Is there life after death

[Barnabas]

You're using parts of sentences out of context, and sticking with traditional punctuation that was only inserted a few centuries ago. (Punctuation marks had not been invented yet when the bible was written.)

It is just as valid to interpret Luke 23:43 as "And he said to him, 'Truly, I say to you today, you shall be with me in paradise.'"



Scripture does not actually say "to be absent of the body is to be present with the Lord," but "We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, [SUP]7[/SUP]for we walk by faith, not by sight. [SUP]8[/SUP]Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord." In the part you (mis)quoted he was stating a desire for the two conditions, not unequivocally equating them. As more accurate translations don't just speak of being in the body but of being at home in the body, it might imply a degree of comfort in our current unperfected state. Being way from the body could also mean being away from our current bodies, but in our glorified bodies in the presence of God after the resurrection. When you look at the broader context of 2 Corinthians 5 you see that as a whole it strongly supports the doctrine of the bodily resurrection. Verse 4 makes it clear that while we may be burdened by our current mortal bodies we do to wish to be naked without a body but rather to be further clothed in our future incorruptible bodies. The word traditionally translated "eternal" in the first verse actually means "of [the next] age," implying a time in the distant future rather than immediate.


2 Peter 3:16 warns that in his letters Paul speaks of things that are very hard to understand which the unlearned often twist into destructive interpretations. (Originally I thinking this was in Acts, and was disappointed to find it is was 2 Peter as most modern scholarship supports the notion that the epistles 2 Peter and Jude are 2nd century forgeries.)



Ecclesiastes is pretty clear that there is no activity, planning, knowledge, or wisdom in the grave (sheol), which argues against consciousness surviving death but against it being restored in the resurrection of the coming age.

Why would Jesus qualify the time frame he's speaking in to person right next to him, common sense dictates that Jesus is telling his companion that they are going to heaven today especially since he was crucified at the time meaning he's probably be one to cut short semantics.

[SUP]6[/SUP] Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— [SUP]7[/SUP] for we walk by faith, not by sight— [SUP]8[/SUP] we are of good courage, I say, andprefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. [SUP]9- NASB[/SUP]

2 Corinthians 5 reads as simply as follows

1-5 Life here is hard, but God has prepared us so that we may endure the hardship

6-10 So endure knowing that being on earth holds apart from God, but in death we are with him. So in your pain endure knowing your hope.

11-15 God died for us, for every one, so we persuade others to be faithful to him, Because he died for us we live for him

16-19 all are new in Christ, we are to recognize each other as such.

20 we are the ambassadors for God


that's 2 cor 5 in a nutshell, Paul is talking about a literal heaven in 8 because he is talking about literal suffering in the verses prior and it was common for him to give hope to his readers by reminding them of what is to come. This is fairly standard practice for Paul. To over over complicate it with assumptions that the bodies mean something other then a physical body is unnecessary, especially because the common vernacular would have been flesh not bodies. Seeing as the flesh is used to represent the sinful nature of our bodies here on earth.

Secondly, your assuming that not having immediate physically perfect bodies upon death means that there won't be any during the Resurrection or the return of Christ, which is baseless.

Finally, Ecclesiastes has little effect on the New Testament concepts of heaven and Hell. Sheol is the resting place of the dead under the old covenant but Heaven is clearly under the New Covenant as Is any imagery of Hell. Which I'd then would like to go to revelation 6, with the slain Christians crying out "oh Lord how long will you refrain from judgment. If there is no thought or consciousness after death then how can these dead cry out.

Really the argument does really matter, it's not of some salvifvic importance. Also I've not heard of an scholars that say that 2 Peter or Jude are fakes. Also I find your accusations that I am unlearned and twisting Pauls teaching to be insulting.

 

[Radiantshadow]

I do not see it as being unhealthy, but maybe it could be to someone else. If the spirit lives on, and if I believe in that, it causes me no grief or pain. If I believe in the incorruptible, I see no grief or pain in that. I see no unhealthy thoughts believing I will see my Maker one day; I rather look forward to it, as this world is not my home.

Then I am glad for you - you have a source of inspiration and motivation. My comment on the mercurial nature of certain things was more to say, "leave room for doubt, and its subsequent questions and answers" than "this is nonsense" (How could I know that?). Our beliefs differ; what works for one person doesn't have to work for the next, obviously. A quote by Paulo Coelho, "The glory of the world is transitory, and we should not measure our lives by it, but by the choice we make to follow our personal legend, to believe in our utopias and to fight for our dreams. We are all protagonists of our own lives".

