If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
"jules" wrote in message
news:3JMNf.88487$B94.4994@pd7tw3no... Nor does it bother me that I will not continue to exist after death, at least not any more than it bothers me that I didn't exist before I was born. You aren't the sort who wakes up in the middle of the night in a crushing, agonizing panic that you might lose someone you love, are you? Well, I'm not exactly sure I wake up in the middle of the night in agonizing panic, but I can tell you that I was the kind of kid who always lay awake worrying until my parents came home if they'd gone out for the evening. I was terrified they'd die and not come home. And I have had some fairly abominable nightmares involving the loss of one or more of my children. It's not that I don't dread the possibility. OTOH, I lost my father 7.5 years ago--quite suddenly and unexpectedly--and I've realized that life goes on and, more, the HE goes on in the lives and hearts of the people HIS life touched, including me. I have occasion to miss him almost every day, but I also have wonderful memories of the time we had together, and that sustains me. And he's really always with me in the back of my mind--I often test ideas by asking myself what my dad would have thought or said--so in an odd sort of way, it's as if he's not really gone at all. It's not so much that _I_ might not continue after death, but that those I love might not. If I believed with a certainty that we will go on after death, and I lost a loved one, I would be terribly sad. I would miss them. But I would go on, and I would be comforted by the fact that they are waiting for me and that we will see each other again. Our separation is temporary in the grand scheme of things. I can understand that. On the other hand, if I believed with a certainty that when we die, that's it, *poof* - that "soul" no longer exists anywhere, and I lost a loved one... It would crush me like a bug. I'd probably wouldn't literally kill me, but I'd be empty inside. I can only say that it is possible to dread losing the people you love, not believe in an afterlife in the conventional sense, and still not be crushed by the loss when it happens. Maybe it isn't possible for you to do so, and of course, I'm not attempting to dissuade you from believing what you believe, at least as long as it gives you comfort. (If people's beliefs are NOT comforting to them, well, then one might have more of a justification for trying to change their minds...) As it is, I have a sense of something greater and more eternal than our existence being a fluke of the cosmos. But it can't be pinned down to a certainty. I have seen some things that indicate to me that our souls are not as temporary as our lives and I cling to that. although as I have gotten older, I have become a lot less strident in my desire to convert others to my POV g. I think you are mostly joking here, but I'd like to point out that if you were to try to convert me you would be doing me a disservice (even if you ultimately happened to be right). Of course. But I have also realized that whether I am "right" or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Since I have no great stake in being "right" any more (at least when it comes to the "Big Questions"), I have no great stake in whether OTHER people believe what I do or something entirely different. I may not have faith, but I have hope, and to rob me of that would make me less happy in the short life I have. And that is something I would be loath to do. -- Be well, Barbara |
#452
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
dragonlady wrote:
But when it comes to things like whether God exists (and what God is) and what happens after we die and why we are here -- while I will gladly share my beliefs (and listen to yours), I try to hold my beliefs with humility, aware that I cannot see the whole elephant, the whole mountain, the full heart of the universe, all of creation, all of Truth and Meaning -- the part you see is different from the part I see, each of us has some of the Truth, and when we put it together and listen deeply to each other, without trying to insist that OUR Truth is the only Truth, we can all get just a little closer. Even if our Truths appear totally contradictory, that just means there is something more -- something neither of us truely understands. Continuing to explore what we each see/believe can only help each of us come a little closer. There's nothing incompatible here with anything I've been saying. I would certainly agree that beliefs don't have to be making a claim about *all* of reality, or have to be the final say on the matter. I would say that if we say we believe something to be true, that we think we're describing at least a little bit of reality correctly. That we think it's true. That we think people who don't agree with it are wrong. I do not see how that can be incompatible with what you seem to be saying. Would you please explain? -- C, maam to three year old nursling |
#453
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
wrote in message
