diversity and tolerance

[rusmeister]

Whether you say "fear" or "don't want to" (and in what you quoted I said "don't want to") - I mean the same thing by it. I don't mean that everyone is quaking in their boots - I mean that they would prefer to live in good health and with whatever personal crises they have solved.

So when you say "welcome it", I get that you mean that they may prefer it to their current state. What I mean is that they would even more prefer not to be ill or sad or frightened and be alive.

I agree. Few people seem to want to die. If they did, they'd have killed themselves, eh? Even most of those who attempt suicide, and even most of those who succeed, gave signs - and even flat-out told people - that they were going to try.

At this point in my life I would rather be alive than dead. At all points in my life, in fact, if sometimes for no other reason than the fact that life will end in, at most, several decades, while death will be forever. But there's a lot of great things in this life, and I'll keep it going for a while if I can.

The thing I do fear is dying. The process scares me. It's often kinda painful, which, combined with the fact that its end is the end...

We agree on some things, anyway. That, as I said, was one of the motives impelling me to seriously consider the meaning of all this life and death, and as I said, for me it starts with the incredible common sense and logic that Lewis offered in "Mere Christianity" - although I had been opened to Lewis in the first place by reading "The Screwtape Letters". It was the fictional depiction of someone who WAS me - even though Lewis could not have known anything about me - that he described things in my own heart I had never told anyone (he certainly knew some things about what was in my mind and heart) that made me take him seriously and pay attention - when previously, I had been completely uninterested in the topic of meaning and my own death.

Knowing that people don't want to die - that they want to live in health and relative comfort, and that when they do die, they want their life and death to have some kind of meaning - that they want to die for something, that no one is willing to die for nothing, no one desires a senseless death, I say that we can know these things - about everyone.

Again, you're trying to speak of that which you do not know. The acceptance of meaninglessness (Which is very differenct from the belief in it without the acceptance of it. And that fear is not evidence that it is not the case.) is such an impossible thing for your mental/emotional makeup that you believe it is impossible for anyone else's. And, so, you simply repeat that anybody who claims to possess it is self-deluded, or hasn't thought it through, or whatever. And repeating that is the same as someone else endlessly telling you that you only believe in God because meaninglessness terrifies you, and that the other reasons you insist are actually the case are self-delusions. The outright refusal to accept that either your or my attitude is real, even if one cannot feel it him/herself, is... *sigh*

But I'm not sure on some specifics in what you just said. What kind of meaning do you want your death to have?

What you describe as "mental makeup" (and throwing in "emotional" as if it were something irrational) I describe as "logical". I do see "If death, then end. If end then undoing. If undoing then meaningless. If meaningless, then no reason to do." That isn't an individual "mental makeup" - that's a straight logical chain. I think anyone who doesn't see that is missing something in logic. Not that I think there's any value in arguing that with you.
Transcendent meaning can only be had in God. It is God - our Creator - who "remembers us" (and in the resurrection will "re-member" us; that is restore our members and put us back together, so to speak. So "Remember me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom" takes on a new meaning. (It sure as heckfire doesn't mean "Reminisce about me...") So I want my life and death to be God-pleasing - to glorify God. (I'm scared of wanting that sometimes, and what it could mean - I'm quite weak and fear testing.)

Not my beliefs. My personal experience of coming near to death following years of being sick.

I know death leads to peace.

It is a rest after years of pain and exhaustion.

Nothing to fear.

I would prefer not to die until my children finish school (that is the main thing that has kept me going) - but if and when I go, I know it will be putting down a heavy burden and passing into...something wonderful.

Nothing to fear.

Even near-death experiences are not death itself. I'm rather skeptical of your ability to know, although you are free, of course, to believe what you want.

What experiences have given you greater ability to know that death is something to fear? You seem to be saying that death itself is the only experience that gives one the ability to know whether or not death is something to fear, but I don't imagine that's what you mean.