 

[Nixie]

Who knows. I believe that our essence is merely energy and energy does not need a living body. However does that energy dissipate after the human body ceases to exist is the question.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

Well it gives hope and purpose to life

To the life of people who have been brought up religious or turn to it in an "hour of need". I think we all bring our own hope and purpose to life. As a never-curious atheist, I tend to think the purpose of life is to use it well - and how people use it well depends entirely on their perspective.

So in my view, no life after death.

[MENTION=3538]Arsal[/MENTION] I see where you're coming from and as yet it is unknown how our brain specifically stores memories or provides the illusion of consciousness, which is why brain surgery is a bit risky - we don't always know for definite what effects it will have on the mind. My view at the moment is that consciousness may actually be between the lines - an illusion created by the specific way in which neurons are fired - while memory is known to be pretty crap (we often have memories that never happened for example) so it's likely not to be stored in such a way as is physically grabable. I suppose if we worked out exactly how the illusion of consciousness was created (I mean consciousness exists, it has evolved, but provides the illusion of identity) then it is theoretically possible we could do as you said. But it is whether we will ever be able to test accurately or see accurately what happens, as at the moment, we can only see which neurons are firing and it's much more complex than that.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

To the life of people who have been brought up religious or turn to it in an "hour of need". I think we all bring our own hope and purpose to life. As a never-curious atheist, I tend to think the purpose of life is to use it well - and how people use it well depends entirely on their perspective.

So in my view, no life after death.

If there's no life after death then what would be the purpose of "using life well"? (There are no consequences for one's actions)
I don't understand how you can be an atheist and dismiss all the laws of the universe from the atomic level to the galactic as one BIG ACCIDENT.

In my view, there HAS to be a creator and the spirit definitely lives on after death.

 

[Lerxst]

I believe in the zen Buddhist principle that energy is transfered back into the pool from whence it came.

So my answer is "sort of" I suppose. though it's not a "life" in the way we tend to think of our own lives.

Hit the nail on the head. I really have nothing to add....

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

If there's no life after death then what would be the purpose of "using life well"? (There are no consequences for one's actions)
I don't understand how you can be an atheist and dismiss all the laws of the universe from the atomic level to the galactic as one BIG ACCIDENT.

In my view, there HAS to be a creator and the spirit definitely lives on after death.

Well, I suppose from my point of view, my incentive is only to do what makes me happy. Which is exactly what I'm doing. I only have a limited existence so every minute counts. I should use that limited time well, since there's nothing coming after it, to do what I feel is best.

I don;t want to get into a theological argument, but to answer your question, I suppose I don't see the universe as needing to have a purpose and there really is no reason why anything can't just be an accident. It's like coincidences, they can happen and appear to be amazing, but its the human mind that gives them meaning and purpose. They don't actually mean anything, it's just a fluke or luck. With the universe, there is no question why, because that already assumes that it has been done purposey. So it is neither an accident nor a product of design, because both of those views require intellectual involvement. The universe does not have a plan, thus nothing is an accident, nothing is design, everything just is.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

Well, I suppose from my point of view, my incentive is only to do what makes me happy. Which is exactly what I'm doing. I only have a limited existence so every minute counts. I should use that limited time well, since there's nothing coming after it, to do what I feel is best.

I don;t want to get into a theological argument, but to answer your question, I suppose I don't see the universe as needing to have a purpose and there really is no reason why anything can't just be an accident. It's like coincidences, they can happen and appear to be amazing, but its the human mind that gives them meaning and purpose. They don't actually mean anything, it's just a fluke or luck. With the universe, there is no question why, because that already assumes that it has been done purposey. So it is neither an accident nor a product of design, because both of those views require intellectual involvement. The universe does not have a plan, thus nothing is an accident, nothing is design, everything just is.

Don't worry, this whole thread will be one big theological argument
I still say there is a creator and we are all spiritual beings first, human beings second.
Btw, all the beautiful laws in mathematics, physics, chemistry ... they can't all be coincidences! But while I don't agree with what you say, I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it!

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

Don't worry, this whole thread will be one big theological argument
I still say there is a creator and we are all spiritual beings first, human beings second.
Btw, all the beautiful laws in mathematics, physics, chemistry ... they can't all be coincidences! But while I don't agree with what you say, I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it!

And the same to you! People get too worked up about this disagreement, as it doesn't really matter which way round things are and people should just live the way they think is right.

 

[Haven]

The thought of not seeing loved ones again leave me optimistic there is.