Of another world

[davem]

Of course belief is necessary – we believe lots of things all the time. When I go to cross the street at a pedestrian crossing I wait till the traffic stops & step into the road, believing that all the drivers will wait for the lights to change before they start off. When I get into a lift I believe that the cables will hold & I won't go plummeting 18 floors to my death. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

But this approach is necessary to function in the world & is entirely different to simply believing a text to be the word of God. Belief, in other words, serves an evolutionary function, it is a survival tool. Unfortunately, it has become divorced from its practical & wholly necessary purpose, & combined with the human capacity for creative fantasy has come to produce all kinds of odd ideas & attitudes.

Experience of the transcendent, on the other hand, is a different thing, & has nothing to do with belief. Of course, books (whether novels or sacred' texts) may open us up to an experience of higher/deeper aspects/levels of 'reality'. This is the Eucatastrophic experience. But just as the fact that we can experience this through Tolkien's works but this does not prove that they are literally true history I would say the same about the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. I'm not arguing that you don't experience 'transcendence' through the words of the Bible, I'm just arguing that that doesn't prove its historical veracity.

Formendacil I suppose the difference between becoming an adult & the afterlife is that we know (barring accidents) that we will grow up – it has nothing to do with 'belief'. The afterlife is precisely a matter of belief, & hence is 'optional' from the point of view of whether we accept it or not. Its not about a 'fear' of entering into a 'higher' state of being, its whether the idea appeals.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course belief is necessary – we believe lots of things all the time. When I go to cross the street at a pedestrian crossing I wait till the traffic stops & step into the road, believing that all the drivers will wait for the lights to change before they start off. When I get into a lift I believe that the cables will hold & I won't go plummeting 18 floors to my death. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

You say 'believe' but it's not the same. You may have faith that the cables will hold, the sun will rise and that the drivers will wait (that's my hardest one to accept ), but this faith/believing is based on experience. The first time you get on an escalator, you might be afraid as the thing looks to be a large set of teeth. The person who may be accompanying you, a parent perhaps, may also be apprehensive as he/she may not have taken one so small onto one of the things. It's practice and repeated affirmation that makes escalator...well...pedestrian and eventually unnoticed. That's definitely not blind faith.

Formendacil speaks of apprehension of becoming an adult, and many of us have been there. Getting married, having children (I'm a goof! yet now have four little ones dependent on me - how screwed up is that?), experiencing the loss of a parent (you can't go home anymore) - it's all about dealing with change. But his analogy, like many (and by no fault of his), falls short. We have seen others grow to adulthood and experience all that that offers and entails. Some of us have even seen people die, and so know what that looks like.

But who has seen what happens after?

No one. We all face the unknown when we die. No one has come back and said what the ride was like. Even Jesus and those that were brought back did not describe how it works, what it felt like, and so we have no idea what to expect. As humans we abhor holes in what we know, and extrapolate (or fantasize) to fill in the gaps.

By the by, near death experiences (nde) are just physiological - like dreams in a way. Note that no nde'er ever comes back stating that he/she was in a very hot place.

But this approach is necessary to function in the world & is entirely different to simply believing a text to be the word of God. Belief, in other words, serves an evolutionary function, it is a survival tool. Unfortunately, it has become divorced from its practical & wholly necessary purpose, & combined with the human capacity for creative fantasy has come to produce all kinds of odd ideas & attitudes.

People state that belief in the supernatural by peoples across the globe must mean that there's something to it. Each culture can point and say, "see, we all have God in our hearts" or something. Another possible, and more probable, explanation is that a 'believing' brain imparted a survival advantage to our early ancestors. Guessing, intuition, a 'religion' when practiced would allow for a tribe to survive better than one that had to have everything weighed to a nicety. The obvious advantage is that a leader of such a people could get the tribe to accept hardship for the promise of something better later.

And, like davem states, this hardwiring can get used and abused in all sorts of ways. Think that the whole advertising industry takes advantage of this inherited trait.

Hope that that makes some sense.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

Formendacil I suppose the difference between becoming an adult & the afterlife is that we know (barring accidents) that we will grow up – it has nothing to do with 'belief'. The afterlife is precisely a matter of belief, & hence is 'optional' from the point of view of whether we accept it or not. Its not about a 'fear' of entering into a 'higher' state of being, its whether the idea appeals.

No, I'm inclined to think otherwise...

