The Meaning of Death

[Furls Fire]

And I've known a few people of amazing faith. Furls Fire is one of my favorite people in the world. (And I've never even met her! ) I do not feel the way I do about her in spite of her beliefs. I feel as I do because of her beliefs. It is a pure faith in God and love. Absolutely rock-solid. Firm in its correctness and rightness, but not judgemental. I could go on and on about it, and never do more than scratch the surface of how wonderful her faith is, or how much I think of her.

Love you, Eric

I think I've explained where my faith comes from a few times on here *wink wink* . It has always been there. There was never really a moment when I said "okay, I believe in God now." I have always believed in Him. For one simple reason...I have felt Him in my heart all my life. Eric, on the other hand, has not. And I don't know why, nor do I try to convince him he has but just doesn't know it (like he says, he can't flip on the belief switch). That is something I do not do. I do not try to tell people what and what not to believe. But, what I will do, if asked, is offer them my personal beliefs, and let them draw what they will from them. Some people have been helped by what they hear, some have found comfort, and some have found peace in the final days before their passing. And still others, like Eric, listen with respect and find joy in the sharing.

Eric is full of love, he says these things about me, but his heart holds boundless love and he finds joy in that.

To me, that is all God. God is Love. To Eric it is Love. And I know he doesn't believe this, but I really think that there is a place for him in Heaven.

Oh, and Eric...I fully intend to meet you in person one of these days.

[rusmeister]

Thank you, Furls!
Yes, the personal feeling aspect is internal and there is no "convincing others". It is something distinct from reason.

One thing I hope is not misunderstood, and that is that discussions of reason being confused with "telling people what to believe".

The personal witness of living your life is the most important thing in Orthodoxy, so much so that we don't go around knocking on people's doors with Bibles like many evangelical Christians do. But we are called to share, in what ways we can, our faith with those we find near us, and the way this happens can vary with the personality. In my case, I came to KW because I have always loved reading SRD. When I began looking at what was posted in the Close I found an overwhelming anti-Christian attitude dominating, one that sees faith as opposed to reason. I don't know how long I will be here for - sometimes the time it takes to post is not good for me to spend, but I do enjoy interacting with you folks here and I share what I have learned in hopes of shifting the unreasonable views at least a little while I am here. Thus all the Lewis and Chesterton stuff, for example, because that is their specialty, so to speak - Christian apologetics.

I don't know how I can have more personal relationships with any of you - I live VERY far away and am unlikely to meet any of you in this lifetime (although I may hope for real meetings beyond that!).

Thanks in general for listening to, responding to, and putting up with me and my thoughts!

[Furls Fire]

Fist and I live 3000 miles away from each other, but that hasn't changed how close we have become over the years. And like he said, we have never met in person. Actually, I haven't met anyone here in person. But, I have grown very close to quite a few members here.

Like you, we were all drawn here by SRD. He is one of my favorite authors (if not the favorite), and when I first got here I spent literally hours at a time in the Chrons and Dissecting forums. And friendships grew and new forums and threads were started. The Close is a wonderful place. It is where people can come and express their beliefs and all beliefs are met with respect. Some discussions get a little heated, but it cools down and people generally get along in here.

I'm glad you found us, Rus...from what I've read, you are a wonderful addition to the Watch and The Close.

[aliantha]

Your comments on history show that they need informing. The books of the New Testament were all written from AD 50 - AD 95, more or less. The writers were all apostles or in the first wave of converts. The Gospel of Luke is the only one that is not eyewitness.

Thank you, sir, I stand corrected. I must have been thinking of the date when the New Testament in its current form was codified. That event was, in fact, several hundred years after Jesus' death.

When a person writes memoirs about his life we generally don't assume that he screws up many or most of the facts, even though the events took place 20 or 40 years prior.

Well, I dunno about this one. Katherine Hepburn apparently remembers giving Spencer Tracy's wife some respectful time alone with him as he lay dying; reportedly, Tracy's wife remembered the scene somewhat differently, shall we say. But I'm willing to give the apostles the benefit of the doubt.

I sense a certain assumption in your statement about "making it palatable to everyone" which seems to take personal taste for granted as a guiding factor.

Well, no. What I was getting at is that the creed was written by a committee. Having served on some committees in my time, I know that while individual members may strive for consensus, often somebody has to compromise -- hence, "palatable to everyone".

As for my knowledge of history, it's admittedly somewhat weak, and my knowledge of church history is even more so. So thanks for setting me straight.

[rusmeister]

Your comments on history show that they need informing. The books of the New Testament were all written from AD 50 - AD 95, more or less. The writers were all apostles or in the first wave of converts. The Gospel of Luke is the only one that is not eyewitness.

Thank you, sir, I stand corrected. I must have been thinking of the date when the New Testament in its current form was codified. That event was, in fact, several hundred years after Jesus' death.

When a person writes memoirs about his life we generally don't assume that he screws up many or most of the facts, even though the events took place 20 or 40 years prior.

Well, I dunno about this one. Katherine Hepburn apparently remembers giving Spencer Tracy's wife some respectful time alone with him as he lay dying; reportedly, Tracy's wife remembered the scene somewhat differently, shall we say. But I'm willing to give the apostles the benefit of the doubt.

I sense a certain assumption in your statement about "making it palatable to everyone" which seems to take personal taste for granted as a guiding factor.

Well, no. What I was getting at is that the creed was written by a committee. Having served on some committees in my time, I know that while individual members may strive for consensus, often somebody has to compromise -- hence, "palatable to everyone".

As for my knowledge of history, it's admittedly somewhat weak, and my knowledge of church history is even more so. So thanks for setting me straight.

As an addition (possibly in your defense?) I think the part where you are quite right about 'making it palatable' is in the sense of "does this wording or that wording accurately reflect the faith?" - a number of factors, like the changing meaning of words over time could influence these kinds of questions.

Speaking with hindsight, it is obvious to me now that the only sensible way to study Christianity is to follow its history from the beginning, and it is precisely the knowledge of that history that is so lacking - in the west, Protestants can only begin talking about history as of the Reformation (the last 500 years), largely leaving out the 1,500 years prior to that (as if the Holy Spirit took a 1500-year vacation)! And it is modern evangelical-type Protestants that get most of the press and make most of the noise people hear. And most people examine Christianity "from this end" and take it all to be equally valid as Christianity without being aware of the history.

My recommendations (online) are
(as I've said a dozen times at least )Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" for a general look at man in history and Christ in history
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html

and "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware (now Metropolitan Kallistos) for the history of the Church proper.
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_1.htm
(There is a part 2, but it's about Church practice - just change the '1' to a '2' in the address if interested - I'd describe it as a rather thorough short course)

While GKC has a bias towards the Catholic Church and Ware towards the Orthodox Church, they are really fair in their presentations. And you would then be much better armed to talk about history! TEM was a slow read for me the first time (GKC's style is so different and there's a lot of deep thought there), but TOC was a really quick read - very straightforward.

[Fist and Faith]

Nice to see so many posts from you, Tracie. Heh.

I think I've explained where my faith comes from a few times on here *wink wink* .

I may remember you mentioning something in passing...

Eric, on the other hand, has not. And I don't know why, nor do I try to convince him he has but just doesn't know it

I remember a couple times when you wanted to. hehe

I do not try to tell people what and what not to believe. But, what I will do, if asked, is offer them my personal beliefs, and let them draw what they will from them. Some people have been helped by what they hear, some have found comfort, and some have found peace in the final days before their passing. And still others, like Eric, listen with respect and find joy in the sharing.

Yes, the sharing is great. I love your wisdom. I love your certainty. I love hearing the joy and peace in your voice. (OK, reading them in your words.)

And I know he doesn't believe this, but I really think that there is a place for him in Heaven.

Well... I suppose I could check the place out. But I wouldn't be as opposed to the Heaven of your God as I would be the God that various other people I know believe in.

Oh, and Eric...I fully intend to meet you in person one of these days.

I expect we'll meet one day.

[Cagliostro]

Get a room! And get offa mah lawn!

[Worm of Despite]

I think an appropriate challenge to this idea is to ask "what is the meaning of your death?".

Wrong thread Rus, but the answer is easy. Death on it's own doesn't mean anything. It happens to everybody. That's not to say your death can't be meaningful in some broader sense, but if it is, it was up to you to make it so.

--A

The 'easy answer' is also the wrong answer...
It would be more useful to explain why we have this thirst for meaning. If we have an objective thirst for something, then the most logical explanation is that there is an objective (not subjective) thing, somewhere, whether we find it or not, that meets that need.

Strange logic. Humans just want to know the meaning to things, as it's part of their curious nature. Anything with our brain capacity probably would. Doesn't mean because we -want- to know something by default must be out there (or beyond death).

We are given the answer to "what is death" every time we go to sleep.
If we die in our sleep and never wake up there is....**nothing**.
We're just gone.
Any emotion we attach to death contradicts our experience with sleep.
We as humans elevate ourselves due to our intelligence and our fear of death.

I'm mentioned this before and the quick retort is "we dream and there is mental activity during sleep" but the essence of sleep, the oblivion, is undeniable.
And that to me is the answer to what is death.

Aye, sucks don't it? And therein is the common (not "objective") thirst to wish for something better, or believe there must be something after this existence.

[rusmeister]

Wrong thread Rus, but the answer is easy. Death on it's own doesn't mean anything. It happens to everybody. That's not to say your death can't be meaningful in some broader sense, but if it is, it was up to you to make it so.

--A

The 'easy answer' is also the wrong answer...
It would be more useful to explain why we have this thirst for meaning. If we have an objective thirst for something, then the most logical explanation is that there is an objective (not subjective) thing, somewhere, whether we find it or not, that meets that need.

Strange logic. Humans just want to know the meaning to things, as it's part of their curious nature. Anything with our brain capacity probably would. Doesn't mean because we -want- to know something by default must be out there (or beyond death).

And yet, if we apply this logic to a thirst for water, the argument falls apart. If I find a fish dead in the desert, it is proof that there is such a thing as water, even if I never find it - it is clearly a thing designed (or adapted, if you prefer) to a water environment.

It is not merely a matter of wondering if something IS, which any individual may do or not do. It is explaining a phenomenon which touches our whole species - a drive or demand to seek meaning, to justify one's existence. You might find people that do not (including yourselves), but there are always exceptions to rules, or mutations to the norm. The thing you have to do is explain the presence of this desire in the overwhelming majority of humanity throughout history, and simply saying that "They are just curious" doesn't answer that question at all. A scientist worth his salt would examine the question, form hypotheses, etc, rather than merely write it off.

We are given the answer to "what is death" every time we go to sleep.
If we die in our sleep and never wake up there is....**nothing**.
We're just gone.
Any emotion we attach to death contradicts our experience with sleep.
We as humans elevate ourselves due to our intelligence and our fear of death.

I'm mentioned this before and the quick retort is "we dream and there is mental activity during sleep" but the essence of sleep, the oblivion, is undeniable.
And that to me is the answer to what is death.

Aye, sucks don't it? And therein is the common (not "objective") thirst to wish for something better, or believe there must be something after this existence.

The sleep analogy is very good (best comment highlighted). But sleeping ends in awakening. This points to resurrection, not oblivion. And it is a renewal. We have renewed strength, energy to face the new day. The caterpillar must sleep in the chrysalis, and the caterpillar's existence, as such, ends. But it emerges as something far better.

[Loredoctor]

It is not merely a matter of wondering if something IS, which any individual may do or not do. It is explaining a phenomenon which touches our whole species - a drive or demand to seek meaning, to justify one's existence.

Actually, the desire to seek meaning is always being studied. As far as I know, there is no desire to write it off as 'just curious'. Speaking from first hand study experience as a psychologist, this desire is not a novel phenomena in labs or essays.

From an evolutionist framework, the desire to seek meaning is explicable when one considers that organisms seek to survive in their environment. Without possessing a curiousity, it is unlikely the organism will learn of harmful or beneficial elements in the environment. I see the desire to seek meaning as simply the desire to better understand the world around us.

Anyway, I am helping the thread go off topic.

[Avatar]

Ha, this thread never really had a topic in the first place. It was split of from a still different topic.

It's pretty simple to me too. Biologically speaking, (where's The Dreaming? ), life strives. That's what it's all about. You, me, Rus, the bird, snake, bat and catapillar, the tree, shrub, flower, weed, it all strives.

The point is striving. Not toward a "goal," because that implies an end to striving. Nope...until the heat-death of the universe, it's just going to keep on striving as long as it exists.

It's pretty awesome.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Well, Av, I may as well copy & paste this post, from March 5, 2005.

OK then what is the "spirit" in spiritual? Obviously not the Holy Spirit. Ghosts? In order to be "spiritual" there has to be some sort of spirit. I know exactly what y'all are talking about, I just think you're using the wrong word.

The spirit is the human spirit. That which strives. That which searches for beauty, wisdom, meaning. Here's some more quotes.

Jung:

The meaning and purpose of a problem seem to lie not in its solution but in our working at it incessantly.

Chris, from Northern Exposure:

I've been out here now for some days, groping my way along, trying to realize my vision here. I started concentrating so hard on my vision that I lost sight. I've come to find out that it's not the vision. It's not the vision at all. It's the groping. It's the groping, it's the yearning, it's the moving forward. I was so fixated on that flying cow that, when Ed told me Monty Python already painted that picture, thought I was through. I had to let go of that cow so that I could see all the other possibilities....... I think Kierkegard said it oh so well: “The self is only that which it’s in the process of becoming.” Art? Same thing. James Joyce had something to say about it too: “Welcome oh life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience, and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscious of my race.” We’re here today to fling something that bubbled up from the collective unconsciousness of our community......... The thing I learned folks, this is absolutely key: It’s not the thing you fling, it’s the fling itself.

Trek quote #1 - Data and his daughter (he made a daughter in one episode):

Lal: I watch them, and I can do the things they do. But I will never feel the emotions. I’ll never know love.

Data: It is a limitation we must learn to accept, Lal.

Lal: Then why do you still try to emulate humans. What purpose does it serve, except to remind you that you are incomplete?

Data: I have asked myself that, many times, as I have struggled to be more human. Until I realized it is the struggle itself that is most important. We must strive to be more than we are, Lal. It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal. The effort yields its own rewards.

Trek quote #2 - Data and Dr. Crusher:

Data: What is the definition of life?

Crusher: That is a BIG question. Why do you ask?

Data: I am searching for a definition that will allow me to test an hypotheses.

Crusher: Well, the broadest scientific definition might be that life is what enables plants and animals to consume food, derive energy from it, grow, adapt themselves to their surrounding, and reproduce.

Data: And you suggest that anything that exhibits these characteristics is considered alive.

Crusher: In general, yes.

Data: What about fire?

Crusher: Fire?

Data: Yes. It consumes fuel to produce energy. It grows. It creates offspring. By your definition, is it alive?

Crusher: Fire is a chemical reaction. You could use the same argument for growing crystals. But, obviously, we don't consider them alive.

Data: And what about me? I do not grow. I do not reprodue. Yet I am considered to be alive.

Crusher: That's true. But you are unique.

Data: Hm. I wonder if that is so.

Crusher: Data, if I may ask, what exactly are you getting at?

Data: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Dr. Sung's laboratory and the next moment, when I became alive. What is it that endowed me with life?

Crusher: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little. And I tried desperately to give him an answer. But everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realized that scientists and philosophers have been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.

Data: Are you saying the question cannot be answered?

Crusher: No. I think I'm saying that we struggle all our lives to answer it. That it's the struggle that is important. That's what helps us to define our place in the universe.

[Fist and Faith]

And yet, if we apply this logic to a thirst for water, the argument falls apart. If I find a fish dead in the desert, it is proof that there is such a thing as water, even if I never find it - it is clearly a thing designed (or adapted, if you prefer) to a water environment.

It is not merely a matter of wondering if something IS, which any individual may do or not do. It is explaining a phenomenon which touches our whole species - a drive or demand to seek meaning, to justify one's existence. You might find people that do not (including yourselves), but there are always exceptions to rules, or mutations to the norm. The thing you have to do is explain the presence of this desire in the overwhelming majority of humanity throughout history, and simply saying that "They are just curious" doesn't answer that question at all. A scientist worth his salt would examine the question, form hypotheses, etc, rather than merely write it off.

As you and I have seen every time we've tried to make any analogy, none are perfect. We come as close as we can, but there's always a problem. Such is the case here. The physical need for water is not a perfect analogy for the psychological need for meaning. Yes, water (for these purposes, ultimately, any liquid is water) is absolutely essential for all life on earth. (I believe all life?) Depriving it from any living organism eventually kills that organism. We can even examine all organisms and understand why they all need water.

OTOH, no examination of anyone will reveal why we need meaning. It is not a perfect analogy to our need for water, because the physical and psychological are not the same thing. The fact that, as you said, there are exceptions to the need for meaning is proof that it is a very different thing from, and not perfectly analogous with, the need for water.

And there's also less physical/more psychological evidence of this. Different people have found different answers to the question of meaning. We do not have the slightest reason to suspect that these different answers do not truly satisfy the people who embrace them.

[Avatar]

Well, Av, I may as well copy & paste this post, from March 5, 2005.

Ever get the feeling...

--A

[Fist and Faith]

[lurch]

I am reminded of the Parrot skit by Monty Python:

" Its Dead!
" No it 'tisn't!
" Yes it is!!..D-E-A-D DEAD! ( banging dead bird on counter in emphasis)

If ya want to "live" beyound death just take a foto of yourself, laminate in thick plastic,,place inside a lead box,,go out in the middle of nowhere and bury the box in a 6 ft hole or deeper...or go chisel your name 6 inches deep in a rock face...or create something new and unique that will evolve into perpetuity..We all have that potential,,so don't blame me or any one else if ya don't " live" up to it.

[Worm of Despite]

The thing you have to do is explain the presence of this desire in the overwhelming majority of humanity throughout history, and simply saying that "They are just curious" doesn't answer that question at all. A scientist worth his salt would examine the question, form hypotheses, etc, rather than merely write it off.

Didn't write it off. Merely said it's an unanswerable question and humans oh so love their order and answers, so it's merely natural that it will plague us throughout time. I don't think that means it has to have an answer, other than brain death and decomposition.

We are given the answer to "what is death" every time we go to sleep.
If we die in our sleep and never wake up there is....**nothing**.
We're just gone.
Any emotion we attach to death contradicts our experience with sleep.
We as humans elevate ourselves due to our intelligence and our fear of death.

I'm mentioned this before and the quick retort is "we dream and there is mental activity during sleep" but the essence of sleep, the oblivion, is undeniable.
And that to me is the answer to what is death.

Aye, sucks don't it? And therein is the common (not "objective") thirst to wish for something better, or believe there must be something after this existence.

The sleep analogy is very good (best comment highlighted). But sleeping ends in awakening. This points to resurrection, not oblivion. And it is a renewal. We have renewed strength, energy to face the new day. The caterpillar must sleep in the chrysalis, and the caterpillar's existence, as such, ends. But it emerges as something far better.

And then it dies. The fact that we wake up in the morning (or whenever you do) is a biological process. If you believe it means you'll be resurrected in the afterlife, that's completely your supposition and merely a large conclusion-jump to say waking up after sleep means existing forever after death. What comes up must come down. If there was nothingness before birth, you will return to it.

[Auleliel]

If there was nothingness before birth, you will return to it.

Was there nothingness before birth?

[Fist and Faith]

Well I sure don't remember anything.

[Auleliel]

There are many things that have happened and that I've experienced that I do not remember. That does not mean they never happened or that I did not experience them.
It's possible that everyone experiences memory loss upon birth about what happened before...