An Afterlife?

For the discussion of spirituality -- from LDS and non-LDS sources
User avatar
mercyngrace
Posts: 517
Joined: 18 Jan 2011, 12:26

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by mercyngrace » 30 Jul 2012, 07:36

InquiringMind wrote:M&G, thanks for sharing your experience. I'm tempted to say that I would like to have an NDE so that I could have such a strong belief in the afterlife, but I don't think I want to be in a position where I am that close do death. I have also found it strange that no NDE I have read about fits the Mormon model of the afterlife. On my mission I taught people that there is a partial judgement immediately after death and that people go to either spirit prison or spirit paradise, but no NDE account that I am aware of has reported this happening. I imagine you've read all of the NDE literature and the potential neurological explanations, but I'm sure that none of the biological explanations can adequately explain the powerful reality of your experience.
I think the concept of a 'partial judgment' is inaccurate. I think what really happens is best described in D&C 88:40

For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

I think we naturally gravitate toward those who are like us and that there is a concerted effort by beings of a higher consciousness to love, educate, and lift up those whose baser natures prevent progress. Celestial beings minister to Terrestrial beings. Terrestrial beings minister to Telestial beings.
Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. ~ Luke 7:47

Roy
Posts: 5760
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by Roy » 30 Jul 2012, 11:15

mercyngrace wrote:I think we naturally gravitate toward those who are like us and that there is a concerted effort by beings of a higher consciousness to love, educate, and lift up those whose baser natures prevent progress. Celestial beings minister to Terrestrial beings. Terrestrial beings minister to Telestial beings.
M&G, your ideas continue to help me find value in the LDS cosmology.

During one painful GD lesson perhaps a year ago, I felt that my views might be incompatible with what I saw as a quid-pro-quo, pay to play, 3 kingdom model. I was heartbroken because I thought that would spell the end for me in the church.

Thanks for helping me to find a foot hold that I could really identify with. Not just hold onto in desperation, but actually renew a sense of awe and wonder as if to see the whole LDS plan of salvation with new eyes.

This is StayLDS at its finest.

(for any that would like to revisit my roadblock moment and M&G’s excellent take on the subject – viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2288&hilit=love+wins&start=20)
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

User avatar
wayfarer
Posts: 1335
Joined: 09 Nov 2011, 15:59
Location: in ye olde world
Contact:

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by wayfarer » 30 Jul 2012, 13:30

mercyngrace wrote:I think the concept of a 'partial judgment' is inaccurate. I think what really happens is best described in D&C 88:40...

I think we naturally gravitate toward those who are like us and that there is a concerted effort by beings of a higher consciousness to love, educate, and lift up those whose baser natures prevent progress. Celestial beings minister to Terrestrial beings. Terrestrial beings minister to Telestial beings.
Isn't Section 88 amazing? So much depth and understanding of the ontology and cosmology of god and nature. Section 88 is what holds me in the church.
Roy wrote:Thanks for helping me to find a foot hold that I could really identify with. Not just hold onto in desperation, but actually renew a sense of awe and wonder as if to see the whole LDS plan of salvation with new eyes.

This is StayLDS at its finest.
Indeed. m&g's insights have enlightened me quite a bit here. It's quite refreshing.
"Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak." Lao Tzu.
My seat in the bloggernacle: http://wayfaringfool.blogspot.com

User avatar
Cadence
Posts: 1174
Joined: 08 Dec 2009, 21:36

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by Cadence » 30 Jul 2012, 17:18

mercyngrace wrote:
I think we naturally gravitate toward those who are like us and that there is a concerted effort by beings of a higher consciousness to love, educate, and lift up those whose baser natures prevent progress. Celestial beings minister to Terrestrial beings. Terrestrial beings minister to Telestial beings.
I have been re reading one of what I consider an interesting book on the spirit world. The title is Life in the World Unseen by Anthony Borgia. It supposedly describes in detail the spirit world and the workings thereof from someone who has been there. ONe of the basic parts of the book is that there are different levels and those in higher levels are constantly working to uplift those in lower ones. We all basically are working on eternal progression. But the world it describes is quite nice so I think if there is an afterlife this would be OK. Do I believe it? Maybe or maybe not. I see no harm in looking forward to an afterlife that is better than this life, but I have no interest in the heaven and hell scenario laid out by most religions. If there is no opportunity for the vilest of the vile to have some chance of progression even if it takes a billion years what is the point of the after life. It would just become an elitist club.

