What Happens When You Die?

[Thief]

NO! You're making up more crap to make the tail wag the dog!

First of all, 'I Am', and 'Let there be light' have nothing to do with one another. Where do you get this zany notion from?

Secondly, Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am' is NOT the same statement as Yeshu's 'I Am'. The former refers to temporal existence in time and space; the latter to eternal being transcendent of time and space.

Thirdly, it has already been pointed out to you by Kierkegaard that Descartes began his statement with the erroneous assumption that 'I' already existed, to wit:

Søren Kierkegaard's critique The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito.Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am
​

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.
Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.
Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

Fourthly, the Carpenter pointed to the Kingdom of God that is within everyone, and that is the same Kingdom as 'I Am' to which he alluded to about himself. What you are failing to understand is that the gifts of the Incarnation are not exclusive to the historical Jesus alone, but freely available to all of mankind. Vive la diference between St. Paul's warped Christianity and Buddhism.

STOP MAKING UP CRAP TO FIT YOUR WARM FUZZY BELIEFS!:slap:

Time does not exist.

And the rest of my previous post stands.
I don't see your crap is better than mine.

 

[Muffled]

People are not always aware of what exactly is influencing them. I can't choose my morals. I can choose to disregard my morals in favor of the ethical principles of a particular religion.

I believe a person's morals can be developed from the ethical principals of a religion but I agree there are a lot of influences and often people are not aware of being influenced.

Perhaps but they feel they are being true to the teachings of Jesus just as you. You maybe yourself are or are not, I don't know. Just pointing out that many Christians feel they are true Christians. Often they are happy to claim others are not. Personally I don't think we can determine the intent of what Jesus taught through the Bible alone.

I believe in interpeatation through the Holy Spirit. People may believe that they are interpreting correctly but if the Spirit is not with them then the chances are that they interpret by their own fantasies. Even those who claim to have the Holy Spirit sometimes do not.

I'm fine with that. A person should seek to the best of their ability the truth. If Jesus is the truth then that is what they will find.

What has God told you? How much are you relying on what others claim God has said?

I believe what others have said God said as loong as the Holy Spirit approves. For instance the Church tends to believe that all believers go to Heaven when they die but God has shown me that most people return to a new life on earth. The detractors will say that scripture contradicts me but the Holy Spirit shows me that it is not a contradiction.

I have to rely on someone's personal experience. My own, at least I can justify my reasoning. Someone else's, I can never be certain of their reasoning. Maybe if I know them and feel I can trust them. People I don't know I've no good reason rely on their experiences.

If one reasons from ones own understanding there is no verification that the reasoning is correct but if another person agrees that the reasoning is correct it helps to verify that reasoning. For instance I have had the experience of "speaking in tongues" but I find my experience is not unusual because others have had the same experience but some people have had the experience of barking like a dog but I don't think this is a common experience and I have not had it, so it may be a false experience because it hasn't been verified as a common experience.

Or belief it comes from the Spirit of God. People act from conviction based on (strong) belief, still, not necessarily actuality.

I believe that is true so one examines the fruit of the person's life. A person leading a holy life is more likely to hear from the Holy Spirit.

So you think it is wrong to trust in God but then who are you trusting in Jesus' will?

What I am saying is that one can't say I am trusting in God, then make ones own decisions instead of allowing God to make them. The truth is that most of the time God will not step in and prevent a person from sinning but He will punish a person for committing those sins. When I trust in Jesus, I trust in God.

How do you judge whether or not someone has the Holy Spirit to guide them?

First a person must recieve Jesus as Lord and Savior and really mean it in their heart. (Just saying the words is meaningless if a person doesn't realy take it to heart) Second a person needs to hear the Holy Spirit speak to him and that comes though listening in prayer. Third (as is my case now) the Holy Spirit can take over mind and tongue to say what He wants. I believe a person can't truly tell if another person is speaking from the Holy Spirit unless one has the gift of the discenment of spirits.

 

[atanu]

First a person must recieve Jesus as Lord and Savior and really mean it in their heart. .

So before advent of Jesus there was no way to salvation?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

So before advent of Jesus there was no way to salvation?

And Judaism too. There are definitely religions that predate Judaism as well.

