Why must we believe *before* we die?

Well, that's not how the Christian life goes. It's the fallen nature that is selfish, but not being selfish is not losing your identity, it's simply loving, loving God, loving others, loving truth, and you need your identity in order to do that. Yes, it is good that He permits His creatures to choose for or against Him, and I believe that this will ultimately amount to an even greater good that we can't even imagine yet. No doubt, but we don't have the capacity to think things through from God's point of view but are stuck with our own, and the effort to understand God's only confuses the idea of predestination. I think it was Luther who said that predestination shouldn't be taught to unbelievers and new believers as it only generates conflict and confusion, and is only really of use to those who have believed for some time, and then it can become a source of reassurance of belonging to God. Oh come on. This is not saying He's not a Being. It's said in the same spirit as the Bible says "the Gentiles are a law unto themselves" [Romans 2:14]. The point is that God didn't just invent the laws that run the universe, they are part of His moral nature. And what if the moral law simply expresses His very nature? Again, what if the moral law is intrinsic to His very nature and what He is proclaiming is nothing but His own moral nature? But He has revealed to us all we need as far as knowing His will for us goes. We don't have to understand Him beyond that.

Reading everything is not the same thing as following the argument.If there is a cultural discontinuity such that it makes it hard for a Westerner to understand the mindset of an Easterner, and vice versa, how is it that you feel so eminently qualified to pass judgment on such things?It is possible that the idea of annihilation as the end goal of Buddhist practice is simply a misunderstanding, due to the ambiguity of language.Any attempt to answer your question about soul and identity from the position you have set up here would only dig us deeper into such ambiguities, especially considering the degree of hostility you evince.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-30-2005 02:51 PM

What is MEANT by "annihilation" is what the conversation is about. If it means being absorbed in what you are doing, that is very much what I said it means in Christianity to lose the fallen "self" in loving. And therefore this is merely a semantic quibble.

Well, let's review this conversation. Robinrohan said in Message 39 something to the effect that the idea of ending up as a drop in the ocean did not appeal to him, as dissolving the self seems to him no better than being dead or something along those lines. I agreed in Message 40 that annihilation of the self in that sense is not appealing and don't understand how anyone can DESIRE such an outcome to one's life. IF annihilation means the death of personal identity, how does one desire it? This MAY be a semantic problem, but I was following RR's meaning. "Dissolution of the self" carries the same apparent meaning and I do not see how it can be desired. Same with "union with the ground of Being."Ben said this really means that one becomes focused on one's activity or on an object, and the self is "dissolved" in THAT sense. That is the sense that fits with the Christian sense I had just outlined. But you seem to be saying that no, this is a cultural difference, which implies that in fact Buddhists DO desire an annihilation of self in the sense that RR and I were originally discussing it. Am I understanding you or not? If that is what "dissolution of the self" in Buddhist terms means then it is a similar idea, but I do believe that I will retain my memory of my earthly life and identity, yes, and may even remember my cat, although I also expect that much of it will appear uninteresting by contrast with my new experiences. I expect to remain I/me, but a better version of I/me. Elijah and Moses appeared from Heaven with Jesus during His lifetime on the "mount of tranfiguration" and there was no doubt who they were, the very Elijah and Moses of the Old Testament. That will be the case with all of us.As for dissolving in a sea of love, when one is focused on an object, loving an object, one is for that period unconscious of self, but the self doesn't stop existing. You are still who you are.{Edit: Besides, there is reciprocity or mutuality involved here. God responds. God loves back. God interacts with us. He guides us and corrects us and loves us, and all that affirms us as individual selves} I am frankly surprised that you have any desire to learn how to converse with me at all considering the way you usually deal with me. I have no idea what "under hostile fire" could possibly refer to, but what sense does it make to hold me responsible for something that happened to you thirty years ago (if that is what you are saying)? I can always ignore you and vice versa, but since in this post you are being unexpectedly accommodating I'm intrigued enough to continue the exchange if there is anywhere for it to go.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-30-2005 07:37 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 02:57 AM

quote:

---

Meh. I'll just kill God. I'll have all eternity to figure out how, after all ...

​

Heh, God won't have a chance. All the best people are in hell. Albert Einstein? Alan Turing? Norman Borlaug (if he's dead)? All in hell, according to our friendly neighborhood Christians.

---

From John Milton, Paradise LostThis message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 10:23 AM

Vietnam was very hard on our guys in many ways. Sorry to hear my beliefs provoke similar feelings. Anyway, at least you've stopped shooting at me.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 09:52 PM

Not sure we have got to the bottom of this yet.What about the example of being completely engrossed in something, which Ben brought up to describe the Buddhist idea of dissolution of the self, or being in adoring love with someone, such as God (a state of worship) (or even with someTHING I suppose) which for the duration takes your consciousness off the self? Are these states that are to be included IN being selfish, or are they states of being removed from self as we are talking about them?What about such terms as
self-involved,
self-absorbed
self-promoting
self-worshiping
self-aggrandizing
self-sufficient
self-motivated
self-actualizingWill add others if they occur to me. Anyway, where do they fit into this definitional scheme here?BTW, I don't think "selfish" is often used in the purely logical sense, is it?

How so? Just because there is a happy ending doesn't prevent plenty of evil happening on the way there.

Paul????John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 04:04 PM

It's the theology of both of them and of Jesus Christ.{Edit: And the idea that the strikingly original John "echoed" anybody is preposterous.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 09:11 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 09:54 PM

Hey GOOD POINT.