Did Yahweh do us a favor by denying us eternal life?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't disagree with the assessment that literal readings are, in effect, idol worship (that's why I call them all magic books, and book fetishists, after all) - but that doesn't change the fact of whether a literal reading is older, or that your specific non literal reading is the original true reading even in the limited set of non literal readings.

Again, this is a claim that every abrahamic of every stripe has always fallen back on as a crutch. It's not true. It's a desired good, not a possessed item. Everyone always claims that they got it right, and other's "flipped it". That's not what happened.

Origen, as your example, said that - but also believed that adam was a historic person. For origen, the historicity of the narrative was an essential christian belief. A literal man and literal woman literally fell, and as a consequence all of mankind as their descendants are in need. We were in no way liberated or elevated by this. If this did not happen, there is no need for christ. There would be no christ. These were origens beliefs. As we see, an allegorist can believe in literal narratives, and a literalist can believe that the narrative has additional allegorical value. It's almost certain that they will, if they believe that magic book contains much more knowledge than is readily apparent on a surface review - which they do.

[Brian37]

Did Yahweh do us a favor by denying us eternal life?
 
It seems that the older I get, the less enjoyable and desirable the thought of living eternally becomes, even though I am quite pleased with how my life has evolved and how I will end this life.
 
Be it with a body here on earth, or as a spirit in some heaven, I cannot imagine anyone living eternally and enjoying it.
 
It would be like living watching the same T V program running over and over and over, since there is nothing new under the sun. All would be seen as allegories and or analogous of other situations.
 
Thoughts?
 
Regards
DL

P.S. I see Yahweh as a myth and this question more of a mind exercise.

I agree the prospect of a afterlife utopia seems redundant, and in that it would imply that you cant get board, but if you cant, then your thoughts are not yours, and all you are there to do is kiss the factory bosses ass forever. 

Of course Yahweh is a myth. Just like Thor and Apollo, Allah and Vishnu.

I do agree it makes no sense to postulate a utopia, where all you do is repeat and repeat, and not to benefit oneself, but to glorify a dictator. 

I love ABBA as everyone knows, but despite my fervor, I don't listen to them 24/7.  I also listen to Pat Benatar, David Sanborn, Paula Abdul, Metallica, Living Colour, Pink Floyd, Candy Dulfer, and many others. 

Heaven is a childish ice cream bribe motif, not designed to promote the welfare of humanity, but to draw believers into a cult. 

"If you do my bidding, I will reward you". The problem is, if you do, all you end up being, is a minion without your own mind. 


Heaven is as vile a concept as hell. Both are orwellian concepts.

[Greatest I am]

I don't disagree with the assessment that literal readings are, in effect, idol worship (that's why I call them all magic books, and book fetishists, after all) - but that doesn't change the fact of whether a literal reading is older, or that your specific non literal reading is the original true reading even in the limited set of non literal readings.

Again, this is a claim that every abrahamic of every stripe has always fallen back on as a crutch.  It's not true.  It's a desired good, not a possessed item.  Everyone always claims that they got it right, and other's "flipped it".  That's not what happened.

Origen, as your example, said that - but also believed that adam was a historic person.  For origen, the historicity of the narrative was an essential christian belief.  A literal man and literal woman literally fell, and as a consequence all of mankind as their descendants are in need.  We were in no way liberated or elevated by this.  If this did not happen, there is no need for christ.  There would be no christ.  These were origens beliefs.  As we see, an allegorist can believe in literal narratives, and a literalist can believe that the narrative has additional allegorical value.  It's almost certain that they will, if they believe that magic book contains much more knowledge than is readily apparent on a surface review - which they do.

adam means society or tribe.

Created he them, male and female, and called them adam.

If you cannot believe what the ancients wrote of literalism, what can I say.

Regards
DL

---

Heaven is as vile a concept as hell. Both are orwellian concepts.

Snipped for brevity but nicely put my friend.

Regards
DL

[Porcupine]

@Greatest I am

Eternal life is not denied because tomorrow never comes and the present moment is eternally here.

And, Yahweh may have been a massive asshole but the guy is just playing a role, Jesus.

[Greatest I am]

@Greatest I am

Eternal life is not denied because tomorrow never comes and the present moment is eternally here.

And, Yahweh may have been a massive asshole but the guy is just playing a role, Jesus.

Sure, but Jesus is nearly as genocidal as he is to rid the world of those who will not bow to him when he returns.

If tomorrow never comes for you, holding a job must be a bitch.

Regards
DL

[Paleophyte]

Did Yahweh do us a favor by denying us eternal life?

No, reality did. The human mind isn't evolved to cope with eternity. You would go completely insane. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better torture or a better definition of hell.

[Greatest I am]

Did Yahweh do us a favor by denying us eternal life?

No, reality did. The human mind isn't evolved to cope with eternity. You would go completely insane. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better torture or a better definition of hell.

I agree. nature get's the credit for creation and evolution. 

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't disagree with the assessment that literal readings are, in effect, idol worship (that's why I call them all magic books, and book fetishists, after all) - but that doesn't change the fact of whether a literal reading is older, or that your specific non literal reading is the original true reading even in the limited set of non literal readings.

Again, this is a claim that every abrahamic of every stripe has always fallen back on as a crutch.  It's not true.  It's a desired good, not a possessed item.  Everyone always claims that they got it right, and other's "flipped it".  That's not what happened.

Origen, as your example, said that - but also believed that adam was a historic person.  For origen, the historicity of the narrative was an essential christian belief.  A literal man and literal woman literally fell, and as a consequence all of mankind as their descendants are in need.  We were in no way liberated or elevated by this.  If this did not happen, there is no need for christ.  There would be no christ.  These were origens beliefs.  As we see, an allegorist can believe in literal narratives, and a literalist can believe that the narrative has additional allegorical value.  It's almost certain that they will, if they believe that magic book contains much more knowledge than is readily apparent on a surface review - which they do.

adam means society or tribe.

Created he them, male and female, and called them adam.

If you cannot believe what the ancients wrote of literalism, what can I say.

Regards
DL

The Ancients™ aren't so ancient, and were often idiots.  Case in point above.

Anywho, the idea that the stories aren't literal, at all, is about as old as jesusism, part of the hellenist deal.

[Greatest I am]

adam means society or tribe.

Created he them, male and female, and called them adam.

If you cannot believe what the ancients wrote of literalism, what can I say.

Regards
DL

The Ancients™ aren't so ancient, and were often idiots.  Case in point above.

Anywho, the idea that the stories aren't literal, at all, is about as old as jesusism, part of the hellenist deal.

I see intelligent thinking in what I quoted and while the ancient peasant was not the brightest, to say that the ancients who were educated were idiots, is idiotic.

In fact, if you look at the poor way we speak and communicate today, Socrates would flip.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

Origen believed, again, that the historicity of the narrative in question was an essential article of the christian faith. You stopped researching what he believed when it seemed, to you, to support your own beliefs.

It did not.

You appear to think that literalism like this is silly. That would make the example of an intelligent ancient™ that you offered, silly. What origen or socrates might think if they had the benefit of these past centuries is an open question, but deference to the great men of history is dodgy at best - and if you don't actually look into what they believed, downright lazy. They're just people.