A philosophical inquiry about the afterlife

[Feather Spiral 1,892]

i believe in the afterlife but my reasons are a little confusing. im a christian and believe in heaven and hell but not the heaven and hell that most religions teach you

What kind do you believe in?

 

And you're right in not strictly following a religion. I never get tired of saying this: religious texts were metaphorical tales meant to teach people lessons, not accounts of historical "facts" to be taught as the Truth. Also, they shared the same vocabulary used by the cultures they were written in, in the times when they were written.

This means they were constantly edited and adapted to fit the cultures they were used in. And of course, when used to teach people, they were shown as the metaphors and symbols they were, not absolute statements of granted facts. The latter is just a corrupted teaching given by today's extremists, and if there is a God or any other entity(ies), I am fairly certain that he/they would NOT have approved of that line of thought.

Source: The Case for God, Karen Armstrong.

 

I have my own reasons for believing in spirits. Not ghosts as we usually mean it, but we may have souls that go "somewhere" when our physical body dies.

Things like ghosts could be manifestations of something else that we leave behind, or our spirits' willpower... whatever they turn out to be. I don't know, and don't claim to.

 

But when I think about "heaven" and "hell", I understand whatever a person has wanted the most or has feared the most. It all depends on the person, their tastes and fears... even their choices - whether they decide to dwell upon the negative aspects or enjoy the positive ones, whether they do nothing or play or try to do harm or try to do good...

As such, people go to Heaven and Hell throughout their lives, and perhaps (if there are) afterlives.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Feather Spiral

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

religious texts were metaphorical tales meant to teach people lessons, not accounts of historical "facts" to be taught as the Truth. Also, they shared the same vocabulary used by the cultures they were written in, in the times when they were written.

 

I must disagree. A general statement like this should not represent all religious texts as having been meant not to be taken literally.

 

The Bible is the only religious texts I have good knowledge of, so it's the only one I can use as an example.

 

The Gospel of Luke is clearly written in the form of a historical account rather than a metaphorical narrative or outright fiction.

The author states in the opening lines how it is a collection of first hands accounts of historical events.

The oldest copy of the Gospel of Luke also dates back to c.200 AD and it is unchanged from it's later and even modern copies.

 

The historical accuracy of the canonical Gospels is something unmatched by all other religious texts. So much so that the Gospel of Luke is dated by secular historians to have first been written before 70 AD. Which is completely inline with traditional Christian beliefs.

 

 

This is one example of a religious text that either should be taken literally or not taken seriously at all. Trying to find a middle ground to consider this a metaphorical representation would be a very far fetched idea.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Lady Rarity Pony

[Whiteshade 1,426]

How did I not see this topic earlier?

 

Yes, I do believe in an afterlife, but its not based on religion and is mostly braincanon.

[Fizz. 1,078]

If there is an afterlife, I hope there's only 1; a good one. It'd be way too extreme for someone who was bad in a 75~ year life to be stuck in a land of eternal torment forever. No one deserves that!

[KakeiTheWolf 652]

To me, life feels pointless if I just end up if a void. There isn't a point in living if, regardless of any number of permutations of possible action, you end up in a void. If a void is where everyone ends up, you have as full a life if you kill yourself and end it all as if you wait the dreadfully long time until old age.

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

I do believe in an afterlife, and a soul that will never die.

 

Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory.

The former two being permanent dwelling places.

 

 

I know some people view an afterlife as a "happy thought" people choose to cope with death, but I view it as the complete opposite.

Oblivion (all life ends at death) seems like a much prettier thought to me. Life would be much easier for me if I believed life ended completely at death.

The idea of living on forever is a scary thought. You must conform your life to absolute moral laws, and so on. The "easy way out" would be no afterlife at all. I wouldn't have to worry about anything.

 

 

Nevertheless, I still believe in the afterlife, but I do not claim to know of what exactly it is like, nor do I claim to know who will be there.

 

I also believe people give God too much credit when it comes to deciding where you go for all eternity. Haha, the irony.