If there is an afterlife I am totally convinced that the particular religion you adhere to has no basis on your standing in the spirit world. It may have helped shape you and helped in your progression in some ways but could just as likely have hindered you. This is why i think it always is best to look for the unvarnished truth in religion as much as possible, and I dislike nuance and rationalization to make something that is mediocre grandiose to satisfy a personal desire for belief.

On the other hand blinking out of existence may not be so bad either. I recently had a medical procedure that required me to be put under. I remember the operating room and the recovery room and everything in between was totally devoid of any memory. It was more profound than any sleep. No dreaming or being half aware of existing like sleep does for me. So if there is no after life I am sure this is what it is like. You just cease to exist and you never know the difference. I find that acceptable if it is to be, but would still go with a cool afterlife if that is the case.
Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction--faith in fiction is a damnable false hope. Thomas A. Edison

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” Neil deGrasse Tyson

User avatar
InquiringMind
Posts: 148
Joined: 08 Jul 2012, 22:46

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by InquiringMind » 31 Jul 2012, 00:25

The discussion has been helpful so far. It's clear to me that if no religion is really the one true religion, then a person's standing in the afterlife would not be affected by which religion they were a part of. I next wonder about God and the afterlife- if there is a God and an afterlife, then why would God create a mortal world for us to live on, and allow humans to be created through evolution to be naturally disposed towards religious belief, but not reveal a one true religion, and instead allow us to choose between a large number of religions that all claim to be the one true religion but are in fact all both partially right and partially wrong? Why would God create people to come up with a huge number of creation myths involving mystical beings with supernatural powers, all of which are ultimately wrong? Why would God create people to come up with all kinds of strict and mutually exclusive methods and rituals (i.e. ordinances) for getting to heaven, all of which turn out to be unnecessary? God could have saved us a whole lot of work- not to mention some bloody religious wars- by just giving us some simple information about reality and telling us that no religion is the only way.

It's possible that there is an afterlife, but no God. The Star Wars universe and (you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong, because I have seen the movies but haven't read the books) the Harry Potter universe are examples of universes where there is an afterlife, but no God. In the Star Wars universe, no one seems to believe that God answers prayers, but there is a clear "netherworld of the Force" where the spirits of the dead go. It's the same with Harry Potter- no one prays or expects God to intervene in human (or wizard) affairs, but there is a clear afterlife. This scenario seems to be the most far-fetched and unlikely, and a naturalistic world where humans really aren't anything more than stuff seems more likely than this scenario.

User avatar
wayfarer
Posts: 1335
Joined: 09 Nov 2011, 15:59
Location: in ye olde world
Contact:

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by wayfarer » 31 Jul 2012, 04:48

InquiringMind wrote:I next wonder about God and the afterlife- if there is a God and an afterlife, then why would God create a mortal world for us to live on, and allow humans to be created through evolution to be naturally disposed towards religious belief, but not reveal a one true religion, and instead allow us to choose between a large number of religions that all claim to be the one true religion but are in fact all both partially right and partially wrong? Why would God create people to come up with a huge number of creation myths involving mystical beings with supernatural powers, all of which are ultimately wrong?
ahhh... Great questions. and yet, you come up with the most common answer:
InquiringMind wrote:It's possible that there is ... no God.
But is this right either? What if our definition of 'god' is entirely wrong? What if Joseph Smith actually got the definition of god right in a moment when he wrote section 88 of the doctrine and covenants, that god is that which infuses the entire universe:
Joseph Smith, in D&C 88:7-13 wrote:...he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.
...That when we observe the workings of nature, we see god moving in power and glory?
Joseph Smith, in D&C 88:45,47 wrote:The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.
Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.
What if we realize that 'a god' is a being, any being, that is one with that power of the universe?
the Psalmist in Psalms 82:6 wrote:I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Jesus, in John 17:21-23 wrote:That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;
Psalm 46:10 wrote:Be still and know that I am god.
3 Ne 27:27 wrote:What manner of men ought ye to be? Even as I AM
Consider the following from John Spong's talk "Beyond Theism":
John Shelby Spong wrote:“Suppose we change our God definition. Suppose we take God out of the sky and strip God of the supernatural power which we have created and placed on this divine being. And suppose we begin to think of God as a presence at the very heart of life. We have to use words, so I use these words without any sense of investing them with more than their meaning will bear.

