"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by vistesd

I generally agree with Rwingett; but I am re-exploring my Christic roots here, and will say, "Don't know".

I salute your objectivity; shame such a critical dimension of rational thought is in short supply in these troubled times.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
I salute your objectivity; shame such a critical dimension of rational thought is in short supply in these troubled times.

I should add that Rwingett is a skilled exegete of Biblical texts when he chooses, a fact that seems to surprise Christians sometimes. I am starting with (for me) old stuff, but in the kind of Christic naturalism and social gospel that Rob sometimes presents, soteriology takes on a different dimension.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)[/b]

If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative?

No, I don't see how. What about non-eternal separation for example (whatever 'eternal' here is even supposed to mean)?

By the way, it seems reasonable to assume that for one to willfully "reject" X, it is requisite that one take X to be a live option in the first place. That is, for S to stand in willful rejection of some offer X, it seems necessary that S thinks X exists in the first place or that X has some basis in reality. Right? I mean, that would seem to be a pretty basic point. So, if as your hypothetical assumes, the offer X comes at the ushering of some entity G; and if S has no reasons to think G exists in the first place or otherwise takes G to be a nonexistent (and you know this); then it should follow that you cannot reasonably infer that S stands in willful rejection of X. Right?

So, although you are free to suppose whatever you want for the purpose of your hypothetical (and I answered your hypothetical directly above just as you posed it), your suppositions are silly in context. It is obviously false that, say, the average atheist stands in rejection (let alone repeated rejection) of some gift from your "eternal entity". This should really go without saying, but atheists do not think this entity exists in the first place, remember?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"It isn't a gift if refusing it brings disastrous consequences."

If I'm diagnosed as having developed an extremely high risk cerebral tumor, requiring immediate surgery, and refuse it with the result that my death follows within a few days, whom do you believe is responsible for this disastrous consequence?[/b]

If I'm diagnosed as having developed an extremely high risk cerebral tumor, requiring immediate surgery, and refuse it with the result that my death follows within a few days, whom do you believe is responsible for this disastrous consequence?

Uh, what does this have to do with rwingett's claim that disastrous consequences for refusal are not consistent with the term 'gift' as it is normally construed?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"All the atoms that make up my body have existed as part of the universe from the very beginning. For what amounts to a brief instant, those atoms (which continue changing) have been collected together into an entity that you would recognize as 'me'. When I die those atoms will be dispersed back into the undifferentiated wholeness of the universe..."
...[text shortened]... ecomes of the vocabulary, knowledge and private memories accumulated during your lifetime ?

They cease to be.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Eternal separation from anyone and everyone on earth or elsewhere your cuppa tea?

You never miss what you never had.

Originally posted by rwingett
They cease to be.

... if so, what a colossal waste for those you care for and yourself.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody

You never miss what you never had.

Johnny, you're an outgoing friendly guy.
Nobody's buying that you have "nothing to look forward to with hope
or back upon with pride". [*Robert Frost]

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... if so, what a colossal waste for those you care for and yourself.

Perhaps you merely chose to ignore my earlier post, but I disagree with you. It is not a waste. To have been given the opportunity, no matter how fleeting, to contemplate the majesty of the universe is enough.

Your yearning for permanence is an infantile disorder. Like a child, you imagine a universe with yourself at its center, with it having come into existence as a mere medium for you to exercise your permanence in. It's quite sad, really, to see someone cling so desperately to this conception of the "self" as being differentiated and separate from the universe as a whole. Give it up. Live your life and then allow yourself to be fully merged back into the Wholeness of the universe, without regrets.

Originally posted by rwingett
Perhaps you merely chose to ignore my earlier post, but I disagree with you. It is not a waste. To have been given the opportunity, no matter how fleeting, to contemplate the majesty of the universe is enough.

Your yearning for permanence is an infantile disorder. Like a child, you imagine a universe with yourself at its center, with it having come into n allow yourself to be fully merged back into the Wholeness of the universe, without regrets.

I don't know that this counts for anything--and I wouldn't press it (since I think your point here is valid without it)--but you have positively influenced my life and thinking, and likely will continue to do so.

EDIT: Of course, as a nondualist, I agree with your statement about the Wholeness of the universe.

Originally posted by rwingett

Perhaps you merely chose to ignore my earlier post, but I disagree with you. It is not a waste. To have been given the opportunity, no matter how fleeting, to contemplate the majesty of the universe is enough.

Your yearning for permanence is an infantile disorder. Like a child, you imagine a universe with yourself at its center, with it having com then allow yourself to be fully merged back into the Wholeness of the universe, without regrets.

May I suggest that the obverse holds true. With the advent of human beings, the universe became fulfilled; and the perpetuation of the human race validated its grand design. Disagreement's welcome: "We arrive at the truth through the honest disagreement of friends". (John Locke's principle paraphrased). I'm with you on living life to the full, daily. -Bob

Originally posted by LemonJello

If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative?

No, I don't see how. What about non-eternal separation for ex ...[text shortened]... thout saying, but atheists do not think this entity exists in the first place, remember?

LJ, your intellect overwhelms me. Please summarize in a few distilled sentences, if you would. Thanks. -Bob

Originally posted by vistesd
I don't know that this counts for anything--and I wouldn't press it (since I think your point here is valid without it)--but you have positively influenced my life and thinking, and likely will continue to do so.

EDIT: Of course, as a nondualist, I agree with your statement about the Wholeness of the universe.

Glad to hear it. It's nice to know that all the time I've spent here over the years has had some positive influence. Of course your posts on nondualism have played a role in my being able to make posts like the ones in this thread.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
May I suggest that the obverse holds true. With the advent of human beings, the universe became fulfilled; and the perpetuation of the human race validated its grand design. Disagreement's welcome: "We arrive at the truth through the honest disagreement of friends". (John Locke's principle paraphrased). I'm with you on living life to the full, daily. -Bob

Today I was watching the first episode of the Carl Sagan Cosmos series. Magnificent for its time. Anyway, one thing he says is "We are the Cosmos' way of knowing itself." Or words very similar.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
May I suggest that the obverse holds true. With the advent of human beings, the universe became fulfilled; and the perpetuation of the human race validated its grand design. Disagreement's welcome: "We arrive at the truth through the honest disagreement of friends". (John Locke's principle paraphrased). I'm with you on living life to the full, daily. -Bob

You really need to get over yourself. You're really not all that. Is that really how shallow your theology is? A big daddy in the sky to tell you how special you are and that you'll be together for all eternity, no matter what? I can't imagine a more narcissistic view. That you (or I) am the validation of the universe? It's simply nonsense. I couldn't disagree with you more on that point. As far as the Earth is concerned (if not the universe itself) mankind is nothing but a virus hastening it's destruction through their short sighted, self centered profligacy.

I'll leave you with a few quotes to ponder:

Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, the universe continues to evolve. And yes, every one of our body's atoms is traceable to the big bang and to the thermonuclear furnace within high-mass stars. We are not simply in the universe, we are part of it. We are born from it. One might even say we have been empowered by the universe to figure itself out — and we have only just begun.
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Every atom you possess has almost certainly passed through several stars and been part of millions of organisms on its way to becoming you. We are each so atomically numerous and so vigorously recycled at death that a significant number of our atoms - up to a billion for each of us, it has been suggested - probably once belonged to Shakespeare. A billion more each from Buddha and Genghis Khan and Beethoven, and any other historical figure you care to name. So we are all reincarnations - though short-lived ones. When we die our atoms will disassemble and move off to find uses elsewhere - as part of a leaf or other human being or drop of dew.
~ Bill Bryson - ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’

The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
~ Carl Sagan