 

You decide where you go by how you've lived your life. Those who choose Hell, chose it by their own accord.

 

I also don't believe in any favoritism when it comes to the afterlife. I'm sure there will be many men and women who called themselves Christians in Hell, and I'm sure they'll be plenty of non-Christians, non-Jews, etc. in Heaven.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Lady Rarity Pony

[Feather Spiral 1,892]

The Gospel of Luke is clearly written in the form of a historical account rather than a metaphorical narrative or outright fiction.

The author states in the opening lines how it is a collection of first hands accounts of historical events.

The oldest copy of the Gospel of Luke also dates back to c.200 AD and it is unchanged from it's later and even modern copies.

 

The historical accuracy of the canonical Gospels is something unmatched by all other religious texts. So much so that the Gospel of Luke is dated by secular historians to have first been written before 70 AD. Which is completely inline with traditional Christian beliefs.

Well, I spoke without knowing, it seems. I'm sorry I did that.

It's even more sad for me, knowing I normally can't stand ignorant generalizations on subjects I'm knowledgeable in. I thought reading a few chapters in Armstrong's book made me knowledgeable. I apologize.

 

But consider this: the Greek have mythical beasts and a variety of gods and heroes, a lot of religions all over the world have dragons that interact with mortals in various ways, ancient maps display sea monsters in unexplored/dangerous waters. Do you really think those people believed these creatures and entities existed? Or would you imagine that they (especially the educated ones) took them as symbols of human qualities, emotions, flaws; and natural phenomena, beautiful and/or dangerous, or the unknown?

I've realized, in particular, that in all cultures I'm aware of, the role of dragons matches a culture's own thoughts on nature. They're savage impulses to be repressed and destroyed in archetypal European minds, energies to be harnessed and tamed in a lot of Eastern beliefs.

Anyway, for all I know, historical documentation is rather rare in sacred texts. Correct me if I'm wrong again. Most of my memories of the Bible or the Koran are about the creation of the world, tales demonstrating concepts (like that one about justice, that my primary school teacher in Turkey told us) and such.

 

So let me rephrase that accordingly. Just added the beginning phrase, and switched "historical" for "scientific" (which I should've used in the first place).

Save from references to verifiable historical facts, religious texts were metaphorical tales meant to teach people lessons, not accounts of scientific "facts" to be taught as the Truth. Also, they shared the same vocabulary used by the cultures they were written in, in the times when they were written.

And of course, the rest of the post applies to all passages that do NOT refer to historical, further documented and verifiable, facts.

 

Oh, and yes, rationalism is indeed a way to escape things one doesn't understand. Those who mock others for believing in spirits and the afterlife, like the three trolls I dealt with on YAF, who get aggressive and compare you to religious extremists, at the mere mention of its POSSIBILITY... they're scared.

I think it's too complex to think about how afterlife could exist, that we continue to live after our bodies die. So, to keep it simple and avoid considering theories that can't be verified yet, they choose to say "it doesn't exist, period". Funnily, if there is evidence, they ignore it because it'd be so "weird" since "it's unproven".

If they looked at it from a neutral perspective, I think they would've seen the evidence and started pondering about the possibilities. But that, I know from experience, can be a very unsettling idea to think about. It's so much simpler to pretend it's all a lie to make superstitious people feel better.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Feather Spiral

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

But consider this: the Greek have mythical beasts and a variety of gods and heroes, a lot of religions all over the world have dragons that interact with mortals in various ways, ancient maps display sea monsters in unexplored/dangerous waters. Do you really think those people believed these creatures and entities existed? Or would you imagine that they (especially the educated ones) took them as symbols of human qualities, emotions, flaws; and natural phenomena, beautiful and/or dangerous, or the unknown?

Well, it'd be hard for me to give one general answer to this that would accurately represent all religions, tales, and beliefs of ancient times. Especially considering the variety and diversity of the pagan religions.

 

The pagan Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans of antiquity witnessed natural phenomena and because of the lack of significant scientific explanation, concluded that things such as wind were really people in the sky blowing down upon the earth.