“If God is the source of life, as I believe that God is, then God is present in all living things. God is present in you, in me, and in the whole created order. And if God is the source of life then the only way you worship God is by living – living fully, sharing life, giving life away, not being afraid, wandering out of the certain into the uncertain, out of the known into the unknown.

“If God is the source of love, as I believe God is, then the only way you can worship God is by loving, not being right, but by loving – by loving wastefully. The image in my mind is an old sink in the basement that you plug up the drains and you turn on all the faucets and the water overflows the boundaries and goes all over the floor and fills up every crack and cranny, every dirty little space and never stops to ask whether that crack deserves this living water, whether that crack deserves this love. You love because love is what you have to do, not because somebody deserves the love – you love wastefully.

“If God is the ground of being, as I believe God is, then the only way you and I can worship God is by having the courage to be all that we can be in the infinite variety of our humanity. Whether we are male or female, gay or straight, transgender or bisexual, white or black or yellow or brown, left handed or right handed, brilliant or not quite so brilliant no matter what the human difference is, you have something to offer in your own being. Nobody else can offer what you have to offer. And the only way you can worship God is by daring to be all that you can be, and not be bound by the fears of yesterday.”
None of your questions can be answered with the standard definition of god, an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being who orchestrates and controls all in the universe through his conscious will. It doesn't make sense. It's a logical impossibility. The truth of god is that there is a power of god, that preceeds all that is, including the 'being' of god. When we flip the concept of god from the being of god precedes his power, and realize that the only real universal omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient thing is the 'power of god', which by very definition is not 'conscious' or 'willful', then we begin to realize that god is not so distant, but rather, within.

So, sure, if we accept the idea of a premortal existence and an afterlife, then Elohim as a 'being' would be god, in that he is one with the already-existent power of god. But to think of the being of Elohim as being the source of that power actually doesn't work if we believe that Elohim was once a man like us. By thinking of god as a 'being' who is one with the eternal power of the universe, we can attribute constancy and universality to Him by virtue of his power, but not by virtue of his being. But this and all other talk about pre-existence, afterlife, Elohim and the cosmology of gods is pure speculation, whether joseph smith said it or not. In fact, there are many definitions and conflicting speculations in JS and BY's thinking of god, so what is the truth?

In my impression, he got it right in Section 88: that the power of God is the universal, and the being of god is subject to the laws of the kingdoms. This effectively flips the definition of god around, but I would say that most people aren't prepared for the implication that a single, personal, conscious god over the universe isn't real and doesn't exist. And because, at some level, Joseph Smith taught this concept, Christians tend to reject mormonism as "Christianity" -- there is merit in that accusation, but we have lost the reason why in our correlated doctrine of today.

Once we set aside our naive, correlated, pseudo-Christian definition of god, we can come to embrace that god is not the distinct, remote big guy in the sky, but rather, "one of us", and as well, an inherent part of our being through the Holy Ghost and our divine nature. When we follow Jesus and choose his Way of Life, then we choose to be one with power of God and thus 'a god'. Then we are of one heart and one mind. Zion.

