Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: I also don't know if IC believes that Jesus is exclusive to his own version of Christianity, it might be an interesting question to ask him.

It doesn't matter what he believes, it's his thinly veiled contempt for anyone who doesn't believe the same thing that I'm referring to.

To me, that's an odd way of looking at it. I would rather tend to think that the "contemptuous" way to treat someone's religion or ideology is to act is if it's the same as anybody else's. For instance, I can't think of a much more contemptuous thing to say to a Buddhist than, "You have nothing in your religion that Catholics/Mormons/Agnostics/Muslims/ Rastafarians don't also have." That would seem to me to be a way of telling them, "I don't need to listen to any of the particulars of your view, because you have nothing special to offer the world."

On the other hand, to recognize each ideology or belief system as unique in its differences seems to me to be by far the more respectful way to respond to pluralism. To take their strong claims seriously, and to respect them enough to challenge them...that seems to me anything but "contemptuous."

But whatever.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:I find that description somewhat similar to the Christian model. The main aim still appears to be either complete or near-absorption by God.

Au contraire, in Christianity individual identity is sacred, the body is a gift, not a "flesh prison" of the spirit, and nobody is "absorbed" into the Divine, as they are in Buddhism. Buddhism aims at "Nirvana," which is not a "heaven" or even an "afterlife" per se, but rather a state of soul-extinction, for which Buddhists use analogies like a drop of water dissipating into the ocean or a flame being blown out.

I still think that "heaven" is absorption. There's been much Christian talk of basking in God's love, as though heaven involves humans basking in front of God like a group of fat iguanas on a sunny rock. C'mon, they are talking about being subsumed, for sure. If not, what happens after the basking is done?

Note that people's happiest moments invariably coincide with times when the self is most subsumed. Our egos and identities are merely useful evolutionary and social adaptations that lie within much larger and more important dynamics.

Ultimately the "self" - created by genetics and conditioning - is just a description of a person's programmed limitations as they operate as a small part of large collective movements. If the afterlife is real, then the part that would survive death is going to be the part of us that is already God/spirit/the essence/the source/whatever.

Greta wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:I find that description somewhat similar to the Christian model. The main aim still appears to be either complete or near-absorption by God.

Au contraire, in Christianity individual identity is sacred, the body is a gift, not a "flesh prison" of the spirit, and nobody is "absorbed" into the Divine, as they are in Buddhism. Buddhism aims at "Nirvana," which is not a "heaven" or even an "afterlife" per se, but rather a state of soul-extinction, for which Buddhists use analogies like a drop of water dissipating into the ocean or a flame being blown out.

I still think that "heaven" is absorption. There's been much Christian talk of basking in God's love, as though heaven involves humans basking in front of God like a group of fat iguanas on a sunny rock. C'mon, they are talking about being subsumed, for sure. If not, what happens after the basking is done?

Note that people's happiest moments invariably coincide with times when the self is most subsumed. Our egos and identities are merely useful evolutionary and social adaptations that lie within much larger and more important dynamics.

Ultimately the "self" - created by genetics and conditioning - is just a description of a person's programmed limitations as they operate as a small part of large collective movements. If the afterlife is real, then the part that would survive death is going to be the part of us that is already God/spirit/the essence/the source/whatever.

Someone told my father that heaven would be praising God and singing his praises all day long, that was this persons idea of heaven. My father commented that if that was what heaven was, he didn't know if he wanted to go there, and I had to agree with him. If God is real then Heaven will be tailored to each person, and not be determined by what some fool believes,

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote:I still think that "heaven" is absorption. There's been much Christian talk of basking in God's love, as though heaven involves humans basking in front of God like a group of fat iguanas on a sunny rock. C'mon, they are talking about being subsumed, for sure. If not, what happens after the basking is done?

Note that people's happiest moments invariably coincide with times when the self is most subsumed. Our egos and identities are merely useful evolutionary and social adaptations that lie within much larger and more important dynamics.

Ultimately the "self" - created by genetics and conditioning - is just a description of a person's programmed limitations as they operate as a small part of large collective movements. If the afterlife is real, then the part that would survive death is going to be the part of us that is already God/spirit/the essence/the source/whatever.

Someone told my father that heaven would be praising God and singing his praises all day long, that was this persons idea of heaven. My father commented that if that was what heaven was, he didn't know if he wanted to go there, and I had to agree with him. If God is real then Heaven will be tailored to each person, and not be determined by what some fool believes,

Maybe if one was without a brain or glands or a digestive system then spending eternity toadying up to the boss would be fun? :)

Heaven. Sharing a gigantic blunt with friends while sitting in the front row of a Pat Metheny band concert played just for us. However, when Pat's dead he might figure he can get better afterlife gigs than that. Will he be subject to my wishes like the 72 virgins forced into sexual slavery in a Muslim fundamentalist man's heaven? What of the virgins' heaven?