 

[Muffled]

The general Christian view is that there is an Absolute value in the continuity of life, as evinced by the doctrine of universal re-union with the body in a heavenly or hellish afterlife. Without the flesh, there can be no everlasting torture nor everlasting pleasure. The Christian religion is all about the flesh, and as I indicated earlier, is that way simply because it is in the child stage of religion. IOW, the child sees the continuity of life as a fleshy extension of THIS life, but without suffering. The child experiences his world as either fleshy pleasure or pain. He has not yet developed higher states of consciousness. Parents and other authority figures represent security to him, but at some point he comes to the realization that earthly parents pass away. This is cause for Metaphysical Anxiety. He does not remember where he came from, why he is here, nor where he is going after death. So he invents a permanent parent figure in the image of 'Jesus' who will save him from what he imagines as an everlasting place of FLESHY torment, and entry into an everlasting place of FLESHY pleasure which he thinks he has earned. He also invents extreme polarized extensions of Good and Evil as Super-Good, personified by 'Jesus', and Super-Malevolence, as personified by 'Satan'. The impermanence of the world is a problem for him, and he sees it as a place of corruption and ugliness from which he must escape. So not only does the flesh feed what he thinks is his 'sin nature', the world itself is filled with sin. (These notions probably originated within Gnosticism, which saw the body as corrupt and to be discarded like old clothing.) For many Christians, they are experiencing an inner war between what they think is the flesh vs. the spirit, as elaborated by St. Paul:

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh;
for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
Galatians 5

The problem here is that what is deemed 'spirit' is seen as distinct from 'flesh', where there is no such distinction in actual reality. This distinction is held only within the mind, but is further seen as being in conflict one with the other. It is this inner conflict, born of ignorance and fear of one's own nature, from which the outward projections of heaven and hell, Jesus and Satan, Good and Evil, emanate. People who are enlightened do not have this kind of conflict.

I can't say if that is the general view or not. I believe the general view is that recieving an eternal body in the resurrection is the destiny of the believer. I tend to believe that the general view is that it is a good thing however many have the view that Heaven is the destination and better than life. I believe that we were created for life and Heaven is not as important as the purpose for which we were created.

I believe the idea of an imperishable body in Hell is fantasy. Any body going to Hell gets burnt up and all that is left is the spirit.

On the contrary intelectual torment is worse than physical torment and the non-physical pleasures of Heaven are well worth experiencing.

I don't believe this to be true but beleive the Christian life is about the Spirit.

I believe that is supposition and certainly not true in my case. However I believe life without evil is better than life with evil.

I believe this is a fairy story with no basis in reality.

Neither the church nor I believe that the flesh is corrupt although there ae some who hold to the concept of original sin who think the flesh has been corrupted.

I believe Jesus definitely states that there is a dichotomy.

I believe it is not enlightenment to believe that.

 

[Muffled]

Of course you don't. You still live in the world of duality, of conflict, between relative joy and relative suffering. Absolute Joy is transcendent of both, though it includes both. There is no opposite to Absolute Joy. It is the state of being fully awake in the here and now. Being fully awake in the here and now means that you no longer see things in opposition to one another, but rather as complimentary and in harmony. IOW, you seen things as they are, rather than how your limited mind imagines them to be. Because you don't see things as they are, you create all sorts of scenarios, overlaying them onto reality, in order to 'explain' that which you cannot understand with your limited mind. Yeshu himself told us about this, when he warned his listeners that they sought eternal life in the scriptures, when the scriptures were about Him. In order to understand this, the limited mind must be transcended and transformed, so that the inner spiritual eye opens, allowing a view which shows us that what we only thought was the case, is not actually the case.

I believe there is no joy in that only nihilism.

I believe Jesus is not talking about the same thing you are talking about.

It is my experience that absolute Joy is in God who does overcome evil.

 

[Nakosis]

Without the presence of mind, there can be no such imagination, but consciousness is present throughout. When I say 'direct experience', I mean via consciousness, which is direct experience without thought; without mind. When you suddenly fall into a cold mountain lake, your direct experience that the water is cold occurs without thought; without mind. Mind's thought then follows immediately afterward. The same is true of, say, burning one's finger on a hot stove. The immediate direct experience is only 'Ouch!', followed with the mind's thought that 'Oh! I burned my finger!'.