The afterlife is no more optional than adulthood- it's going to happen eventually. Just like the body inevitably matures, we all inevitably die. However, just as actually growing up- with regards to one's brain or maturity- isn't an automatic process, since people often tend to remain immature and childless past the time they OUGHT to become mature adults, I suppose it's possible for you to "refuse to grow up" or "refuse to have an afterlife"- but quite frankly, I don't think it's optional. You had to grow up, like it or not, and you have to go somewhere after death.

Now, it should be clear that I'm convinced there is an afterlife. But even if I were to say "no, there is no afterlife", I'd still have problems with your statement. What you seem to be saying is that the afterlife is optional. It isn't. If it exists, we're all going to go SOMEWHERE. If it doesn't, we're all losers, from the Pope on down. But either way, it isn't something that is optional.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Now, it should be clear that I'm convinced there is an afterlife. But even if I were to say "no, there is no afterlife", I'd still have problems with your statement. What you seem to be saying is that the afterlife is optional. It isn't. If it exists, we're all going to go SOMEWHERE. If it doesn't, we're all losers, from the Pope on down. But either way, it isn't something that is optional.

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined. I have to say that when I was your age (a very long time ago ) it kind of appealed, but now I find it interests me less & less as a concept. I know that when you're young there is this desire to live forever (which is why I think so many teenage readers are drawn to the Elves).

Personally, it all seems a lot of hassle. If it happens it happens, if it doesn't, fine. I can't help feeling that if people were less obsessed with the idea we'd all be a lot better off - it would probably get rid of suicide bombers at a stroke, as they all seem to be obsessed with getting to heaven & collecting their Houris at the gate..

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined. I have to say that when I was your age (a very long time ago ) it kind of appealed, but now I find it interests me less & less as a concept. I know that when you're young there is this desire to live forever (which is why I think so many teenage readers are drawn to the Elves).

I've observed the same, and it's interesting that younger people may be drawn to the elves as they are both immortal and (at least) outwardly beautiful (if not perfect). Also, younger people have less of a sense of their own mortality which is what fuels the crazy (and sometimes destructive) behavior.

As one gets older, the elf-appeal is less as is the adrenaline addiction. You think more about the day. Will have to let you know sometime later if one's thoughts return again to 'afterlife.' We could have a poll that could correlate age with 'afterlife thinkingness'.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Far be it from me to create the climate. It is hate and fear and lust (for power) and envy in the heart of humans that creates such a climate, not beliefs based on religious or spiritual texts.

Much agreed. Religion/belief systems aren't responsible for all of the problems that we experience in this world, and I think that it's just that animal inside us. Some choose to point at the devil as the cause for such evils, and like our discussion about God, I think that this incarnate evil is just another convenient excuse that creates a certain world view.

[drigel]

Originally Posted by alatar

As one gets older, the elf-appeal is less as is the adrenaline addiction. You think more about the day. Will have to let you know sometime later if one's thoughts return again to 'afterlife.' We could have a poll that could correlate age with 'afterlife thinkingness'.

speak for yourself not that im fixated with, or even have a concrete opinion of an afterlife...
I think the whole escape thing is what younger people are drawn towards with the works. It did for me anyways.
I just think elves have far more interesting lives

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined.

Well, loser is perhaps not the best word to use... but one should remember that from my perspective there IS an afterlife, and it IS worth attaining. Therefore, those who strive for it and don't attain it are, from that point of view, losers.

But my basic point- with regards to that- is that it doesn't matter if you believe in an afterlife or not. Either way, either everyone gets it or everyone doesn't.

As regards the new- and intriguing- "Teenagers Are Attracted to Youth", I think there may be a good deal of truth in the suggestion that the immortality is what attracts the Young to the Elves. Now, while it may sound rather silly for me- as a 19 year old- to go putting myself in the Elderly Camp, I've found that, as I age, and as I realize the inevitability of death (attending funerals on a regular basis will do this even to the Young), I've also come to realise what a GIFT it is. Christian Theology being in agreement or not, life as we live it in this Fallen state, Death is a release, an end to the weariness of this fallen world...

... and so the Elves still intrigue me. But not because they live for ever, but because I'm beginning to sympathise with their envy of the Gift of Men. I think my choice would have been the Choice of Elros.

[davem]

I'm not denying the 'transcendent' experience. I've personally experienced things, met beings, inhabitants of other 'realities' - which I've mentioned before. I've had moments where, for want of a better term, I've glimpsed 'eternity'.

But that's not the argument here. My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it, of constructing complex theories & fantasies about what happens after we die. From the perspective of eternity there is only 'now' & there will only ever be 'now'. This idea that something wholly 'other' will happen to us after our bodies die, that we have to take account of what we will be or not be after that happens, that we have to do certain things now in order to attain something 'good' then, or that we have to live now in fear of some terrible fate that may await us then, is simply running away from 'now'. In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is. It attempts to

classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes. Hence, with a belief system as dualistic as Christianity (or Islam), which effectively has only two pigeon-holes: 'Good' & 'Evil' you end up trying to force everything into one or the other, & if something will not fit easily into the 'Good' pigeon-hole then it is forced into the 'Evil' one - hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

As to the 'Choice of Elros' - I think I'd choose mortality too - even if I knew that there was nothing after death.

Anyway...

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

But that's not the argument here. My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it, of constructing complex theories & fantasies about what happens after we die. From the perspective of eternity there is only 'now' & there will only ever be 'now'. This idea that something wholly 'other' will happen to us after our bodies die, that we have to take account of what we will be or not be after that happens, that we have to do certain things now in order to attain something 'good' then, or that we have to live now in fear of some terrible fate that may await us then, is simply running away from 'now'. In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Cause and effect... that's how this world works. People save money for DECADES before they retire- because of the adverse consequences and because they know they'll need it. As for the Afterlife being "wholly other", I wouldn't call that a truly Christian dogma. What we shall live in the Afterlife will, in my view, be similar to and much the same as what we have now- only BETTER, more perfect.

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is.

Tinted lenses... or corrective lenses. I would say that belief acts much the way glasses do: they correct our vision, and bring things into a more correct focus. Yes, we see the world differently- but we are also better off.

It attempts classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes. Hence, with a belief system as dualistic as Christianity (or Islam), which effectively has only two pigeon-holes: 'Good' & 'Evil' you end up trying to force everything into one or the other, & if something will not fit easily into the 'Good' pigeon-hole then it is forced into the 'Evil' one - hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

Humans in general like to pigeonhole things... and it's not necessarily a good tendency. Quite frankly, I would say that Good and Evil cannot be pigeonholed, because both coexist in the same people and situations. We all contain good and we all contain evil. Bad situations can have good side-effects, and the best of situations can have negative impact.

As far as classifying and quantifying the universe goes, religion and science are more alike than either sometimes wishes to think in this matter. It's really only a difference of systems.

[littlemanpoet]

The Kierkegaardian "leap of faith", while perhaps helpful to many who find themselves at reason's dead-end, has also been detrimental in terms of a clear understanding of belief and faith - at least in terms of God. The idea that faith must be the 'tight-rope' one uses to cover those last hundred feet to God because the 'bridge of reason' can't get you there, is flawed because it misconstrues what faith is. Faith in God is no different in its nature than faith in a stranger, friend, or spouse. (This is one more example of unnecessary obstacles getting placed in the way of knowing God.) Everyone trusts even strangers to behave in a certain manner on the merits of past experience with strangers. We trust our friends to behave in certain ways based on our knowledge of them. We trust our spouses to behave in predictable ways because we've spent so much time with them. Now as to God: suddenly we have a special problem as there is only one God compared to many strangers; so how can we predict how God behaves? Well, if there is a God, God will "behave" in a manner consistent with how the world shows that God has behaved in the past. This is not just about human suffering and evil in the world, but about the consistency of all natural materials and phenomena to continue to operate as they have in the past. We trust this. If we do believe there's a God, why do we trust this? Because we implicitly believe that God is a consistent God; so, if we know this about the basic phenomena, why do we suddenly doubt it when we start thinking about human history? It's not God who suddenly weirds out; the only other possibility is that humans are causing the problems.

However, if we do not believe there's a God, but we want to give the possibility an honest chance to prove itself, how do we go about that if we refuse the tight-rope of the 'leap of faith'? There are precisely two ways that I know of:

(1) Do a thorough study of the case for and against the resurrection of Jesus, as Formendacil has indicated.