 

Their representations of these people in the sky were not intended to be "metaphorical" nor "symbolic", they were intended, albeit erroneously, to be taken literally.

 

The pagan Aztecs viewed the Sun and thought it was a sentient entity. This belief is represented in ancient Aztec writing and iconography. Did they intend their works to be considered "symbolic"?

Not at all.

They believed the Sun was literally a being worthy of worship.

 

It is true that they did attribute certain human emotions to powerful beings, but that is different from intending for it to be symbolic or metaphorical.

 

They believed these entities existed.

The educated pagans did begin to move away from the idea of weather being caused by divine beings, especially around the time of the great Greek philosophers.

 

These beliefs are now regarded as myth because modern technology and science enable us to know for sure that there are no physical people standing in the sky blowing, crying, or throwing electricity down upon the earth.

 

 

 

Dragons and sea-monsters have been and meant different things throughout history.

 

In some cases they were just tales and folklore, passed down through oral or written word. In other cases comets have been thought to have been snakes or dragons do to their "tails".

The origins of these ideas are difficult to know for sure.

 

Did these people really think they saw a sea monster? Did they see a shark or whale and thought of it as a "sea-monster"? Was this just an entirely made up story intended as myth?

 

We can't know for sure.

 

 

 

So let me rephrase that accordingly. Just added the beginning phrase, and switched "historical" for "scientific" (which I should've used in the first place).

Save from references to verifiable historical facts, religious texts were metaphorical tales meant to teach people lessons, not accounts of scientific "facts" to be taught as the Truth. Also, they shared the same vocabulary used by the cultures they were written in, in the times when they were written.

And of course, the rest of the post applies to all passages that do NOT refer to historical, further documented and verifiable, facts.

 

Well, no.

 

There is a difference between something that is intended to be metaphorical and something that was intended to be literal, yet was an erroneous observation. Such as the Sun being a sentient entity. That was intended to be literal, but was clearly an error.

 

I'm sure there are religious texts out there that were intended to taken entirely metaphorical, but the absence of verifiable historical or scientific fact doesn't necessarily mean it is intended to be a metaphor.

 

On top of all this, a text doesn't necessarily have to be one either end of the spectrum. There are texts about (or allegedly about) historical events that may have metaphorical grammar in them, without the entire text or story being metaphorical.

 

 

As far as the Genesis creation account goes. That's still open to debate by scientists, theologians, and historians.

I personally regard it as a metaphorical or creative account of the creation of the earth. Though that doesn't mean I regard the entire Book of Genesis as a pile of metaphors.

 

 

Basically what I'm getting at is that there are no general statements that can be used to accurately represent all religious texts or even all religious texts that lack clear historical or scientific facts.

 

Each text has to be examined on it's own. Grammar, historical context, etc. need to be taken into consideration.

 

Sorry for the long rant.

[ElementOfTenacity 47]

Im a christian and belive in heaven , but i think people who belive in a religion will go to their version of heaven or hell

[Fluttertree 19]

Personally, I don't believe in an afterlife. The vast majority if not the whole of who we are is locked up in our brain, in memories and genetics. Even if there was some sort of soul that continued, it would only be the barest essence of us.

 

However, with regards to the question, I like the idea of everyone having their own personal afterlife, if you have the choice to cease existence at some point. If you live for eternity, then even if you have the power to put yourself in any scenario imaginable, in any form and interacting with anything, there is still going to come a time when you have done everything. After that, you've still got eternity ahead of you. You could do literally everything imaginable 100 times over and still have eternity ahead of you. Unless there's some way of wiping your memory so you could do it all again, you have only boredom ahead.

 

And if you do wipe your memory, isn't that just another form of death? The 'you' who did everything 100 times might as well have never existed.

[MVC NVMXD JVRXD 2,406]

Contradictory to that awesome song, I don't believe in an Afterlife. When you're dead, that's the end of it.