Sat cit ananda - I was taught this is to mean "Truth is the consciousness of bliss". I often ask others what is the source of their knowledge. One can read and read and start to think they know something.

There is a reality to be found through meditation. A consistent reality. The difficulty is the mind gets in the way. And here lies the problem with duality...

The "mind" gets in the way. Huh!? The mind is getting in who's way? Duality is about the distinction between mind and matter. However, here is the mind getting in the way of what? Consciousness...

So consciousness is not dependent on mind or matter.

Dualism, dualistic thinking, I'm finding is an easy trap for one to fall into. Especially when you are trying to defend the truth of consciousness. One tries to defend the independence of the mind, but there is no mind. The mind is something which consciousness creates.

The truth of bliss is found when we can let go of both matter and mind. This bliss is the source of knowingness.

 

[godnotgod]

One tries to defend the independence of the mind, but there is no mind. The mind is something which consciousness creates.

Yes, a self-created principle.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe there is no joy in that only nihilism.

No, not nihilism, but harmony. To see things in opposition is a reflection of conflict within the mind of the observer. To see them as complimentary is to see them with an awakened mind. IOW, they only seem to be in conflict, as perceived by the rational mind. But the rational mind is not the spiritually-transformed mind. That is why it is said that: 'There is a way which seems right to man which ends in death'.

I believe Jesus is not talking about the same thing you are talking about.

I am talking about seeing things as they are. You cannot see things as they are with a limited, conditioned mind. You can only see them as descriptions of Reality. Jesus is talking about those who think the description of Reality (ie; the scriptures) can lead them to Reality (ie; eternal life). He is telling them they are mistaken, because they do not see things as they are. So, yes, I am talking about the same thing that Jesus is pointing out.

It is my experience that absolute Joy is in God who does overcome evil.

Good and evil are relative values. They cannot be separated one from the other. So to 'overcome' evil is also to overcome good. So it is not so much that evil is overcome, but it is seen as complimentary to the good. To see them in conflict with one another is to perpetuate evil.

'When one has created a concept of The Good, one has automatically created a concept of Evil. In creating a concept of Evil, one must now oppose Evil, as dictated by The Good. In opposing Evil, one only makes Evil stronger. Therefore, the wise man never tries to do [moral] Good, but because his nature is intrinsically Good, Good comes about without his having to act."
from the Chinese

Jesus said: 'Resist not, Evil'

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod said: People who are enlightened do not have this kind of conflict.

I believe it is not enlightenment to believe that.

Enlightenment is not a belief. It is enlightenment because the conflict within ignorance has been resolved. Ignorance is suffering simply because the mind does not see things as they are; it does not understand what it thinks is a conflict, where no such actual conflict exists. The enlightened mind sees that there never was a conflict to begin with. This applies, as per the discussion, to the seeming conflict between good and evil.

 

[Nakosis]

First a person must recieve Jesus as Lord and Savior and really mean it in their heart. (Just saying the words is meaningless if a person doesn't realy take it to heart) Second a person needs to hear the Holy Spirit speak to him and that comes though listening in prayer. Third (as is my case now) the Holy Spirit can take over mind and tongue to say what He wants. I believe a person can't truly tell if another person is speaking from the Holy Spirit unless one has the gift of the discenment of spirits.

You have to venerate the teacher so you will accept the truth of his teaching.

A goal, the goal?, of religion is to obtain Heaven, Nirvana, Bliss. What else is there to want really?

I believe Jesus found Heaven, I also believe he taught the path he used to find Heaven. As a teacher, a person could do much worse.

No one's path is ever going to be exactly the same. Doesn't mean the path a person on is wrong, it just means it is wrong for someone else.

We seek the same goal don't we? Heaven, Truth, Bliss? If/when we obtain our goal, will the how matter?

I believe we each are on the path put before us. All we can do is the best we can. By the fruit we produce we can judge one another? Ok, then by the fruits... Not by the religion.

I don't think we choose our paths, I don't think we know enough to choose. People like to think they do and will try to justify it as a choice they made. Of course I've made choices but I didn't choose the path I was on while those choices were made. I hope that makes sense.

There are those who lived long before Jesus came on the scene. They claim to have found the truth. If they did they did. Do you really feel obligated to say otherwise?

