Is the soul eternal

[Entropist]

It would be nice to live forever.

Not really. To me, living forever would actually be hell. I think Buddhists at least had the right idea on this point-- it is bliss to no longer exist (contrary to what many new agers feel, to be reincarnated, at least according to Buddhism, means you screwed up royally). The Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, are content to place the supposed continuance of the self into categories of eternal "pleasure" or eternal "pain" and question the issue no further. Buddhism at least opts out of this game altogether: Existence is suffering.

I think the desire for immortality is a biological need projected as a perceived metaphysical necessity, a weird aberration of the mind. Its understandable since it is really impossible for one to imagine themselves not existing, and so one feels the need to posit the existence of a "soul" which exists independently of the body. But I am glad to be a mortal creature. I don't think I could stand my own self for another 50 years, even if I were in some so-called "paradise." I've been locked in this prison for 40 years already-- why would I want that to continue forever? *shudder*

[tackattack]

@Entropist- Where exactly does the Bible (foundations of most of the Abrahamic religions) teach anyhting about eternal pain? Please be specific.
I also agree with your biologically projected theory to an extent.

[Entropist]

@Entropist- Where exactly does the Bible (foundations of most of the Abrahamic religions) teach anyhting about eternal pain? Please be specific.

No, I'm not going to drudge up Bible quotes, however different Christian sects certainly have different interpretations of the afterlife-- for some, hell is everlasting, then you get others who claim hell is annihilation, or some sort of metaphorical "separation from the Christian god," and there are those few that believe there is no hell, but only heaven. Then for Catholics you can add Purgatory to the mix. You can mix and match all sorts of other variations. Whatever. All of them claim to base this on the Bible and have their own silly interpretations for all of these silly beliefs in a silly book. Why should I sift through all of them yet again?

Suffice it to say that there is the assumption that the preservation of the self is an unquestionable good within the Abrahamic religions-- and of course along with that assumption comes the preference for an eternal pleasure rather than eternal pain. Why any self-conscious individual would want to live forever is beyond me. Personally I think its sick.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Entropist

The notion of an eternal hell is not part of Judaism and never has been. The Jewish idea is analogous with the Christian idea of purgatory. IE everyone gets out eventually .The Jews even have a formula to work out the length of one's stay.

As far as I can tell,the Christian notion of an eternal hell is a Pauline invention. Also, Paul did indeed abandon much of Mosaic law,especially ritual. EG circumcision, bar/bat mitzvah and dietary law .


The argument that the religion called Christianity should rather be called Paulism is a very old controversy.

Pauline Christianity is a term used to refer to the Christianity associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul of Tarsus through his writings. Most of orthodox Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Jesus. Others perceive in Paul's writings teachings that are radically different from the original teachings of Jesus documented in the canonical gospels, early Acts and the rest of the New Testament, such as the Epistle of James. The term is generally considered a pejorative by Restorationist Christians as it carries the implication that Christianity as it is known is a corruption of the original teachings of Jesus, as for example in the belief of a Great Apostasy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

This link has some interesting ideas on the Christian origins of hell and the devil.,with LOTS of biblical references. It's quite anti Christian.

From near the end

In a nutshell, the Christian invented the Devil and Hell, starting with their misrepresentation with the serpent in The Garden, adding reinterpreted vague references to Satan and Lucifer in the Old Testament and combining them with ancient hebrew myths, stealing figures from other religions and tossing into the pot the such ancient Babylonian storys like Ba'al Marduk killing a great serpent called Tiamat.

Add the passage of time, over which the Christians made the Devil more and more frightning and diabolical and accorded him the power to tempt people to sin. They also combined references to Sheol, Hades and Gehenna, presenting them as Hell, gave the place to their construct Devil and let him have legions of demons at his beck and call, ready, willing and able to assist him in tempting humanity.

http://englishatheist.org/indexz26.shtml

[Minimalist]

As far as I can tell,the Christian notion of an eternal hell is a Pauline invention.

Stolen from the Zoroastrians.

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroast.../index.htm

While on this earth, the soul had the freedom and opportunity to chose the nature of its spirit and a person's every thought, word and deed. In other words, it had control over its destiny in the after-life through its body's ability to think, speak and act. When separated from the body after death, the soul no longer has the opportunity to influence its destiny. That fate will be decided when it reaches the bridge of the requiter - the chinvat bridge. To use an old metaphor, when in the world of the living, the soul makes its bed upon which it will sleep in the afterlife.

In between these two ends, the width of the bridge will be determined by the balance of the soul's goodness over badness as determined by Rashnu's scales of justice.

Oddly, reminds me of The Bridge of Death scene in Holy Grail.







What's the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[Entropist]

It really doesn't matter the various nuances of theological differences: eternal heaven or hell, purgatory, bodily resurrection, spiritual resurrection, "spiritual body" resurrection, apocatastasis (Origen's get out of hell free card), annihilation in hell or eternal torture, temporary hell, no hell-- mix and match 'em. There's plenty to go around and for religionists to squabble about, as they always have. Whatever. The underlying assumption of all of them is that the continuance of the self is, ultimately, a good thing. Why the hell (pardon the expression!) would I want to live forever? --even in some imagined bliss of whatever sort, I simply wouldn't want it. Even if any of these religions or their various sects were right, I wouldn't want what they are selling.

[ib.me.ub]

@Entropist: Whatever. Is that your answer to everthing!

I think Buddhists at least had the right idea on this point-- it is bliss to no longer exist

Well you could just test your idea about Buddism, could't you.

It's fine for you take a sound bit and tear it apart. Did I say something you dislike!

[Entropist]

@Entropist: Whatever. Is that your answer to everthing!

Whatever.

[tackattack]

@Entropist- Perhaps I did miss the intent of your post. Yes I agree, Abrahamic religions presuppose that the continuance of the self is, ultimately, a good thing. I personally think that shouldn't be a goal. Neither should worship out of fear out of eternal torment.They're simply not conducive to a healthy relationship with God, IMO.

[krazedkat]

Living forever under even the best circumstances would be torture.