Well, my experiences in car accidents and some incredible air turbulence have brought me as close as I ever want to get. I know that most people absolutely do not know what duchess claims to know - if there were some authority that confirmed her idea I could examine it and take it more seriously. But to simply say "I know" is a dogmatic belief. If it is an individual dogma, with reference to neither the experience of others nor authority, then I'd say I have a greater basis on both counts to know that death is our enemy to supplement my own experience, thoughts and feelings.

[Fist and Faith]

Knowing that people don't want to die - that they want to live in health and relative comfort, and that when they do die, they want their life and death to have some kind of meaning - that they want to die for something, that no one is willing to die for nothing, no one desires a senseless death, I say that we can know these things - about everyone.

Again, you're trying to speak of that which you do not know. The acceptance of meaninglessness (Which is very differenct from the belief in it without the acceptance of it. And that fear is not evidence that it is not the case.) is such an impossible thing for your mental/emotional makeup that you believe it is impossible for anyone else's. And, so, you simply repeat that anybody who claims to possess it is self-deluded, or hasn't thought it through, or whatever. And repeating that is the same as someone else endlessly telling you that you only believe in God because meaninglessness terrifies you, and that the other reasons you insist are actually the case are self-delusions. The outright refusal to accept that either your or my attitude is real, even if one cannot feel it him/herself, is... *sigh*

But I'm not sure on some specifics in what you just said. What kind of meaning do you want your death to have?

What you describe as "mental makeup" (and throwing in "emotional" as if it were something irrational)

I didn't throw in "emotional" for any negative reason. I did it because there is a difference between mental and emotional, and both are important parts of us.

I guess it's been argued that emotion is irrational, and it may be true. I'm not sure. But even if it is, emotion often serves an extremely good purpose. Fear causes flight, so the person survives. Love leads to sex, and the species goes on.

But even if a particular fear is irrational, and even if it serves no good purpose, it may not be something that can be avoided. Some people are stuck with some fears. Just as some people are stuck with some preferences. I love Bach, and pretty much can't stand country music. I love most anything chocolate. Rational or not; serving a purpose or not. It's simply a part of my whole mental/emotional makeup.

I describe as "logical". I do see "If death, then end. If end then undoing. If undoing then meaningless. If meaningless, then no reason to do." That isn't an individual "mental makeup" - that's a straight logical chain. I think anyone who doesn't see that is missing something in logic. Not that I think there's any value in arguing that with you.

What does "undoing" mean? Did anything I did while alive cease to be? Do the buildings someone built fall when they die? Does the impact people have on their children cease, and the children suddenly begin living their lives in different ways?

But that's not at all important. If buildings did fall when their builders die; if how parents raised their children did become undone when they died, it wouldn't matter. You do not have a straight logical chain. Your chain is a mixture of logical links and links of personal preference. "If undoing then universally meaningless." True. "If universally meaningless, then no reason to do." False. That is your own judgement. It is your emotional reaction to that scenario. It is not a universal truth. That is proven by the fact that it is not a truth for me. I don't feel that there is no reason to do the things I do. I enjoy the life that all I do has built. The fact that it will not be eternal does not take away that enjoyment. The fact that YOU cannot feel that way about it - because your mental/emotional makeup is different than mine - does not mean I am "missing something in logic." It means we do not react the same way about all things.

Transcendent meaning can only be had in God. It is God - our Creator - who "remembers us" (and in the resurrection will "re-member" us; that is restore our members and put us back together, so to speak. So "Remember me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom" takes on a new meaning. (It sure as heckfire doesn't mean "Reminisce about me...") So I want my life and death to be God-pleasing - to glorify God. (I'm scared of wanting that sometimes, and what it could mean - I'm quite weak and fear testing.)

I understand that you want the "whole package" to be God-pleasing. But do you mean you want your death to be so, also? As in, dying while saving another's life, or something?

Even near-death experiences are not death itself. I'm rather skeptical of your ability to know, although you are free, of course, to believe what you want.

What experiences have given you greater ability to know that death is something to fear? You seem to be saying that death itself is the only experience that gives one the ability to know whether or not death is something to fear, but I don't imagine that's what you mean.

Well, my experiences in car accidents and some incredible air turbulence have brought me as close as I ever want to get. I know that most people absolutely do not know what duchess claims to know - if there were some authority that confirmed her idea I could examine it and take it more seriously. But to simply say "I know" is a dogmatic belief. If it is an individual dogma, with reference to neither the experience of others nor authority, then I'd say I have a greater basis on both counts to know that death is our enemy to supplement my own experience, thoughts and feelings.

None of that changes the fact that, for duchess, death is nothing to fear. It is a truth for her. She does not need any "greater basis" to back her up on this. She does not fear death. It is not her enemy. And it's likely that nothing you can say will make her fear it.

But, in fact, there is a greater basis. There are a great many other people in the world who feel the same as her. There's the "experience of others" that you are looking for. Many, many people agree that death is not our enemy.

No "authority" like God or the OC is necessary for people to think death is an enemy. Your mental/emotional makeup needs an authority of that nature. But that doesn't mean such an authority is necessary for all people.

[Avatar]

Describing death as an enemy is simply anthropomorphisation.

It implies it's "out to get you" when it's nothing of the sort.

--A

[aliantha]

What Av said. Death simply is. It's a fact of life that life ends.

A healthy human will want life to keep on going, it's true. But lots of people who know that they're at the end of their lives express the wish to just be done with it already -- who welcome the sweet release that Duchess is talking about. I can remember my grandmother saying much the same thing -- she'd lost one leg to diabetes and was on the verge of needing to have the other amputated, too, when she died.

And I don't know that it would be smart to tempt fate by saying, "Well, I've experienced air turbulence and so I know what it feels like to almost die, and it wasn't anything like Duchess experienced." The Universe may decide to give you a first-hand lesson for your hubris.

What sort of "authority" would you need, rus? By the time people get to the point Duchess is talking about, they rarely have the energy to develop a dogma around it....

And Duchess:

[Orlion]

Heinlein once said (in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I believe) that the difference between a child and an adult was the acceptance of death. Issac Asimov has described death as a release from pain (as have Micheal Crichton), and my ex-roomate has said that there was a comfort in death once he accepted it while he was choking on mucus from collapsed lung and nearly died due to the incompetence of the nurses on duty.

[High Lord Tolkien]

That's what I liked best about Tolkien's "Eru's Gift to Men".
A simple self letting go at the end.

[rusmeister]

Heinlein once said (in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I believe) that the difference between a child and an adult was the acceptance of death. Issac Asimov has described death as a release from pain (as have Micheal Crichton), and my ex-roomate has said that there was a comfort in death once he accepted it while he was choking on mucus from collapsed lung and nearly died due to the incompetence of the nurses on duty.

I totally reject these ideas, and don't consider those authors - whom I have all read - as authoritative or representative of how most people really feel about death, but feel it's pretty useless talking about it. Here I trust the instincts of the common man - the masses, what they feel but cannot explain more than an intellectual minority that can expound on it.

I feel that I'm letting go here. I got into the wrong threads on the wrong forums, perhaps - I do have social ideas that are not express teachings of my faith, although I infer them as being compatible, but it's useless trying to share them and show how they can be sensible, at least on the internal logic if nothing else, but have failed to deliver that.
FR John from the oca.org site responded to me on a question, and this bit was included - a quote from a Church father:

"When asked, reply; when not asked, remain quiet."

and I'm going to try to follow that advice to a greater extent than I have.

[rusmeister]

That's what I liked best about Tolkien's "Eru's Gift to Men".
A simple self letting go at the end.

I don't think this is a correct understanding of Tolkien's vision and thought in the fate of Men. Certainly the end of Men was not a FINAL end; only that its continuation was outside of the bounds of the world.

[High Lord Tolkien]

That's what I liked best about Tolkien's "Eru's Gift to Men".
A simple self letting go at the end.

I don't think this is a correct understanding of Tolkien's vision and thought in the fate of Men. Certainly the end of Men was not a FINAL end; only that its continuation was outside of the bounds of the world.

I didn't say that was all it was about.
I just said that that was my favorite part.

[Orlion]

Heinlein once said (in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I believe) that the difference between a child and an adult was the acceptance of death. Issac Asimov has described death as a release from pain (as have Micheal Crichton), and my ex-roomate has said that there was a comfort in death once he accepted it while he was choking on mucus from collapsed lung and nearly died due to the incompetence of the nurses on duty.

I totally reject these ideas, and don't consider those authors - whom I have all read - as authoritative or representative of how most people really feel about death, but feel it's pretty useless talking about it. Here I trust the instincts of the common man - the masses, what they feel but cannot explain more than an intellectual minority that can expound on it.

I feel that I'm letting go here. I got into the wrong threads on the wrong forums, perhaps - I do have social ideas that are not express teachings of my faith, although I infer them as being compatible, but it's useless trying to share them and show how they can be sensible, at least on the internal logic if nothing else, but have failed to deliver that.
FR John from the oca.org site responded to me on a question, and this bit was included - a quote from a Church father:

"When asked, reply; when not asked, remain quiet."

and I'm going to try to follow that advice to a greater extent than I have.

I think you'd be better served looking at the majority of people actually dying When your life is full of wonderful possibilities, you're not going to necesarily view death as a release from pain...particularly since you don't have that much of it. Many of the authors (and friend) observed these things when they or their characters were at the point when life was bereft of possiblities and was instead filled with intense pain.

And it doesn't have to be intense pain, either. The price of living just has to be higher for the person then whatever qualms he or she has about death.

[Fist and Faith]

Heinlein once said (in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I believe) that the difference between a child and an adult was the acceptance of death. Issac Asimov has described death as a release from pain (as have Micheal Crichton), and my ex-roomate has said that there was a comfort in death once he accepted it while he was choking on mucus from collapsed lung and nearly died due to the incompetence of the nurses on duty.

I totally reject these ideas, and don't consider those authors - whom I have all read - as authoritative or representative of how most people really feel about death, but feel it's pretty useless talking about it. Here I trust the instincts of the common man - the masses, what they feel but cannot explain more than an intellectual minority that can expound on it.

This is beyond belief. What makes you think you know the instincts of the common man if they cannot explain those instincts? Everyone who has not said how they feel about death is declared to have of the same feelings about it that you have?

And what about those who have said how they feel? Do the number who consider it to be unnatural outnumber those who consider it to be natural?

[rusmeister]

Fist, my beliefs have always been beyond your belief.
I think a lot of things; I write a small amount of that - but it's probably still too much. You don't get the context, you don't understand me - which I measure by how you feed back to me what I myself say; you'll say something similar about me, and so I am convinced we can't communicate - not even on the small steps.

I could try to say that a body rotting in a grave is not blooming health; that death is always a tragedy, and that we ought to all agree that it would be better not to age (in the sense of body worsening after its prime), sicken and die. Choosing to embrace it and treat it as something desirable because you can't beat it or because it seems preferable to whatever unpleasant state a person has sunk to does not make it a good or natural thing. But it's useless to say that. Recognizing the Fall makes everything (relatively) simple and obvious. If Man hadn't fallen there would be no sickness or aging, or death. There would be no bent desires, no alcoholism or homosexuality, etc.

But I can't communicate that to you. You take as your starting point what you see around you - seems logical enough, only it leaves out the explanation for how that came to be. It avoids it on every level - whether it is saying that 'it has always been like that' or whatever. And so an Occam's razor response that makes sense of the whole picture in one blow is rejected as a religious superstition.

I was probably mistaken even to participate in threads like same-sex marriage - because people argue about details without ever agreeing on what is good. GKC outlined the problem in ch 1 of "What's Wrong With the World" - and we have had our 'personal painful fracases'. And so people draw from my limited comments - which have a far bigger context than I can possibly deliver - that 'my faith is bigoted, narrow, etc'

I am Orthodox - but you don't understand Orthodoxy - especially since I have evidently been your main source for it. Unless that changes - and your perusing of Alexander Men' was a good start - you never will.

I did enjoy our exchanges - but am no longer enjoying them. I've always taken your thoughts very seriously and appreciated that you take mine seriously. I just don't see any understanding of my side developing - from nearly anyone.

Forgive me for any offense along the way!

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, my beliefs have always been beyond your belief.

This one is not about your religious beliefs. This time, you're claiming to speak for anyone who doesn't express their own feelings about death.

I could try to say that a body rotting in a grave is not blooming health; that death is always a tragedy, and that we ought to all agree that it would be better not to age (in the sense of body worsening after its prime), sicken and die. Choosing to embrace it and treat it as something desirable because you can't beat it or because it seems preferable to whatever unpleasant state a person has sunk to does not make it a good or natural thing.

I could try to say the thoughts that a body rotting in a grave is not blooming health; that death is always a tragedy, and that we ought to all agree that it would be better not to age (in the sense of body worsening after its prime), sicken and die, are not reasons to assume there is anything more.

But I doubt many people choose to embrace it and treat it as something desirable just because we can't beat it. I know I don't, and I don't remember hearing anyone else here say they have. I feel that existence is better than non-existence. I don't want to die. But I will. I accept it.

And if I didn't accept it, if I hated it and railed against it, it would still be in my future.

But I can't communicate that to you. You take as your starting point what you see around you - seems logical enough, only it leaves out the explanation for how that came to be. It avoids it on every level - whether it is saying that 'it has always been like that' or whatever. And so an Occam's razor response that makes sense of the whole picture in one blow is rejected as a religious superstition.

My worldview also makes sense of the whole picture. We don't see the same picture, but mine makes just as much sense to me as yours does to you. And, of course, mine makes much, much more sense to me than yours does (to me). The fact that my worldview doesn't claim to know how the picture came to be does not have any bearing on this. I don't need to know how the picture came to be in order to see and understand (to the degree that I am able to do either) the picture.

I was probably mistaken even to participate in threads like same-sex marriage - because people argue about details without ever agreeing on what is good. GKC outlined the problem in ch 1 of "What's Wrong With the World" - and we have had our 'personal painful fracases'. And so people draw from my limited comments - which have a far bigger context than I can possibly deliver - that 'my faith is bigoted, narrow, etc'

You translate "without ever agreeing on what is good" as "without ever agreeing with me on what I know is the only true, objective definition of 'good'." But it's a two-way street. You aren't agreeing with me. Why am I doing something wrong by not agreeing with you, but you are not doing something wrong by not agreeing with me?

As for your faith being narrow... In regards to same-sex marriage, if you can't deliver the entire context, you can surely deliver more than the single argument you have. Because every one of us who has commented on it sees holes in it. You're not going to get anywhere by simply repeating it. Isn't there anybody at your church who can join you here? Or help you figure out how to present your case?

I am Orthodox - but you don't understand Orthodoxy - especially since I have evidently been your main source for it. Unless that changes - and your perusing of Alexander Men' was a good start - you never will.

True. But that's never been a goal of mine. As I've said many times, I'm not going to study any particular religion before having reason to believe there's a creator.

I did enjoy our exchanges - but am no longer enjoying them.

I feel the same way. But, as I've said, I will not let your words and ideas go unopposed. I don't want anyone who isn't sure what views are out there to read your words, see nobody offer another view, assume nobody has another view, and adopt yours by default.

I've always taken your thoughts very seriously and appreciated that you take mine seriously. I just don't see any understanding of my side developing - from nearly anyone.

I do understand that there are worldviews other than mine that are internally consistent. I have no problem with that. I don't care if you have embraced one of them. If it makes your life better than it was before, or makes you happy, or whatever, more power to you. But when you try to impose that worldview on me, I'm gonna object pretty strongly. Then, I'll start pointing out where that worldview is not consistent with, or ignores, real world things and their implications.

Forgive me for any offense along the way!

Pffff... Don't worry about it. You've gotten as much offense as you've given. Even from me, in my less admirable moments.

[Avatar]

I totally reject these ideas

.

'Course you do. You disagree with them. There's no way they could possibly be true.

--A

[rusmeister]

I totally reject these ideas

.

'Course you do. You disagree with them. There's no way they could possibly be true.

--A

Hey, Av,
It's not a question of possibility. Possibilities matter while one is still weighing the question. If one has come to the conclusion that they are not true, then they are not true (excuse the necessary tautology). If they are not true, then it is not a matter of personal psyche or individual opinion (that one must continue to doubt). It's just a question of whether one has come to a conclusion or is still asking the question - or has come to an opposite conclusion.

[Fist and Faith]

You're skirting around the issue that your conclusion is, "There is no possibility that I am wrong." Anything that you disagree with is, by definition, false.

[rusmeister]

You're skirting around the issue that your conclusion is, "There is no possibility that I am wrong." Anything that you disagree with is, by definition, false.

Not, anything, of course. Only anything that touches on this matter of dogma, yes. You are free to doubt - as am I. I choose not to.

It is true that there are things we do not know. It is also true that we do not have solid physical proof of a great many things. Yet we must choose to lead most of our lives on faith - in our age we are placing our faith in technology and the natural sciences, hoping they will save us - or our children, if not as (as our children will similarly, and equally vainly, hope).

But is this not simple and obvious? If I have accepted something as actually true, then it is no longer an opinion or a frame of mind. You may disagree, you may insist on other points of view, you may claim 'psyches' or personal tastes, but if something is actually and finally true, then it is useless, illogical and foolish to talk about 'other possibilities' or 'personal taste' and other ideas mutually exclusive with what IS. Is that so difficult to understand?

Thinking otherwise is the kind of thinking that brought our famous ex-president Clinton to ask "What is the definition of 'is'?" A web of sophistry that makes it impossible to distinguish the truth - intentional or unintentional (although in that case it was, of course, intentional).

[Fist and Faith]

If I have accepted something as actually true, then it is no longer an opinion or a frame of mind.

The entire premise - the choosing of that thing; that worldview - is an opinion/frame of mind. Simply having chosen it does not make it no longer an opinion or frame of mind. Things that oppose any aspect of it, things that exist despite its claim that they cannot exist, are not false or nonexistent simply because that worldview says they are.

As I've said, you're welcome to those beliefs. But when you tell me that I cannot know or feel what I know or feel, or if you tell me I must live my life by your beliefs, I'm going to fight you.

[Avatar]

If one has come to the conclusion that they are not true, then they are not true.

Ok, I'll totally accept that, with one little proviso...they are not true for you.

--A

[rusmeister]

If one has come to the conclusion that they are not true, then they are not true.

Ok, I'll totally accept that, with one little proviso...they are not true for you.

--A

In the very act of saying that, you are applying an absolute truth of yours to me, the very thing you say I shouldn't be doing.

And yes, Fist, I know that all that's left is to fight. Thus, "The Ball and the Cross". The honorable foes that cannot be reconciled.

I'm not going to tell you that you can't know what you know or feel what you feel, even if I say that such knowledge or feelings are wrong. So if we can amend that to 'somebody successfully managing to force their beliefs on others', we can agree on that much. Either yours, or Av's, or Cail's, or Ali's views will be law if mine aren't, and I will be forced to live by them - or to engage in civil disobedience - as will you, if they cross your beliefs. Regarding public policy, somebody's views must win, and the others - to lesser or greater extents - must lose.