 

[godnotgod]

Time does not exist.

But because it is perceived as real, one can say: 'I exist' [now]. However, the real point here is the existence of 'I", which Descartes only assumed as real to begin with, as pointed out by Kierkegaard.

Jesus's statement clearly contrasted his eternal Being (I Am) compared to that of Abraham's historical existence. You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole by saying his statement and Descartes' statement are the same. They're not.

And the rest of my previous post stands.
I don't see your crap is better than mine.

I just got through pointing out to you that your post does NOT stand. Show me where you think it does.

You continue to pull rabbits out of hats to fit your beliefs. Belief is not truth, though you think it is.

 

[Thief]

But because it is perceived as real, one can say: 'I exist' [now]. However, the real point here is the existence of 'I", which Descartes only assumed as real to begin with, as pointed out by Kierkegaard.

Jesus's statement clearly contrasted his eternal Being (I Am) compared to that of Abraham's historical existence. You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole by saying his statement and Descartes' statement are the same. They're not.

I just got through pointing out to you that your post does NOT stand. Show me where you think it does.

You continue to pull rabbits out of hats to fit your beliefs. Belief is not truth, though you think it is.

(From another thread....I quote myself)

No really....in one breath, you say as I do and the next breath, you blow it off.

Take your current comment....
'There is nothing to believe....nothing to get.'

A denial.

THEN you make statement....
'There is only this eternal Present Moment....and (I am) it!'

A proclamation of BELIEF!

THIS PLOY YOU USE CONTINUALLY IS CALLED......DOUBLE-MINDED!

You do it all the time.....while making denial of duality!

Then you tell me to go dance!
Admitting (in effect)....that I do exist and can take action.

Your next retort is predictable....more denial.
You will now attempt as you have always done so......tell me I don't exist.

 

[godnotgod]

(From another thread....I quote myself)

No really....in one breath, you say as I do and the next breath, you blow it off.

Take your current comment....
'There is nothing to believe....nothing to get.'

A denial.

THEN you make statement....
'There is only this eternal Present Moment....and (I am) it!'

A proclamation of BELIEF!

THIS PLOY YOU USE CONTINUALLY IS CALLED......DOUBLE-MINDED!

You do it all the time.....while making denial of duality!

Then you tell me to go dance!
Admitting (in effect)....that I do exist and can take action.

Your next retort is predictable....more denial.
You will now attempt as you have always done so......tell me I don't exist.

You don't, and I have already addressed this post from the thread you reference.

You're still just making stuff up.

 

[Thief]

You don't, and I have already addressed this post from the thread you reference.

You're still just making stuff up.

And you are still making denial.

 

[godnotgod]

And you are still making denial.

I cannot deny something that does not exist. You have not shown that "I" exists. All you've done is to parrot Descartes and Jesus in a manner that makes the two seem as if they are saying the same thing as a means of furthering your unfounded beliefs. I have shown you that they are not saying the same thing. You want the tail to wag the dog. Not gonna happen, Thief. So get over it.

 

[Thief]

I cannot deny something that does not exist. You have not shown that "I" exists. All you've done is to parrot Descartes and Jesus in a manner that makes the two seem as if they are saying the same thing as a means of furthering your unfounded beliefs. I have shown you that they are not saying the same thing. You want the tail to wag the dog. Not gonna happen, Thief. So get over it.

Back to the basic question....again....
Anything Greater Than you?

Making denial?

 

[godnotgod]

Back to the basic question....again....
Anything Greater Than you?

Making denial?

Now you're evading the issue.

I don't deny something greater. There is nothing greater or lesser. There is only The Absolute, and that is Everything. Because it is Everything, there is no other to which it can be compared, 'the which of which there is no whicher'.

Anything else is just illusion.

 

[Thief]

Now you're evading the issue.

I don't deny something greater. There is nothing greater or lesser. There is only The Absolute, and that is Everything. Because it is Everything, there is no other to which it can be compared, 'the which of which there is no whicher'.

Anything else is just illusion.

Did you take the red pill?....or the blue one?

 

[godnotgod]

Did you take the red pill?....or the blue one?

I have no attachment to dust, as you do.

The more you struggle to escape its iron grip, the more it will become a reality for you.