oups.com... Circe wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: I'm saying that beliefs have to say that a proposition is either true, or false, and that if I think a proposition is true, that automatically means that I think that people who think that proposition is false are wrong. I think this is a proposition on which we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe the problem is that you only apply the word "belief" to facts or ideas which you think apply universally, while I apply it both to things I think are universally true and to things I hold to be true for me that I suspect might not be true for others. Considering that you just replied to a post in which I said, "I'm not saying that all beliefs have to be held by everybody," I didn't think you were saying this... and "I'm not saying that all beliefs have to apply to truths that are about everyone," ....but it did seem to me that you are saying this! I'm not sure how else to interpret the statement (paraphrased), "If I think a proposition is true, I automatically think people who think it's false are wrong." In other words, you seem to be saying that for you to consider something a "belief", it has to be something for which there are only two possible positions--true in all cases or false in all cases. Now, I suppose that means you can say "I believe brussel sprouts taste bad to me" and have it be true without having it apply to all people. What I'm trying to say is that most of my beliefs with regard to the Big Questions are more along the lines of "I believe P for me," which allows me to open to the possibility that people who believe Not P can be equally right when it comes to the truth for themselves. So, for example, I don't believe in an afterlife for myself and doubt that anyone else is going to have one either, but I also don't look at people who say there's an afterlife and think "They're just plain wrong." I just think, "It seems unlikely to me, but it's just as valid an opinion on the subject as mine!" We're both working from the same evidence, after all, and have exactly the same ability to prove our points. And I can conceive of multiple ways in which both positions regarding the afterlife could actually be true, some of which I've mentioned in this thread. Maybe the real issue I'm struggling to explain here is that when it comes to most of my beliefs, I doubt that there are simple yes/no, true/false answers. So it is impossible for me to hold the position "P is true" (where P represents some "big picture" question about the nature and meaning of life) without simultaneously entertaining the possibility that not only is P true, but Not P is true as well as P=X and P-X and any number of other variations on P. -- Be well, Barbara |
#454
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
I suspect she means something like a situation where you see things that appear to be contradictory even though you believe them to be true. Often what happens in those situations is that further information resolves the apparent contradiction. Now, in a formal logical sense, that's not the same as believing P and not P at the same time; however, in practical, messy, real-life terms is looks and feels like holding two contradictory positions at the same time. In a formal logic sense, it sounds like saying I believe P, and putting on the qualifier that if you get reasons to believe ~P, you'll change your mind. Which is just fine -- all I have been saying is that it means you think that P. Therefore you think ~P is wrong. It doesn't mean you think that P forever. -- C, mama to three year old nursling |
#455
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article Ji%Nf.6$5F1.4@fed1read08, Circe says...
"jules" wrote in message news:3JMNf.88487$B94.4994@pd7tw3no... Nor does it bother me that I will not continue to exist after death, at least not any more than it bothers me that I didn't exist before I was born. You aren't the sort who wakes up in the middle of the night in a crushing, agonizing panic that you might lose someone you love, are you? Well, I'm not exactly sure I wake up in the middle of the night in agonizing panic, but I can tell you that I was the kind of kid who always lay awake worrying until my parents came home if they'd gone out for the evening. I was terrified they'd die and not come home. And I have had some fairly abominable nightmares involving the loss of one or more of my children. It's not that I don't dread the possibility. OTOH, I lost my father 7.5 years ago--quite suddenly and unexpectedly--and I've realized that life goes on and, more, the HE goes on in the lives and hearts of the people HIS life touched, including me. I have occasion to miss him almost every day, but I also have wonderful memories of the time we had together, and that sustains me. And he's really always with me in the back of my mind--I often test ideas by asking myself what my dad would have thought or said--so in an odd sort of way, it's as if he's not really gone at all. It's not so much that _I_ might not continue after death, but that those I love might not. If I believed with a certainty that we will go on after death, and I lost a loved one, I would be terribly sad. I would miss them. But I would go on, and I would be comforted by the fact that they are waiting for me and that we will see each other again. Our separation is temporary in the grand scheme of things. I can understand that. On the other hand, if I believed with a certainty that when we die, that's it, *poof* - that "soul" no longer exists anywhere, and I lost a loved one... It would crush me like a bug. I'd probably wouldn't literally kill me, but I'd be empty inside. I can only say that it is possible to dread losing the people you love, not believe in an afterlife in the conventional sense, and still not be crushed by the loss when it happens. Maybe it isn't possible for you to do so, and of course, I'm not attempting to dissuade you from believing what you believe, at least as long as it gives you comfort. (If people's beliefs are NOT comforting to them, well, then one might have more of a