That's more like it! I think the religious idea of 'the life eternal' is meaningful (although hardly anyone here will agree). In the popular imagination, it is often depicted as living forever in physical form, but I don't think it means that at all. In philiosophical spirituality, such as neoplatonism, it is more a matter of realising that your real nature is not separate from the same intelligence that animates the Universe itself. A similar intuition runs through Hindu and Buddhist literature, but in secular culture this tends to be scorned.

Check out a book that was very popular in the 1970's by a writer who has come back into fashion on Youtube. The book is The Supreme Identity, by Alan Watts. He had a big influence on me and many others back in the day. It turned out he was a pretty hardcore alchoholic, which was a let-down, but his brand of philosophical spirituality is very approachable still and he's an excellent prose stylist.

It sure sounded like a whine.

Sounds like a Christian value system at work here. E.g., the only life which matters is eternal life not the filthy, degraded thing we have here on earth

Maybe Gnostic Christianity, but that sounds more like Neoplatonism. Christ promises everlasting life in the Gospels, not eternal life. Revelations portrays people coming back to life changed, but in this world, not some spirit world of the eternal, having bodies, living in a new Jerusalem, etc.

Even for very literalist Evangelicals, perhaps even moreso for them, this life is of paramount importance because it is only during this stage that choices of everlasting consequence can be made.

Christ promises everlasting life in the Gospels, not eternal life. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Huh? Is there a difference? Eternal life was the term we used in our Baptist Church. Probably from John 12:25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. From Luke 18:18- 30. Teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life? My Dad who grew up in the Protestant Reformed church was taught that the ordinary life was for 'toil and suffering' the only life which matters being your reward in the next realm. That was much Christianity in the 20th Century, the cult of worldly suffering which Nietzsche so despised. But no doubt expressions of Christian doctrine vary. :wink:

Did it now ? If you are gonna insist on being a muppet at least be a cheerful one. See my previous comment.

In philiosophical spirituality, such as neoplatonism, it is more a matter of realising that your real nature is not separate from the same intelligence that animates the Universe itself. A — Wayfarer

This very closely aligns to my idea of eternal life/immortality although I’d go further to say that it can only be granted by the divine or diety or God to its subject via some sort of life force or other mechanism. Perhaps even a sort of unity with the source of creation itself.

But without a doubt our eternal nature cannot be recognised through cognition it only remains a hope that it will be so. It could even be a false hope too for at the end we all just return to dust and that is the end of that.

What leads me to speculate that this may not be the case is simply the gift of life in its current temporary form allowing one to recognise such concepts as infinity or eternity. For existence itself has always been (Liebniz, Russell brute fact etc).

I state existence has always been and did not have a starting point unlike the universe as to not conflate the two.

But back to my initial idea that of a consciousness arising within the universe capable of contemplating such ideas of eternity, infinity or even eternal life.

Without wanting to point to an intelligence behind it for at this point it could not be ruled out there seems to me to be some sort of progression within the universe at least from the creation of nuclear reactions powering stars to the eventual appearance of life up to the current life form, us, Man which seems to be the peak of creation.

This notion that we arose through blind luck or chance is as equally valid as the idea that there’s perhaps a design behind it.

Not to perhaps recognise its creator but just through sheer luck to exist and reflect on existence

The universe really does owe me an explanation for giving me the ability to recognise the fact that I came to be in it in this human form for such a limited amount of time when existence itself is an eternal phenomena…am I not worthy ? — invicta

What did your god say to you when you asked it about this issue you have?

Like dealing with a disgruntled wife I’m getting the silent treatment on this very question. Perhaps I shall have to appease with flowers and cake.

So, are you annoyed/frustrated/angry/deserved of such divine hiddenness?

No such emotion, just mere curiosity as to its motives. He/she does kinda work in mysterious ways. Or maybe it knows me and my big mouth so well that these revelations remain scarce for now.