And rather than thinking of this as a remote, far-off thing in the future, when we come to embrace Dieter Uchtdorf's message that we are, here and now, in the great Middle of our Eternal Lives, then we come to realize that "I AM" is present tense. We are gods, to the extent that we are one with the power of god, and are serving one another in love. When we serve, when we love, we answer the prayers of those who need God's help, and thus we are gods here and now. If worrying about the afterlife takes us out of this vital role in the present, then what does a doctrine of an afterlife serve to do?
"Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak." Lao Tzu.
My seat in the bloggernacle: http://wayfaringfool.blogspot.com

User avatar
DevilsAdvocate
Posts: 1387
Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 12:56
Location: Utah

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by DevilsAdvocate » 31 Jul 2012, 11:11

InquiringMind wrote:I'm really struggling with whether or not to believe in an afterlife...I watched an excellent debate where Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens debated two Jewish rabbis about whether or not there is an afterlife, and none of them could really say for sure; they could only present their tenuous evidence and their beliefs. And as Hitchens said during the debate, there could be God and no afterlife, or there could be an afterlife and no God...The idea that human consciousness ends with the death of the brain is one of the most horrifying ideas I've ever entertained...So I'd be interested to hear whether or not other people believe in an afterlife and why.
I definitely believe in an afterlife mostly because of a few different experiences I have heard about from people I know personally that all lead me to believe that spirits can exist with their own intelligence and knowledge without depending on a physical body. Sure it is only anecdotal evidence so they could technically all either be lying or misinterpreting what their experience means but personally I don't think so. These experiences as well as what looked to me like legitimate "precognition" in a few cases are one reason why it was so hard for me to let go of the idea that the LDS Church has special knowledge and authority because I thought they were explained much better by Mormon theology than atheism which was really the only other option I took seriously for many years.

It was only after I saw that many non-Mormons had also reported similar experiences without ever being inspired to convert to Mormonism that I stopped trying to attach too much extra meaning to these experiences beyond what they suggested on the surface. Given everything I know about so far it would still be a much greater leap of faith for me to assume some of these experiences can really be explained very well as simply being lucky coincidences and figments of the imagination and that the human mind is limited to nothing more than the functioning of a biological computer made out of meat instead of just accepting that these experiences are basically what they appear to be. What I'm not nearly as confident about are some of the assertions about what exactly any afterlife will be like such as that there will supposedly be some final judgment and eternal rewards/punishments based entirely on what we have done in this life.

The whole eternal judgment idea sounds way too convenient for my taste as an all-too-human attempt to manipulate people and it just isn't very motivating to me anymore because I really doubt that most of the people making these claims actually know any more about what exactly will happen when we die than I do. Even Gordon B. Hinckley basically admitted that he didn't know for sure what would happen when we die when Larry King asked him about it and he said, "I'm not fully conversant with that. I haven't passed through that yet...those who walk in obedience may go on to exaltation." I'm sorry but that is not very reassuring to me when trying to justify the total costs the Church is currently asking for in terms of time, money, effort, etc.; what if there is no afterlife or the afterlife ends up being significantly different than the LDS Church teaches and it turns out that there is no special reward for being an obedient Mormon?
"Truth is what works." - William James

User avatar
InquiringMind
Posts: 148
Joined: 08 Jul 2012, 22:46

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by InquiringMind » 01 Aug 2012, 00:29

Wayfarer, what I think I hear you saying is that God is the life-force that permeates the universe rather than an anthropomorphic deity. Your description of God is something like Yoda's description of The Force to Luke Skywalker in the swamp at Degobah. It seems very Stage 5-ish, and rightly so. I've really given up on an anthropomorphic deity, though wiping my mind of it is still not fully accomplished. I still find myself getting angry at or about God and I keep having to remind myself that there's no one to be angry at or about. I keep going through thought processes in my head to demonstrate that an anthropomorphic God is absurd, only to remind myself that I have already reached that conclusion.
I'm sorry but that is not very reassuring to me when trying to justify the total costs the Church is currently asking for in terms of time, money, effort, etc.;
I'm going to be careful not to air too many grievances on this one. I've only recently realized that the Church has asked for nothing less than my whole life, and until recently, I've given it to them. I've realized that it probably won't do me much good to continue to give my whole life to an organization that doesn't have answers to some age-old riddles about life and the divine. I've made some large sacrifices- probably some that I shouldn't have made- to bring myself into mainstream Church cultural compliance. I've made the mistake of hiding some of my best talents because those talents are highly mistrusted in mainstream Church culture, and I'm just now gaining an understanding as to why. I think that the Church makes more promises in exchange for obedience than it really has the power to deliver on, which leaves people (such as myself) feeling confused and shortchanged. I suppose that anything further that I give to the Church, I can give with only the expectation of receiving whatever reward would naturally come from my actions. Rather than approach the Church on the Church's terms and letting the Church own me, which is what I've done, I should be willing to contribute to the Church to the same degree that the Church is able to enrich my life and answer some hard questions. I agree that the Church demands a lot from individuals, and it doesn't seem like a fair trade for such a demanding organization to answer "We don't know" on many tough issues. The Church is what it is, and rather than criticize it, I need to approach Mormonism on my own terms. That's the end of that rant :smile:

User avatar
wayfarer
Posts: 1335
Joined: 09 Nov 2011, 15:59
Location: in ye olde world
Contact:

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by wayfarer » 01 Aug 2012, 05:32

InquiringMind wrote:Wayfarer, what I think I hear you saying is that God is the life-force that permeates the universe rather than an anthropomorphic deity. Your description of God is something like Yoda's description of The Force to Luke Skywalker in the swamp at Degobah. It seems very Stage 5-ish, and rightly so. I've really given up on an anthropomorphic deity, though wiping my mind of it is still not fully accomplished. I still find myself getting angry at or about God and I keep having to remind myself that there's no one to be angry at or about. I keep going through thought processes in my head to demonstrate that an anthropomorphic God is absurd, only to remind myself that I have already reached that conclusion.
Well not quite, but I can see you you can make that conclusion. Words get confused here, because words are insufficiently precise. God is not a life-force, god is a being. the power of god, is a life-force. Where the confusion occurs is because I believe the power of god precedes god, and not the other way around.

The power of god is not god, and indeed it is not power or Force at all. It is the Way things work: the laws and tendencies of things: Nature, without personality, consciousness, or "thing-ness" at all. although Lucas came close, in episodes 1-3, quaigon talks of "the will of the force". Laws and tendencies--nature--do not have "will". the Force seemed to have an aggregate consciousness from all living things -- indeed yoda said that the life-force of living things produces the Force. this is nearly the opposite of the Way/power if God/Nature. Nature--the propensity or tendency for things to operate and to relate to other things in specific Ways, precedes (is prior to) the existence of things, but does not, in and of itself, exist. when we observe the order arising from things as they relate to other things, when we observe the unity and beauty of the way things work together to produce life, we are observing the emergence of the Way, not the Way itself.

Importantly, the Way, God's power itself, is not God, although it's easy to get this confused. scriptures and theologians, even Joseph Smith in early writings such as the Book of Mormon and Sec 88, do and did conflate the power of god with god, assigning to the Way on occasion attributes of will, intention, "Force", and personality. Paul Tillich (source of Spong's influence) defined god not as "a being", but rather the "Ground of Being", the source from which all being arises. This conflating of the Way with God is easy and common, but it nullifies Christian and particularly LDS theology. Moreover, the inanimate 'power of god' has no awareness, consciousness, is impersonal, and has neither will nor intention.

To a precise definition: God is a being in complete harmony with the Way (the Power of God). A 'being' has consciousness, awareness, will, and intention: the Way by itself does not. When a being is one with the Way, then it is conscious and aware of it's unity with all that is, and acts in harmony with all that is. Such a being cannot act outside of nature or supernaturally, nor can it will something that cannot be done. Because it is in harmony, and the Way is entirely about tendency rather than determinism, a god-being does not force anything.