If the desired others in one's heaven are not real (because the real version is having their own heaven) then what are they? Seemingly they are just objectified ciphers of the real thing. Spending eternity with mere facsimiles of admired or loved ones doesn't seem so heavenly, though, nor the objectification per se.

Your thoughts on these logical inconsistencies?

Greta wrote:There's been much Christian talk of basking in God's love, as though heaven involves humans basking in front of God like a group of fat iguanas on a sunny rock.

Not any I've heard. I suspect you're channelling the portrait their detractors paint of them. It's certainly nothing orthodox, and if anybody believes it they're just in need of studying their theology a bit more, I would suggest.

Our egos and identities are merely useful evolutionary and social adaptations that lie within much larger and more important dynamics.

Christianity denies this, just as it also denies the destruction of the body. In Christianity, identities are eternal, as is personhood, consciousness, individuality and will. Christianity is "incarnational," if I can use that word. If God came in the flesh, then flesh itself cannot any longer be thought to be inherently evil or dispensable to identity, as it is in Hinduism, Buddhism or other forms of mysticism and Gnosticism.

Ultimately the "self" - created by genetics and conditioning - is just a description of a person's programmed limitations as they operate as a small part of large collective movements.

This is the Materialists portrait of things. But I think it's reductional. I also would suggest that even Materialists don't act like they really believe that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Our egos and identities are merely useful evolutionary and social adaptations that lie within much larger and more important dynamics.

Christianity denies this, just as it also denies the destruction of the body. In Christianity, identities are eternal, as is personhood, consciousness, individuality and will. Christianity is "incarnational," if I can use that word. If God came in the flesh, then flesh itself cannot any longer be thought to be inherently evil or dispensable to identity, as it is in Hinduism, Buddhism or other forms of mysticism and Gnosticism.

Re: Christianity denying the destruction of the body ... what do you mean by "body" here?

If the 4D Minkowski block universe is real and not merely a model then, yes, all that we are and ever have been is eternal. Most pundits seem to consider it to just be a model, though.

It's hard not to blame Indians from figuring that the flesh and life are terrible things. It seems like a difficult country to live in.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Ultimately the "self" - created by genetics and conditioning - is just a description of a person's programmed limitations as they operate as a small part of large collective movements.

This is the Materialists portrait of things. But I think it's reductional. I also would suggest that even Materialists don't act like they really believe that.

It's just logic. What genetic attributes do you have? A certain amount of intelligence, say. Alas, you and I are genetically predisposed to be bright, but not geniuses like Albert Einstein. A programmed limitation. I have always been myopic (in more ways than one haha) - a programmed limitation. I also note my failure to look like Elle McPherson or Nicole Kidman. More predisposed limits. Probably just as well, really.

Personal identity is everything to us in life but once you die, all that biological and mental machinery has finished its job. If there's an "essence of being" that hangs around after death, who can say? Most say no, but I think firm opinions here are premature. There is still much about the nature of reality that we don't know.

Greta wrote: Re: Christianity denying the destruction of the body ... what do you mean by "body" here?

I just mean the strictly physical component of our being. The brain, not the mind, the limbs, not the person, the body, not the conscious property that animates it. Locke would have said it was the "divisible" part of us, not the "indivisible."

It's hard not to blame Indians from figuring that the flesh and life are terrible things. It seems like a difficult country to live in.

I think that's quite right. I don't imagine it was an accident that Hinduism and it's successor, Buddhism, both were inclined to dismiss the physical world and the human body as locations of pain and misery, and nothing more. Life on the Indian subcontinent has historically been pretty darn hard.

Personal identity is everything to us in life but once you die, all that biological and mental machinery has finished its job.

Christianity does not think it's disposable. That's a big difference from the Hindu and Buddhist ways of seeing things. Christianity says the body is "fallen," meaning "temporarily flawed and out of sync with its Creator," but also "redeemable," meaning God can and will fix that situation and restore the body after death -- not just save the soul.

This is one implication of the Resurrection, you see: it shows that God intends that those who go through death will go THROUGH it, not remain in it. And just as Jesus Christ returned in a body, so will the human soul associated with Him. But it is not as in Buddhism or Hinduism, that the soul can go without a body and thus be reabsorbed into the Divine; rather, human personhood is both precious and permanent...body and soul.

If there's an "essence of being" that hangs around after death, who can say?

Well, God, presumably, if such exists, no? And perhaps as well, someone who had undergone death...though if they really had, presumably they'd also lack means to communicate that to us, apart from an act of God again.

So we'd all be in the dark about that, if all we're doing is guessing; but not if God said something about it.

thedoc wrote:

Dubious wrote:It's the "doing" in Buddhism more than the "believing" required by Christianity which separates the two. B is more active than C in the discovery phase of oneself.