(2) Risk this one little thing: Ask this God that you don't believe in, to give you the deepest desire of your heart. It does not matter if you don't believe in God. If there is no God, you've lost nothing. If there is a God, then this God, who has revealed himself in the bible, has said to us that this is one prayer he will always answer, because He is a God of love. It doesn't matter whether you know what this deepest desire is. The fact is, you probably don't know, even if you think you do. If there is no God, you still have lost nothing. If there is a God, He will honor this request and make himself known to you beyond any doubt. This is a highly personal "test", and the only one that I know of that God honors. This is so because God is a highly personal Being. This is different from the leap of faith because in the leap of faith, the human has to do all the work. In this test that I have described, you simply make a request, with or without any faith at all, asking God to be true to his promise. Whether you believe he will or not, doesn't matter. It's up to him to show you that he exists and loves you. Or there's no such being and you're merely disappointed and move on with your life.

Originally Posted by davem

I think that one could argue that God must be bound by a moral code of right & wrong, & that He cannot simply set aside those rules.

Question: if God, the author and sustainer of all things, including the moral code, were to sin against Himself, would existence continue? I think not. If he cannot control Himself, how can we expect him to consistently sustain life as we know it? That he does, argues against the possibility that he has ever broken his own moral code. In addition, you have caught yourself in a failure of vision and perspective. God's view encompasses both this life and the next. Momentary physical pain, even on a mass scale, is although obviously tragic, not the whole picture. We don't and can't know the mind of God, or we would be God. However, the second letter of Peter tells us that Noah was a preacher of righteousness, and that the people who could have listened, refused to, for a very long time. They had plenty of opportunity to repent, and refused to.

Originally Posted by davem

I'd say its perfectly valid to judge God by the standards of Good & evil which He Himself set down or He is being hypocritical.

Except that you and I are Fallen and have very limited vision, having lost our right to it by our disobedience. How can we presume to judge God if we can't even know ourselves honestly at all times?

davem, in your reply to my statement that belief and unbelief are a choice, you set up a paper tiger then knock it down. Not much effort involved in that. I did not say that the choice to believe is trivial as choosing a drink, you have put those words in my mouth. Ptooey! The choice to believe or not is most certainly NOT trivial, but it is most certainly a matter of volition; the most serious there is, as it involves one's ultimate destiny.

Originally Posted by alatar

How many years did man have to wait until God reached out with His grace? How many years did man toil under the Law until it was shown to be only a guide?

First, Jesus says that he fulfilled the Law, not that it was only a guide. The Law still stands; however, his acts have paid the debt the Law required, in full. Second, (I may be wrong about this but) I know of no Scripture that discounts the power of God's redemption through Jesus Christ to work backwards through time as well as into the future. This is, however, currently of a speculative nature and I need to do further study.

Originally Posted by alatar

If God intended on wiping out the 'dark angel' seed, then He might have chosen a different vehicle, as apparently Noah's children still had the taint.

My understanding of this is that over the course of time there was another falling away from righteousness (no surprise), the resulting vulnerability of which allowed the dark angels to start up their program again.

Originally Posted by alatar

But, in the Christian sense, it does as it's a pretty common occurrence. Isn't that why when Jesus went and raised many from the dead that he was thought to be the return of Elijah? Also, Elisha raised the dead. And didn't the bones of one of the twain also return the dead to life? And I quoted to lmp my confusion with Mark 9:37-39, as it seems that there are 'free-lance' miracle workers in the mix. Anyway, if one believes that the dead can truly be raised, then why not the Resurrection? Is it because Jesus brought Himself back? How do we know that another didn't help?

What stirs in my mind is that the Israelites (Jews), by the time of Jesus, finally succeeded in removing all of the fallen-angel variety of false gods from their land; therefore, the only powers remaining were either demonic or godly. No paganism was left, except perhaps in Samaria; but even there, monotheism had pretty much taken over. The point is that (as Jesus seems to indicate in his comments regarding blaspheming against the Holy Spirit) any resurrections were not only quite NOT normal, they had to be accomplished either by God or by Satan. No middle ground.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So. Why do we always contemplate on the acting subject? It was Adam's (or Eve's) decision, or the murderer's decision, Hitler's or Stalin's decision etc. which we analyze. When do we look at the "innocent" victims: those raped, killed, tortured? The children of Babylon, whose heads should be broken towards the stairs? Those under 10-year-old moslim girls raped and killed in ex-Jugoslavia, The children and women in Ruanda, the gypsies and mentally handicapped in Nazi-Germany... You can continue the list almost indefinitively. When do we ask about their choices, and their deeds? What wrong choice had made the 3-year old, her head crushed on the cement by drunken christian serbs? And we can't say, that the culprits will have to pay later with Gods wrath landing on them: how will that bring that child back?

Jesus, as God and man, while being crucified, suffered every sin, every rape, every atrocity, ever committed. That is what suffering hell on the cross means. It doesn't erase the deed. Nothing can do that. Instead, it heals them. The wounds in Jesus' side, hands, and feet are the evidence of God's promise to do that.

Part of God's foreknowledge was that He would suffer all the wrong ever committed by humans so that He could heal all the wounds of the victimized, and take them all - yes ALL - to be with Him in joy forever. That's why Paul can say (wherever he says it) that he considers the sufferings of this world as nothing compared to the absolutely incredible joy of eternal life in Christ.

Originally Posted by davem

If God's going to intervene against the offenders why doesn't He do it when it would do some good.

If you really thought about it, you know that you don't really want that. Think it through .... including yourself in the mix. Okay, I'll help. If God is going to be expected to do this, He will ALWAYS do it, or else it's unjust, and God is not unjust. Do you want God's justice here and now? No, you don't. You'd die this second. Instead, God has withheld his wrath (which is part of his love by the way) so that God (Jesus) could bear all of it for us, so that we can have his mercy.

Originally Posted by drigel

And neither can science acknowledge the existence, or even possiblity of, a higher power at work in the universe. Yet, as the author did with our pagan ancestors, we have the ability to live in both worlds, no?

Hmmmmm...... I think that science can function quite readily within the framework of not dealing with the existence of God. I think that science can function just as well from a belief in God. Belief in God erases not a single scientific law. So yes, we do have the ability to live in both worlds, if I understand you rightly (not entirely convinced I do...).

My take on the afterlife is that we will be fully physical and fully spiritual, and that God will completely sustain us so that we feel no fear, no terror, no sorrow, but joy and love and more of both. There will be, according to the Scriptures, a new heaven and a new earth. That sounds pretty physical to me. Non-existence is most definitely not preferable to this.

Originally Posted by alatar

this supernatural/nonphysical God

.... is still supernatural, but most definitely physical. Jesus was raised bodily into heaven. God is physical for eternity.

Originally Posted by davem

However, the church seems always to have opposed this idea, mortifying the flesh with fasting, hair shirts, flagelation & the like.

When it did so, it had allowed itself to be talked out of some of that uniqueness into a Platonistic philosophy (Plotinus) that deplored the body. It was a mistake for the Church to let itself get trapped in that.

Originally Posted by davem

The problem for Christianity is that it essentially fears the Creation as something which will seduce humanity away from God, & as something which must be held at arm's length.

I do admire Williams' Affirmation of Images as far as it goes. However, the bible is very clear that because of the Fall, material has been corrupted. This, however, is not the same thing as saying material is EVIL. It isn't. It will be redeemed, and it is a glorious and celebrated thing as it is; Tolkien has shown us this at least. But by itself it is incomplete. It needs God's spirit to redeem and purify it and make it whole again. Thus, the resurrection of the body.

As to what is "you" and what is "not you", because of that bloody Fall, your perception is limited and that which FEELS like you may only be a very persuasive "shadow" (metaphorically) as compared to the spirit which can be made alive in Christ. As COMPARED. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not contradicting myself and turning into a platonist, but speaking metaphorically about something that is hard to find words for.

Here, maybe this will help:

When Christ, for love of splintered light,
of fallen flesh and rotted tree,
of emptied day and fear-filled night,
stooped eagerly from deity
into the blessed Virgin's womb
(enholied by that sacred Leaven),
He gloried hollow atom's tomb
with weight and depth of solid heaven.

Our flesh, now gloried, lucent shines,
as moving streams reflect the sun;
we bodied beings, in Him divine,
now dance and sing, our glory won.
Incarnate Dream! Word in flesh!
Let human words in music, laced
with gloried tongue and throat, express
all praise to Him who flesh has graced!

© 1993, littlemanpoet

Originally Posted by davem

In other words by their nature they exclude & denigrate those who do not experience what they are told they should experience.

This should never be, but alas is too often. The funny thing about this is that my faith insists that those who don't accept Christ are excluding themselves. Is that denigration? If it is, then all Christians denigrate all non-Christians. But I don't think it is. Denigration is to despise, is it not? (my dictionary is not available) May it never be that I despise anyone! I shouldn't, I have no right, because I'm no better than anyone who doesn't believe. Any righteousness I may have comes from Jesus. I recognize that what I just wrote might feel insincere. It's not; it's the way it is. (up to 140)