Yes, the English "eternal life" is used frequently for translating the Greek ζωὴν αἰώνιον, a pairing of the verb aionios and noun zoe, which I believe only shows up in the Gospel of John. More literalist modern translations use "continual," and others use "everlasting," while "eternal" is also common.

The use of eternal is a bit confusing since aionios means "eternal" in modern Greek, but meant "for a lifetime," or "for an age," at the time John was writing."

Zoe is "life," in the sense of "existence," and "substance." In John, we see this phrase referring to God's "everlasting substance" throughout, starting with the opening. I think Jesus uses the word zoe once to refer to biological life, in a contrast of life and death, a turn of phrase in use since Homer.

In John's description, Jesus brings this everlasting substance, life eternal, to man to share in, but this is not a change that appears to have anything to do with "this life," or "this world," it comes from the Spirit (John 6:63), which one can have while living in this current biological life both in John and the rest of the Bible.

A common conflation is this use of this word translated as "life," and translations of bios, biological life, and psuche, first person experience.

For example, psuche is used here in Luke:

"For whoever wants to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it.”

The key difference here is that the "everlasting living substance," is something from God man can share in now, no need to wait for the end of days or one's death in "this life." It doesn't disparage the current life. One can receive the Spirit now (and this is even better than having a living Jesus around according to Jesus himself). In Romans 7, a quite biologically alive Paul talks about his resurrection (from a death of personhood in sin), in a similar vein.

What Luke is talking about is more: "don't worry about dying now, because there is the (personal) resurrection."

When the Bible talks about the next life, that's resurrection, anastasis, coming back to life in your/a body on the new Earth. Obviously, John, and even more Revelations can also be taken symbolically, but these two books were either written by the same person or the same early tradition created by the same person, so the difference in use of terms is also less likely to be just stylistic habits.


This distinction exists in Baptist theology, although popular religion really blurs the lines at times. Now arguably, John I was meant as a more Gnostic commentary, this is certainly what Gnostics believed, and there are ancient Gnostic commentaries in I Corinthians we've found too. But in the wide net of Nicean orthodoxy, creation is good and this lifetime not a barrier to rebirth in the Spirit and eternal substance.

For most Protestants, this life is even more important because they reject Purgatory and often the conversion of the dead mentioned in I Peter 4 and arguably the whole section on the resurrection in Revelations.

Are you not contented by the offer that if you stop typing your discontentment, regarding your gods plan for you and just comply with its scriptural instructions, then your death will become something to look forward to, as it will be the beginning of your everlasting entry into it's kingdom.

Haha there is no discontent here at all. It is of course a big if whether eternal life can be granted to mortals (like me and you). I happily accept both scenarios my mortality in this case and the potential for everlasting life equally. I’m not a fool nor can easily be fooled by scripture as my discerning mind retains a healthy dose of scepticism in such matters

Then I am confused about the form of your theism. Are you afraid of the judgement of your god?
Why do you fear oblivion after you die? When you have no memory of such fear, before you were born.

I take all religious text/scripture with a pinch of salt. As a man with a well formed conscience I’d like to think, I always try to do what is right and as a human being I can err, but only in retrospect as I did what I felt was the correct course of action at the time insofar as I was able to determine it.

Had my actions caused harm unintentionally or by the fact that I was not able to anticipate such harm then my conscience remains clean.

Why do you fear oblivion after you die? — universeness

What really gets me as I previously stated is simply the recognition of everlasting existence or even that of a creator who is eternal contrasted to myself a mortal with a short time span in the scheme of things.

I do not fear death it’s more of wanting more rather than the fear of perishing which to me is both justifiable and understandable.

Sounds to me that you support some of the main tenets of humanism.

What really gets me as I previously stated is simply the recognition of everlasting existence or even that of a creator who is eternal contrasted to myself a mortal with a short time span in the scheme of things. — invicta

Do you believe your god is omnipotent?

I do not fear death it’s more of wanting more rather than the fear of perishing which to me is both justifiable and understandable. — invicta

Do you mean you fear the way you will die more than the fact you will die?
Do you believe your god could extend your lifespan if it chose to? It is claimed that the Abrahamic god, did this for some of it's early 'chosen ones.' Do you believe that's true?