[Gatekeeper Babylon 116]

As a budhist, and a man who believes that all people are entitled to any kind of life, after or current. Lest it be kind to them. Budhism is built on the belief that the afterlife and the judging on your soul based on karma. Do good karma, you get a good afterlife. Bad, and you get a bad one.

 

So I believe that everyone goes to Nirvahna, but that your karma in the end of life decides how well you live there.

 

I've gotten in to many arguments with christians about how the idea of hell is wrong, and how that there are hundreds of loopholes in what the Bible believes. I won't go in to an enormous rant about the bible, as I do not wish to incite rage in this forum's christian users.

 

That's my 2 cents.

[Shaster 7]

I don't believe that there is anything after death. I'm not very philosophical, but that's just what I think.

[Feather Spiral 1,892]

Their representations of these people in the sky were not intended to be "metaphorical" nor "symbolic", they were intended, albeit erroneously, to be taken literally.

 

The pagan Aztecs viewed the Sun and thought it was a sentient entity. This belief is represented in ancient Aztec writing and iconography. Did they intend their works to be considered "symbolic"?

Not at all.

They believed the Sun was literally a being worthy of worship.

I wouldn't be so sure. Yes, they the Aztecs probably believed the Sun was a deity, and maybe ancient people also believed in actual gods. But these people also crafted statues and tools to be used for worship, and when they performed their rituals, I'm convinced they were aware of using manmade objects and not gods or spirits.

So how do we know that ancient people didn't know the difference between an actual entity and its depiction in art (including literature)? They may have believed in deities and spirits, but educated people were probably aware that representations weren't meant to be taken for real.

 

I don't usually pay attention to single religions, I look at general patterns and common traits. From what I've seen, for example, the form of the gods pretty much matches what the culture already worships; from humanoid deities to animals (real or not), and even hybrids.

And while it's true that some events (like comets, or two-headed animals...) were indeed viewed as signs or omens, I don't think that's taught by religion itself, but rather is a part of general culture. Today's Christians probably wouldn't think of a comet as a bad omen (at least I don't think they would) since we've been observing outer space for quite some time, have directly observed many comets, and even estimated their orbits so we can predict their next visits.

 

I'm sure there are religious texts out there that were intended to taken entirely metaphorical, but the absence of verifiable historical or scientific fact doesn't necessarily mean it is intended to be a metaphor.

 

On top of all this, a text doesn't necessarily have to be one either end of the spectrum. There are texts about (or allegedly about) historical events that may have metaphorical grammar in them, without the entire text or story being metaphorical.

Yes, that's actually what I was thinking. I just can't come up with the proper wording since I'm busy with university stuff right now.

But that's right. I always defend that religious texts contain symbols and metaphors. Doesn't mean it's all a bunch of symbols and metaphors with nothing else.

[Jokarr 70]

What kind do you believe in?

 

And you're right in not strictly following a religion. I never get tired of saying this: religious texts were metaphorical tales meant to teach people lessons, not accounts of historical "facts" to be taught as the Truth. Also, they shared the same vocabulary used by the cultures they were written in, in the times when they were written.

This means they were constantly edited and adapted to fit the cultures they were used in. And of course, when used to teach people, they were shown as the metaphors and symbols they were, not absolute statements of granted facts. The latter is just a corrupted teaching given by today's extremists, and if there is a God or any other entity(ies), I am fairly certain that he/they would NOT have approved of that line of thought.

Source: The Case for God, Karen Armstrong.

 

I have my own reasons for believing in spirits. Not ghosts as we usually mean it, but we may have souls that go "somewhere" when our physical body dies.

Things like ghosts could be manifestations of something else that we leave behind, or our spirits' willpower... whatever they turn out to be. I don't know, and don't claim to.

 

But when I think about "heaven" and "hell", I understand whatever a person has wanted the most or has feared the most. It all depends on the person, their tastes and fears... even their choices - whether they decide to dwell upon the negative aspects or enjoy the positive ones, whether they do nothing or play or try to do harm or try to do good...

As such, people go to Heaven and Hell throughout their lives, and perhaps (if there are) afterlives.