This simple definition works at so many levels. in current LDS teaching, we recognize that Our Father in Heaven is an exalted human, the father of our spirits. He, a human being, resurrected and exalted, is in perfect and complete harmony with His power: The Way. That is what makes Heavenly Father God. Jesus Christ is also one with the Way. He said "I am the Way", and he prayed that we could be one with them in the same Way that Jesus is one with the Father. When two beings are one with the Way, then they are One God (hebrew: Echad), united in purpose, will, and intention. When we, in our service to others, or in giving a blessing or teaching, are one with the Way, or as we say, "have the spirit", then in that moment of complete harmony, we, too, are God. our nonconscious selves are far more in tune with Nature than our conscious minds, so in a very real sense, they constitute "the light of Christ", or the Holy Ghost (god) within us. This is entirely consistent with LDS theology and doctrine in scripture--and understood in this way, LDS theology makes more sense than, say, the Trinitarian concept of God.

The idea that a being in harmony with the Way can become aware of people's individual needs and thus deliver answers to prayers when they operate in harmony of the spirit, enables the 'one god' to truly be everywhere people are needed, and to deliver individual attention to people's needs. God's unity becomes reflective of a divine, spiritual network (a term that Sun Tzu used in the "Art of War", by the way), that allows for a collective non-conscious to be operative everwhere. This is neither magic or supernatural: it's the connecting power of what makes everything work everwhere. god's ubiquitous unity is more real, more tangible, more scientific than any myth-based teaching -- it is the very power of the universe. It is the Way things work. To be in tune with it in our very selves -- to be one with it in our awareness, will, and intention, to be saviors on mount zion to our fellow humans -- is to be god in the fullest sense of the word.

Today, in the LDS efforts to be "Christian", we do not teach or preach anything about the multiplicity and unity of gods, nor do we speak of god as being one with and subject to and limited by god's power, nor do we equate god's power with natural law. we prefer to think of god as the supernatural, all powerful, all knowing, all good, all present, able to individually answer each prayer and make supernatural miracles happen. we prefer to imagine a fantasy where this single, smarter-than-everybody god dictates his will and trillion line project plan to the prophet, who then instructs the church in every divine word proceeding from his mouth. this fictional, santa claus of a god does not exist, because he is a logical impossibility.

yet by teaching of the magical, fictional god of Christian creeds, we create all sorts of unfulfilled expectations. we expect that god can do anything, even violate the laws of physics, logic, and nature, to make our problems go away. it doesn't work that way.
InquiringMind wrote:
I'm sorry but that is not very reassuring to me when trying to justify the total costs the Church is currently asking for in terms of time, money, effort, etc.;
I'm going to be careful not to air too many grievances on this one. I've only recently realized that the Church has asked for nothing less than my whole life, and until recently, I've given it to them. I've realized that it probably won't do me much good to continue to give my whole life to an organization that doesn't have answers to some age-old riddles about life and the divine.
Personally, i find enough space in LDS theology and scripture that my beliefs in the Way and how it works within people can be accommodated. as well, the concept that the gospel is merely "all truth" allows for being objective in my thinking about the church. besides, it's my tribe and culture, and most of my family members are true believers. i staylds, and in order to do so, i need to find the positive. the church for me today is what i make of it...it doesn't make me any longer.
"Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak." Lao Tzu.
My seat in the bloggernacle: http://wayfaringfool.blogspot.com

Brown
Posts: 344
Joined: 28 Feb 2011, 01:23

Re: An Afterlife?

Post by Brown » 04 Aug 2012, 01:49

bc_pg wrote: Perhaps I am unique in this, but to me an eternal afterlife is scary - much more scary than death. The movie Groundhog's day deals with this in a humorous way. Eternity is a really really really long time. Even in heaven I wouldn't want to exist for eternity. To have to exist forever and to never be able to have an end scares me more than death - it would be great for a million years perhaps, but after a google years we would still have eternity left to go - ah the monotony - creepy.
.
You are thinking about how we perceive time now. If we really do become infinite creatures, then time may not even exist as how do you measure the duration of something that never starts nor ends?. Time is already not as finite as we think. Astronauts actually are gone for less time that it takes them to leave and return thanks to an observed phenomenon called time-dilation. Doesn't make sense, but it is true. At really high speeds (not currently possible) a spaceship could travel for what is 1 year to the people inside it, but 100s of years would elapse on earth. All of this is an attempt to say that time is relative and may not be what we think it is. I also don't think the brains we are given as humans are capable of comprehending infinty.

Post Reply