Do you believe your god is omnipotent? — universeness

Very good question and most theists would probably say yes to that. For me the definition of omnipotence is a double edged sword which can easily lead to classical paradoxes such as Can He make a big enough stone that he can’t lift etc. discussing gods attributes can be a good pastime but for me placing a limit on the magnitude of his power would not only be misleading but most probably inaccurate.

I will leave the nature of God to theologians as far as the issue can be addressed.

For me the simple answer is that I will not fully know despite how clever i might think I am or how imaginatively I wish to subscribe superpowers to it.

My concern is not simply the extension of my human lifespan but eternal life/existence whatever shape or form that might be.

I will leave the nature of God to theologians as far as the issue can be addressed. — invicta

If you declare yourself a theist, do you not also inherit a responsibility to muse theologically, as in, be a theologian, even if it's one without paper qualifications on the academic side of the field?

If you don't then might you not be accused of believing in a god which you are unable to assign properties to, in an unambiguous manner?
You compel me to ask you 'why' you 'need' a god that you seem reluctant to clearly define.
Does your theism offer you any 'reinforcement,' or 'self-assuredness,' at all, regarding your dissatisfaction about your lack of control/choice, regarding when and how you will die?

My concern is not simply the extension of my human lifespan but eternal life/existence whatever shape or form that might be. — invicta

Does your theism not offer you any convincing scenario, that you believe, WILL happen, after you are dead, to continue your existence?

f you are gonna insist on being a muppet at least be a cheerful one. — invicta

:grin:

The manner of my eventual demise be it peacefully or otherwise is of little relevance at this point. Of course I’d prefer the former rather than a long drawn out affair.

As a theist do I not inherit a responsibility to speculate or muse on Gods attributes? To myself sure I can muse on his attributes all day if I so wish but whether that has any correlation to his actual attributes is a different matter.

As an inquisitive human being my questions are perhaps unanswerable. I mean I have a hard time grasping eternity or eternal existence so an intelligence in orders of magnitude superior to mine would really have to simplify certain concepts for my human mind to understand. Think of the lay person’s understanding of Einstein and you have an idea what I’m talking about.

To deny my human limitations would serve me badly in my search for a better understanding of my own existence limited though it may be.

The manner of my eventual demise be it peacefully or otherwise is of little relevance at this point. Of course I’d prefer the former rather than a long drawn out affair. — invicta

I think we all feel the same way, atheist or theist.

To myself sure I can muse on his attributes all day if I so wish but whether that has any correlation to his actual attributes is a different matter. — invicta

I agree but are you unwilling to share your musings and more importantly, those aspects of the god posit which you ascribe your highest credence levels to?

As an inquisitive human being my questions are perhaps unanswerable — invicta

Ok, but this seems to contradict one of the main 'tenets' of 'faith.' Surely theism proports that 'faith manages!' Do you not believe that your god has all the answers you don't?

I mean I have a hard time grasping eternity or eternal existence so an intelligence in orders of magnitude superior to mine would really have to simplify certain concepts for my human mind to understand. — invicta

Do you believe that such an existent, would have the ability to do so?

Think of the lay person’s understanding of Einstein and you have an idea what I’m talking about. — invicta

Yes, but I have faith that Einstein understood the academic details of Einstein's theories and so did others. They could DEMONSTRATE their understanding to the likes of me. Einstein in fact, is credited with the statement “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
Why do you not hold your god to the same standard that Einstein set for himself?

To deny my human limitations would serve me badly in my search for a better understanding of my own existence limited though it may be. — invicta

I think you should accept your limitations but not feel diminished by them. Again you have common ground here with every atheist in existence, including me. Keep searching for the answers or balance you seek. By doing so, YOU WILL extend the borders of what you currently call your limitations.
Consider Matt Dillahunty, talking in the 7 minute clip below, regarding his open heart surgery.