There are 2 different approaches to similar ends. In Christianity it is taught that if you believe, then you will act in the correct way. In Buddhism it is taught that you should act a certain way, and then you will believe correctly. However in Christianity it is stated that the actions come from the belief, but in Buddhism it is not stated but assumed that it will happen.

Clever but a little simplistic. As we all know Buddhism strives for enlightenment which means long periods of practice going forward which belief, per se, is not required to do since 'acceptance' is its modality. It is not belief which causes that focus on Enlightenment but on the mind's ability to accomplish its own psychological metanoia through hard practice. It begins with the human ability of working one's way up through insight, meditation, etc., Buddhism being more of a methodology than an actual religion though it's called that. Enlightenment encompasses much more than simply believing correctly.

Christianity, by comparison, is a "top-down" paradigm of revelation in which belief is a precondition to get the process rolling by submitting to what is already revealed.

Dubious wrote: As we all know Buddhism strives for enlightenment.

Many years ago I read a lot about Buddhism, and one of the things I read was that everyone is enlightened, but most do not know it. So I decided that since I was already enlightened, but just didn't know it, I would skip all the hard work and play with my grandchildren.

thedoc wrote:

Dubious wrote: As we all know Buddhism strives for enlightenment.

Many years ago I read a lot about Buddhism, and one of the things I read was that everyone is enlightened, but most do not know it. So I decided that since I was already enlightened, but just didn't know it, I would skip all the hard work and play with my grandchildren.

Sometimes something is said which makes complete sense! Buddha would approve!

Greta wrote: Heaven. Sharing a gigantic blunt with friends while sitting in the front row of a Pat Metheny band concert played just for us. However, when Pat's dead he might figure he can get better afterlife gigs than that. Will he be subject to my wishes like the 72 virgins forced into sexual slavery in a Muslim fundamentalist man's heaven? What of the virgins' heaven?

Right you are, Greta.

The utter absurdity of a group of severely brainwashed human males thinking that Allah is nothing more than a cosmic pimp who is going to provide them with a large collection of female sex slaves (with magical vaginas, no less) is mind blowing.

I would suggest that the more fitting name for Islam is “Hislam,” for it is obvious that the Muslim afterlife is a man’s paradise with absolutely nothing to offer for females in terms of equity (kind of like their template that’s already in play here on earth).

Greta wrote: If the desired others in one's heaven are not real (because the real version is having their own heaven) then what are they? Seemingly they are just objectified ciphers of the real thing. Spending eternity with mere facsimiles of admired or loved ones doesn't seem so heavenly, though, nor the objectification per se.

Your thoughts on these logical inconsistencies?

My thoughts on those logical inconsistencies are that most (if not all) human visions of the afterlife are nonsense, and that our ultimate form and eternal purpose (if, indeed, we have an “eternal purpose”) will make absolute sense to us once it is revealed.
_______

Immanuel Can wrote:To take their strong claims seriously, and to respect them enough to challenge them...that seems to me anything but "contemptuous."

Why challenge other beliefs? You have shown an absolute unwillingness to modify any of your beliefs despite some perfectly valid arguments against them. Given this, is it respectful to expect anyone else to change their beliefs in response to anything you say.

Harbal wrote: Why challenge other beliefs?

Because they offer a serious challenge.

One should consider what other people say, but not capitulate merely because they say it. Once should subject everything to thoughtful scrutiny...that is, if you suppose it to be a serious proposition...but still accept only that which is compelling after reflection.

You have shown an absolute unwillingness to modify any of your beliefs despite some perfectly valid arguments against them.

If that's your impression, then I don't agree. Of course, your impression is your impression. What more can be said about that?

Given this, is it respectful to expect anyone else to change their beliefs in response to anything you say?

That depends: if you consider me closed-minded, do you consider them the same? Or do you consider them as possibly better than that?

You see, it doesn't really matter what I am: it only matters whether or not what I might say in a given instance is the truth. If it is, then they should believe it, no matter what they may suppose about me. Or they can take your view, that personal impressions and not truth matter. Then they'll shut down, perhaps. We shall see.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:To take their strong claims seriously, and to respect them enough to challenge them...that seems to me anything but "contemptuous."

Why challenge other beliefs? You have shown an absolute unwillingness to modify any of your beliefs despite some perfectly valid arguments against them. Given this, is it respectful to expect anyone else to change their beliefs in response to anything you say.

Certainly, just because someone believes something, doesn't make it right, If IC's beliefs are right, it makes perfect sense for him to expect others to change their beliefs from being wrong to being right. Sometimes the greatest respect is to correct another's mistaken ideas.

Immanuel Can wrote: You see, it doesn't really matter what I am: it only matters whether or not what I might say in a given instance is the truth.

If religion is worth anything why would you want to interfere with anyone else's?