justification for trying to change their minds...) That whole idea never made sense to me, either (just like that the Rules of the Cosmic will be revealed when one receives a Comic Clearance upon death doen't make sense). Relationships are complex and changeable. I always wondered how, when, say, a man who was lovingly married to two women in succession, having been widowed at a young age, is to handle these two women waiting for him in heaven Do they get along? Do they phase? How about their other husbands and maybe even secret lovers? Siblings who may or may not get along? How about that herd of cats and packs of dogs awaiting us on the other side of the Rainbow Bridge? Which ones are alpha dogs? How many scrapes did they get into to decide that? Or are they all laying down together like the proverbial lions and lambs?? A blending into cosmic consiousness always made more sense to me. So, do loved ones reconsistitue one at a time to greet one? See, I think a LOT of religion comes from how painfully difficult it is for sentient beings in organic bodies to imagine their own oblivion and that of their loved ones. So all kinds of afterlives are postulated to spare that pain. But sparing pain isn't truth. Banty |
#456
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
"Banty" wrote in message ... Relationships are complex and changeable. I always wondered how, when, say, a man who was lovingly married to two women in succession, having been widowed at a young age, is to handle these two women waiting for him in heaven Do they get along? Do they phase? How about their other husbands and maybe even secret lovers? Siblings who may or may not get along? How about that herd of cats and packs of dogs awaiting us on the other side of the Rainbow Bridge? Which ones are alpha dogs? How many scrapes did they get into to decide that? Or are they all laying down together like the proverbial lions and lambs?? We've been told that heaven is a place that is so wonderful that we will be beyond earthly concerns, which would include things like jealousy and petty grievances. A blending into cosmic consiousness always made more sense to me. So, do loved ones reconsistitue one at a time to greet one? Well, since this is your view of the afterlife, you get to decide that however it makes sense to you. See, I think a LOT of religion comes from how painfully difficult it is for sentient beings in organic bodies to imagine their own oblivion and that of their loved ones. So all kinds of afterlives are postulated to spare that pain. But sparing pain isn't truth. No, but it isn't untruth either. The whole point is that we don't know, so we choose to believe whatever makes sense to us, and/or whatever brings us comfort. Bizby |
#457
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
wrote in message
oups.com... bizby40 wrote: I *believe* that you obfuscate your meaning by making your words as convoluted and circular as you can, and then follow up with a "really?" or a "*boggle*" when someone does not understand, thus attempting to put yourself on the high ground and leave the poor befuddled simple-minded fool on the ground. And I believe that I use words as clearly as possible. Therefore we disagree, and you think I am wrong, and I think you are wrong. Which is all I've ever said through this entire thread. Wow, you've sure used a lot of words to say only that. From dictionary.com: be·lieve [snip] 3.. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly. 4.. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe. All of those definitions consist of *asserting* that a proposition is either *true*, or *false*. I don't think the two I didn't snip necessarily say that. I don't really understand why you are having such a hugely long conversation about semantics. I suppose it would be more technically correct for me to say, "I believe that no one can know for sure what happens after death." (something I believe to be *true*) and then "But the theory I find most comforting or appealing is..." (stating an opinion), but it is common for people to use the term "believe" without having a 100% certainty behind their views. And when someone tells you that they can hold their beliefs without thinking others are wrong, you really ought to believe them, because you really can't tell someone how to feel, and arguments over semantics are just annoying. -- C, mama to three year old nursling |
#458
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
|
#459
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
bizby40 wrote: I *believe* that you obfuscate your meaning by making your words as convoluted and circular as you can, and then follow up with a "really?" or a "*boggle*" when someone does not understand, thus attempting to put yourself on the high ground and leave the poor befuddled simple-minded fool on the ground. This seems to happen to you a lot. Time to look in the mirror. -L. |
#460
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article .com,
" wrote: I would say that if we say we believe something to be true, that we think we're describing at least a little bit of reality correctly. That we think it's true. That we think people who don't agree with it are wrong. I do not see how that can be incompatible with what you seem to be saying. Would you please explain? Because I refuse to believe that people who don't agree with me on these issues are necessarily wrong. It's an odd place to live, perhaps; but it works for me. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | General | 444 | July 20th 04 07:14 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |