterlife, be able to remember and comprehend the lives we lived, and not get bored. (Besides, for wall we know, perhaps we are reunited with God already? Oh, Heinlein, you creep.) I even think this notion of eventual transcendence is reflected in the Eastern traditions (mainly Buddhism and Taoism). At least, that's what I think.

Since my break with the traditional literalist concept of "Heaven" I've liked this idea. Actually, this and the Universe-creation/rule hypothesis (not just a planet, but to create a universe and life in my own image...) are my favorites.

I also really like the ideas of vampires, magic, and immortals (a la Highlander).

So here are a set of problems with the idea of going back to God for judgement:

1st, if we are just imaginations of ourselves, why do we make mistakes? Why do some people have more opportunities than others, and why are some people exploited by the world and other people? It's kind of the same argument for why there is probably no god: why is there suffering?

2nd, why would we be judged, or judge ourselves, and what meaning would that judgment have? This part is almost like playing D&D with oneself (though less likely to produce hair growth on one's palm ;) ), what's the point?

Admittedly, these are probably simplistic questions. I don't really have time to give it a whole lot of thought right now.

[ErasOmnius]

What about the Season 7 episode of 'Masks', from the The Next Generation? You did not comment about that.

I like it, although I know that a lot of fans dis-like intensely.

I think it's hilarious and admirable when Data is crouching around impersonating Ihat, a sacrifice to Masaka, the goddess of the Sun. Then Brent Spiner pulls off a great character change, and impersonates Masaka herself. Only Picard could pull off Korgano, the moon god, who puts Masaka back into her shell.

[Wolf]

Eras: I didn't comment on it, and I'm not going to comment on it because it really is basically off-topic, and your insistence that I comment on it seems like trolling-type behavior--though, admittedly, I don't know exactly how. It's just in the same mold. So, being more or less completely bemused by your fixation on it, I am telling you that I have nothing to say.

Lord Johnsonius: They aren't simplistic questions at all, they're actually very good questions. Why the need for judgment? Perhaps we've misunderstood precisely what was meant by "judgment" originally, and the reality is that the transition from a corporeal existence to a non-corporeal one involves some sort of fundamental reckoning of ourselves. Who knows: however, in addition to our emotional responses to stimuli in life, I get the feeling that we all have an intuitive understanding of justice. Although we may never be detectably affected by "wrongs" that happen in the world, we have extremely strong emotional and psychological responses to things that we comprehend to be unjust. On the one hand, this could arise solely from evolutionary psychology, and it is simply a complex reaction to behavioral issues among animals. On the other hand, it could relate to something intrinsic about the universe: the universe is about balance. The physical interactions in the universe manifest themselves in laws of conservation, ecosystems and interactions that are founded on the balanced relationships of some objects with others. Indeed, the very purpose of justice in civil litigation isn't so much to correct wrongs but as to balance the interests of parties in litigation. As for crimes and torts, we all know that there's something about the original harm that can never go uncorrected--and this rankles. At the same time, we will seek, nonetheless, to preserve the fundamental rights that even criminals are entitled to. Perhaps our desire for judgment arises from something fundamental about the universe itself: that, in reality, it abhors unadulterated chaos and, no matter what, will always seek to impose some form of stable order. From this perspective, entropy is a fascinating concept, which may indicate that we do not understand fully how the universe works (duh), or that, perhaps, even Gods are eventually mortal--I suppose we'll see.

As for religious judgment, I am uncomfortable with the idea that some souls are obliterated if we are to suppose that all souls are merely reflections or incarnations of something divine. Perhaps, in the end, all are truly forgiven, because all fully comprehend their monstrous deeds and repent on the spot once awakening from the slumber of a corporeal existence. "Hell" might be the anguish caused when a soul "awakens" to comprehend the horrors of their lives--God has nothing to do with it. I don't know. Perhaps that's the point: and religion, at it's core, has always really been an outgrowth of the law, an attempt to control peoples' behavior via nonviolent means. The law does so with the threat of material punishment, religion does so through the promise of metaphysical punishment and reward.

[athanasios]

Read about Doppler red shifts, how they fall into shell groups eminating outward from the center of the Milky Way:

First time that I hear about that theory. What I know and what most scientists conclude is that the universe has no centre. I believe the theory you quoted is stretching data too much. Nevertheless I cannot say much on this subject. It is not my specialty. Someone else to provide insight?

[ErasOmnius]

Eras: I didn't comment on it, and I'm not going to comment on it because it really is basically off-topic, and your insistence that I comment on it seems like trolling-type behavior--though, admittedly, I don't know exactly how. It's just in the same mold. So, being more or less completely bemused by your fixation on it, I am telling you that I have nothing to say.

No, what I am getting at, is that you have completely written off an entire book of the Bible, Revelations. You try to explain your belief in writing it off by talking about linguistics in a Next Generation episode.

I am being semi-sarcastic because the 'Masks' episode of TNG is so hilarious, and because of Spiner's acting. If I were an adherent of a sun/moon god religion, I would be embarassed by the characters of Masaka and Korgano--and I would completely write off my astrological/astronomical religion.

But it is a good episode, because Spiner does such a good job of imitating the sacrifice Ihat, and the sun goddess Masaka.

I asked you in a topic that was locked, Evangelical Lutheran or Wisconsin Synod?

[Acriku]

I am being semi-sarcastic because the 'Masks' episode of TNG is so hilarious, and because of Spiner's acting. If I were an adherent of a sun/moon god religion, I would be embarassed by the characters of Masaka and Korgano--and I would completely write off my astrological/astronomical religion.

The irony is EXPLODING out of my eyes.

Is it fair to say you take Revelations literally in every word? Because it seems very anti-Jesus, or rather do I have it backwards? This loving thy neighbor and enemies business was the build-up to the world's longest joke - God says SIKE! The doom of the billions of people involves torture, mayhem, chaos, and sacrifice. All because Jesus came back. :) Perhaps the Jews will find comfort that the lovey-dovey Jesus was only temporary, finding themselves returned to the good old OT God of wrath and temper.

[Wolf]

No, what I am getting at, is that you have completely written off an entire book of the Bible, Revelations. You try to explain your belief in writing it off by talking about linguistics in a Next Generation episode.

The point wasn't about "linguistics" (ask Chigger what that means), the point was about metaphor. The entire book of Revelations is an extended, highly-complex metaphor that was probably intended for a very specific audience. They don't exist any more. Whatever meaning was to be found there is likely to remain undiscovered by us, and it certainly does not lie in a facial acceptance of the literal words of the book. "Darmok" was merely a method of explaining that in short-hand. You apparently didn't "get it." Do you see the latent irony?

I am being semi-sarcastic because the 'Masks' episode of TNG is so hilarious, and because of Spiner's acting. If I were an adherent of a sun/moon god religion, I would be embarassed by the characters of Masaka and Korgano--and I would completely write off my astrological/astronomical religion.

So, you're basically saying I'm right? About both religion and your attempt at trolling?

[chatfsh]

I think a lot of the quotes you mentioned were actually metaphors--mainly those pertaining to the "thousand-year reign," as I know that usage of a "thousand" in ancient traditions was often a metaphorical way of saying "an uncountable number." I do not think it is meant to be taken literally. Also, I think that Revelations is precisely the sort of coded "Darmok and Jalad" message that had meaning for a very specific group of early Christians, who I suppose got the message, or not, but has very little discernible meaning to us today.

I do not see any reason to believe that these passages concerning the millennial reign should not be taken literally.  Throughout the Old Testament, various prophecies foretold the events that would take place in the Messiah

[Acriku]

I do not see any reason to believe that these passages concerning the millennial reign should not be taken literally.  Throughout the Old Testament, various prophecies foretold the events that would take place in the Messiah