 

i guess y reasoning is based more on personal things that have happened in my life that i dont like to talk about much publicly. but i do agree with you like entirely...i mean you actually put thoght into your response...ive been lacking that in my recent comments.

[Senor Citizen 516]

We respawn next round...duh

 

THIS.

Really though? I doubt that not being religious will send me to hell. God won't care if 1 man out of 7000000000 or so doesn't buy a Bible.

[Gozutennou 36]

It's pretty strange that you are going to burn for infity for a finite crime in finite life, what kind of person would conjure up something like that :-O

[Sepia-chan 495]

Im a christian and belive in heaven , but i think people who belive in a religion will go to their version of heaven or hell

 

You just stated that you're a Christian.

Then you say that you believe that what they believe in is what the after life will be like..

but that means you believe in...every religion?

That's a clear contradiction!

 

 

As for myself, I'm a Christian, so I believe in Heaven and Hell.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Pichu (Dusk)

[SonOfTheNorthe 412]

So, I believe that something created the universe. It seems dumb to think that the universe came from a random, infinitely dense speck of matter that decided to explode one day.

 

As for what created the universe, I have no clue. The idea that the universe is eternal, no beginning, no end, jut seems unlikely.

As for the afterlife, it would suck if you were horrible for 40 years, died, and then spent the rest of forever in eternal torment.

Because I have no clue as to what lies ahead, I'm simply going to be the best I can be, and hope that the creator doesn't let me suffer eternal torment for not worshiping him.

[ElementOfTenacity 47]

You just stated that you're a Christian.

Then you say that you believe that what they believe in is what the after life will be like..

but that means you believe in...every religion?

That's a clear contradiction!

 

 

As for myself, I'm a Christian, so I believe in Heaven and Hell.

 

i wouldn't join another religion, i was just thinking that each religion goes by its own rewards and punishments.

[Dr. Nefarious 195]

Guy: I hate my life! I'm gonna kill myself!

_ ---> TomzRD suicided

*points gun at mouth* _

_

Guy: Goodbye cruel world! _

_

*shoots* _

_

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

*beep*

 

*beep*

 

*beep*

 

*boop*

 

*respawns*

 

Guy: Shit!

[Lostwanderer 366]

I don't believe in one, but due to my belief of each religion seems as likey as any other, if an afterlife did exist it would be the afterlife each individual invisions.

[Killian Jones 2,653]

I am personally of the opinion I want to do all my living in my beforedeath. Because banking on an afterlife or the existence of something unquantifyable and unprovable as a soul and it's continued existence after physical discontinuation is far more unlikely then simple possibility of ceasing the exist.

 

In short, I don't believe in an afterlife.

[Feather Spiral 1,892]

i wouldn't join another religion, i was just thinking that each religion goes by its own rewards and punishments.

I think there's a name for that sort of philosophy... but I can't for the life of me remember what it is, nor even where I read it.

With so many different beliefs, I think it would be more "spiritually correct" that each one of us is watched over by what (s)he believes in. The original monotheistic God, his corrupted and closed-minded version by extremists who misread the Bible, spirits, guardian angels, genies, dragons... Maybe they all exist and draw power from faith, so each can only help those who believe in them?

 

Actually, on hindsight, the great majority of sacred texts have a lot of lessons in common, so I think all beliefs are right to a degree. It's just a matter of telling one thing from another, recognizing the imagery in fictional tales, drawing the "right" morals to be a better person.

To claim that one religion is absolutely truthful all the way, is like saying 2+2 equals a one-digit number all the time. On base four, that's 10, which most definitely has two digits. XD

[Senor Citizen 516]

Guy: I hate my life! I'm gonna kill myself!

_ ---> TomzRD suicided

*points gun at mouth* _

_

Guy: Goodbye cruel world! _

_

*shoots* _

_

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

*beep*

 

*beep*

 

*beep*

 

*boop*

 

*respawns*

 

Guy: Shit!

 

It's more like "boop boop boop beep" in my experience.