You compel me to ask you 'why' you 'need' a god that you seem reluctant to clearly define. — universeness

It’s not for lack of wanting to define God, it’s for my inability to articulate them with factual accuracy rather than anything. Sure I can throw around terms like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience etc. but where does that get me? In some circles these are a given in others they’re debatable…do they reflect Gods true nature ? Maybe, maybe not. Do they detract from him ? Again, maybe or maybe not if you’re looking for flaws or wish to put him in a pedestal.

Perhaps in me wanting to define God I’m missing a point in the fact that I would at the very least anthropomorphise him with various human attributes such as morality to name a few. He’s all good and all loving etc but again I fall into the same trap that philosophers/theologians/atheists have encountered before me such as whence Evil?

It’s not for lack of wanting to define God, it’s for my inability to articulate them with factual accuracy rather than anything. Sure I can throw around terms like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience etc. but where does that get me? In some circles these are a given in others they’re debatable…do they reflect Gods true nature ? Maybe, maybe not. Do they detract from him ? Again, maybe or maybe not if you’re looking for flaws or wish to put him in a pedestal. — invicta

So does this divine hiddenness of god not annoy you? If it has some of the answers you seek then why does it remain so hidden from you, even though you seem to try so hard to maintain your faith in it, as a real existent?

Perhaps in me wanting to define God I’m missing a point in the fact that I would at the very least anthropomorphise him with various human attributes such as morality to name a few. He’s all good and all loving etc but again I fall into the same trap that philosophers/theologians/atheists have encountered before me such as whence Evil? — invicta

As a thinker, I don't think you can separate evil from the responsibility of any god posit, but most ardent theists simply defend with suggestions such as 'well , how can god test you, if it cant present you with scenario's with opposite and very significant consequences.' I am paraphrasing here, by using a 'summary' statement, of the many ways the problem of evil has been defended by theists.
Of course I will respond with stuff like 'so your god allows babies to die to test their parents?' or 'locked in syndrome,' is a test from god? and they will respond with, 'so god may be testing YOU through what it allows to happen to others,' and then it just spirals! 'How dare your god manipulate innocent people like Job to prove a point to its own creation, lucifer, etc, etc.'
Perhaps it's more important, to consider why you personally need a god, what gap does it fill for you? or what function does it perform for you, when you are musing about your current dissatisfaction with your lifespan? Is it merely that you hope against hope, that your god might favour you, and extend your life? or reanimate you, in a different format/plane of existence, after you die?

So does this divine hiddenness of god not annoy you? If it has some of the answers you seek then why does it remain so hidden from you, even though you seem to try so hard to maintain your faith in it, as a real existent? — universeness

My view on this is that of a magic trick, after the mystery is revealed you start to lose your innate wonder as it has been explained to you, the mechanism the sleight of hand and thus the mystery vanishes.

Part of me wants life to maintain its airy mystery and part of me wants it revealed …how it works they whys etc.

I do not see the divine hiddenness in a negative light from that point of view.

Despite being a theist I still view life with scientific realism rather than wishful magical thinking. Some of the laws of the universe we can understand and others we are trying to understand as they elude or defy rational expectations or explanations especially in the current realm of quantum mechanics.

Some theists can easily explain certain unexplainable phenomena by stating God did it, but that is not helpful to a scientific mind who wants to delve deeper and understand the mechanics behind it (reveal the magic trick if you like to use an analogy)

So why do I need God? Well I don’t …I’ve just come to my own personal conclusion that there is a higher power in the universe. The extent of his involvement in his creation is just another area of speculation or mystery if you like.

Do I believe in him simply because I wish to live forever ? That would be awfully needy of me.

Maybe Gnostic Christianity, but that sounds more like Neoplatonism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, Christianity through the years has borrowed heavily from neoplatonism. It's one of the ingredients in the vast hodgepodge, or stew, that is Christianity.

Part of me wants life to maintain its airy mystery and part of me wants it revealed — invicta

I find more wonder and awe in the natural world, than anything posited regarding the supernatural, so I have no need for the supernatural. This is of course also because my credence level towards a supernatural existent, is negligible. Are you not attracted to the complete and total ownership of your own wonder and awe? Why assign any credit for such to a god? Do you not diminish such, by placing it in the gift of a deity, rather than own it, as a manifestation of your own unique consciousness?

So why do I need God? Well I don’t …I’ve just come to my own personal conclusion that there is a higher power in the universe. The extent of his involvement in his creation is just another area of speculation or mystery if you like. — invicta

I am surprised you are not more attracted to a pantheism or a panpsychism.
I think many of the more ardent theists would not accept you as a theist. I assume you don't care about that.

Do I believe in him simply because I wish to live forever ? That would be awfully needy of me. — invicta

There is no shame, or reduction in status, due to the fact that all humans are 'needy' imo.
What is shameful and is a definite reduction in status and morality imo, is a god that is purported to be loving and caring, but demonstrates no convincing evidence that that claim is true.
The blood sacrifice, that Christians claim as a demonstration of their gods love, is very bizarre to me.
A son who was an incarnation of god, allows the Romans to kill it. How can you kill an immortal?
You can't, so the sacrifice is fake, null and void, as it came back to life again. That's cheating, and is no sacrifice AT ALL!

I think many of the more ardent theists would not accept you as a theist. I assume you don't care about that — universeness

Absolutely not, I hope that my faith retains some features of theism but shaped by my own experience rather than directly influenced by scripture whose reliability is questionable at the very least.

If I was a theist in the traditional sense then I’d be a Quaker.

And as I do question scripture then the question of god being becoming man to be crucified for our sins is to me no more beneficial to my belief system then the Easter bunny is to a Christian.

Myths are useful albeit lacking credulity and if you get a holiday out of it all the merrier.

Thanks for the exchange invicta, I enjoyed reading about your worldviews.

Are you not attracted to the complete and total ownership of your own wonder and awe? Why assign any credit for such to a god? Do you not diminish such, by placing it in the gift of a deity, rather than own it, as a manifestation of your own unique consciousness? — universeness

Interesting.

Before I give you my account of this let me give you some authentic credible and respected theists in their fields.

And what better field is there than pure mathematics where we are dealing with highly abstract concepts.

Let’s begin with Gödel, wildly regarded as the greatest logician since Aristotle. Here’s an excerpt from wiki:

Gödel believed that God[38] was personal, and called his philosophy "rationalistic, idealistic, optimistic, and theological".[39]

Gödel believed in an afterlife, saying, "Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today's science and received wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the afterlife], independently of any theology." It is "possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning" that it "is entirely consistent with known facts." "If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife].

It gets even more peculiar with Ramanujan where wiki has the following. I think I’ve read somewhere that Ramanujan said his thereoms were divinely inspired or came from God.

Later he had visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes.[105] He often said, "An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God."[106]

Then there’s Pascal another ardent Christian who carried a quote from the bible woven into his trousers. We also have Liebniz another Great mathematician who invented calculus independently of Newton who was also a god believer unless I’m mistaken.

However I must state that I’m not a fan of militant atheism or theism when it comes to god. Although I’d like to add that the work and efforts of the above mentioned individuals far surpass those of any evangelical atheist such as Dawkins et al

Will expand on my own views to your quote later.

Will expand on my own views to your quote later. — invicta

I would be much more interested in your views now than in Gödel's, Ramanujan's (watched the movie about his life), Newton's, Pascal's or Liebniz' theism. I remain in awe of their academic skills in science and I am willing to discuss why I think their particular individual flavours of theism were completely misguided, but perhaps that would require individual threads, to respect the details involved, for each name you have cited.

However I must state that I’m not a fan of militant atheism or theism when it comes to god. Although I’d like to add that the work and efforts of the above mentioned individuals far surpass those of any evangelical atheist such as Dawkins et al — invicta

I don't consider Richard Dawkins to be a 'militant' or 'evangelical' atheist. I consider him to be a very able scientist who's views on religion are very similar to my own. It's important to me that I don't seem to you other than I am.