B
Bishadi
Guest
If a living thing moves, reproduces and exists; what is life ever-lasting when death occurs?
I don't see a direct relationship between the two unless you mean to say that the cessation of the prior is the latter (lack of movement, reproduction and existence follows death), but because you use the phrase "life ever-lasting" I don't think that's the case. Could you explain what you mean to suggest?
edit: and come to think of it, lack of existence doesn't really follow death. The body still exists. It's just inanimate. Even as it decomposes and is eaten away at by worms and maggots it's really only being converted into different types of material.
edit: and come to think of it, lack of existence doesn't really follow death. The body still exists. It's just inanimate. Even as it decomposes and is eaten away at by worms and maggots it's really only being converted into different types of material.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
More of the same?
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Several lines of thought here. Most religions teach on the immortality of the soul, a separate entity from the body. In the Abrahamic traditions, there is the promise of resurrection, the reuniting of the soul with the body in a renewed life. Then there are those who teach that the body and soul are dead, the person is in a 'soul sleep', but then both are raised up at the resurrection. Some other traditions teach the transmigration of the soul from one body to another body upon death, where one is reincarnated as another person. Still others believe that once we are dead, that's it, end of story.
I dunno if this is what you're asking here. Certainly any thought of an afterlife is taken by faith, for it sure looks rather permanent to be dead, eh?
B
Bishadi
Guest
Yes… that is part what was meant.
Sounds like an honest assessment of what happens to the physical body.
The idea of the thread is to see the variations of ‘what is life?’ As it seems, the current idea of walking around and living is not the only reason why religions are so important; it is the after-life, which has so many in belief.
So the question is have most addressed this in a physical or literal sense; that after life?
Welcome and good morning…. quality representation!
No thrills, no frills………… like an umpire; calling them like you see them……..
:>
let see who else has an opinion…
after life??
hmmmm that sounds like after....life.
not living after?
seems to be quite a bit of conjecture in this area.
and most proper to concern oneself in living this one.
hmmmm that sounds like after....life.
not living after?
seems to be quite a bit of conjecture in this area.
and most proper to concern oneself in living this one.
B
Bishadi
Guest
Makes sense to be responsible while you have the choice!
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Perhaps another question that needs to be asked is this:
What is the difference between living and existing?
What is the difference between living and existing?
B
Bishadi
Guest
You are alive with the ability to choose; a sort of heaven in itself as you can choose to impose or create a life to exist.
Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Confucious, Thoth, Einstein and even God...etc..., exist by their contributions often described within the words of mankind.
A conscious life can do (by choice) impositions while alive that allow their existence life-everlasting.
Do you recognize the difference?
B
Bishadi
Guest
Not really..... each moment you impose an action to existence (move, speak, write, do anything) be responsible to what imposition or affect you may have.
Where it seem open to opinion is that in a physical sense, most teachings, including the religions have a limited amount of material fact as to what rules to follow but in a purely physical description (science), then the action can be understood in black and white, with not much to debate;
good: supports life
bad: loss to the common
So then define any rule of sin and weigh them within this description.
B
Bishadi
Guest
The initial post allowed me to believe that 'being responsible' was a conjecture; the question you had but:
what happens when you sleep.....?
Your body is in a state of 'you' having no conscious choice. Nothing being presented, is suggesting anything of conscious reasoning as you stand, to go with you after death.
Think about all them alzheimers patients.... live a full life and many cannot remember their own kids.
So that shares that all your physical memories or thoughts as you know now, are of your physical body.... not a spirit or soul as if separate.
One accident could remove everything your 'mind' knows.
Bishadi, again, I don't see how what you've just said answers my assertion that what happens after we die is all conjecture. If you're referring to effects on the physical body, see my first post in this thread. The post that you misunderstood was in response to this:
So now I will restate. Responsible for what? A choice in what? What happens after we die is conjecture.
dauer said:
So now I will restate. Responsible for what? A choice in what? What happens after we die is conjecture.
Those that know don't tell and those that tell don't know.
B
Bishadi
Guest
For what you impose to existence. For example: you just typed in words that did not exist a few minutes ago. You are responsible for that action imposed to existence; every one of them.
You made a choice to ‘do’ something. A rock cannot, a dog is simply reactive (instinctive) but a person can reason and think before, during and after an action is imposed to existence.
I don’t know what you mean here;
Maybe how each moment of action is a choice?
Maybe choosing a belief of structure? I say only one choice matters, be honest and then to seek knowledge, then each action can have a reasoned assessment before each action.
For example; a kid with a gun…. Most little people do not realize how much absolution that thing can cause, so as time moves forward and they learn, then he can be responsible for what he/she does with the action or usage of that gun.
So to simply make a choice to be honest is not the full picture, as to interact, then a responsibility behind each action is require (see any community) and in all cases to understand the rules is necessary. But never in existence have the rules to ‘how the universe’ actually works, been perfected. So in order for a complete understanding be pure to existence, reality and the truth, then the rules must comply to all things in nature.
Not really….. to say anything about having a spiritual life (with memories and thoughts) after death is where the conjecture (opinions) run rampant. These are what people want to believe and millennium of religious teachings has filled that very need ……. But no single religion has perfected the knowledge of life (in physical application) or how life interacts at the literal sense.
Where is the conjecture in observing an ‘after life’ as being what you do?
Meaning in a physical fact, if you give a portion of your seed to combine and make a baby, a portion of your light (life) is in fact, alive within that child.
Where is the conjecture in knowing that if you take the care and plant a seed for a tree, in good soil and with good water, that you know that ‘life’ may continue well past your physical death.
That to contribute your time to teach a child how to tie his shoes or even how to fish, that even when you are no longer there, that mind has thoughts and knowledge based on your contribution.
How or where is the conjecture in these physical truths?
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Lies like words can be said with out speaking.