XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism
From: brianf88@bigpond.net.au
"Miller" wrote in message
news:Plwhj.126$Px.33@newsfe05.lga...
>
> "brian fletcher" wrote in message
> news:Dcehj.1298$421.145@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote in message
>> news:47855c95$0$3431$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Up to now, religions have owned the immortality
>>> promise. Their primary method, believe X (varies
>>> from religion to religion) and get it (or at least
>>> maximize your chances of getting it), disbelieve
>>> or doubt X, and either don't get it -or- get it in
>>> a very unpleasant way -or- get a chance to get
>>> it, later, if you pass some post-death test.
>>>
>>> What if everyone gets it, and what if immortality
>>> is simply another natural part of a mysterious
>>> natural adventure? What if immortality isn't neces-
>>> sarily better or worse, but instead, is simply a
>>> different naturalistic experience?
>>>
>>> Certainly, selling immortality as the ultimate drug,
>>> the ultimate high, the unltimate in pleasure, if you
>>> jump through the 'right' religion's hoops, that has
>>> enormous appeal. The threat side, not so much.
>>>
>>> But, is religion really necessary for immortality?
>>> What -if- immortality is as natural as any other
>>> event in this particular naturalistic realm we are
>>> familiar with, and it's not earned, and no one is
>>> excluded from it, and everyone and everything
>>> is a part of it? What if all that is natural is part
>>> of some naturalistic realm in which a continua-
>>> tion of possibilities is the ultimate reality?
>>>
>>> Just a thought, for those of you who, like me,
>>> find the immortality promise of religion to be
>>> its most seductive feature, but who have been
>>> taught that if you disbelieve or doubt, you either
>>> get eliminated from existence forever, judged
>>> and punished and eliminated from existence
>>> forever, or judged and punished forever.
>>>
>>> A naturalistic immortality, in my view, offers
>>> a far more attractive alternative to religion than
>>> has been posited 'til now, not only by religions
>>> and their followers which equate naturalism
>>> with oblivion, but also by disbelievers and
>>> doubters who've bought into the religious argu-
>>> ment that's it's their way -or- no way, dismis-
>>> sing any possibility that a naturalistic immor-
>>> tality is even possible.
>>>
>>> Just saying, within the unknown realm of the
>>> totality of that which is natural, pondering a
>>> naturalistic immortality is a potentially power-
>>> ful concept, and worthy of consideration until
>>> or unless the totality of naturalism is known
>>> to exclude the possibility of *any* immortality.
>>>
>>
>> What you say makes perfect sense, and is something I started to
>> investigate thirty about years ago, always previously, having a similar
>> view to you.
>>
>> Basically this is what I discovered.(With the emphasis on "I")
>>
>> The position we each take up life by life is based on our accumulated
>> experiences.A process of graduation.
>>
>> The religious 'authors' as opposed to followers, cover this with their
>> parables and directives, such as "as ye sow also shall you reap" which,
>> at first appears to contradict "the sins of the fathers will be revisited
>> on the sixth and seventh generation". Of course the laws of karma are
>> familiar to a large % of the world population.
>>
>> The religions were and are a batch of guidelines to help those who are at
>> the stage where need such direction. Where they have not yet matured
>> enough to "stand alone".
>>
>> Like children, they sometimes need to be motivated by fear of
>> consequence. Don't kill or you will be killed etc.
>>
>> I have zero doubt that someone who has come up with this understanding as
>> you have, would need any one of the "ten commandments" spelling out no
>> more that an advanced mathematician would have to repeat his 'times
>> tables'.
>>
>> When you are ready.... always part the natural process.
>>
>> BOfL
>>
>
> However, in the same vein, one could also state that the laws of karma
> were and are a batch of guidelines to help those who are at the stage
> where you need such direction, etc., etc.
Thats exactly what I am saying.Some just dont need to be told.They have
"evolved" beyond that stage.
>
> One could denigrate any point of view in this manner, by suggesting that
> such and such a view is held by people "like children", "motivated by fear
> of consequence". Such an approach to other's beliefs tends to make
> discussion along these lines pointless, in my opinion.
So you associate such views of others as denigration? Many do, and by
association are still 'self denigrated' by their earlier "natural" stage.
See why many cant see past lives? They would not be able to live with
themselves. Just consider the past behavour of just our recent history.
People "just like us" would burn others at the stake etc.
It is only when one can put all the pieces together, does the full picture
emerge.
You are right. There is no point in discussing such points with those who
have not developed their own insights. There are however subtle aspects to
such communications.
BOfL
>
> Scott
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
