17 replies to this topic

[addx]

Immortality seems like a way to escape Gods judgement.

In theistic religions this seems like the most important part of "the process" - to stand before God and receive what you deserve for your actions in this world.

It is the moment of redemption for those who have suffered and the moment of punishment for those who have inflicted suffering.

Immortality delays this indefinitely and so also removes the reason to compromise your actions in this world - you will never be judged, you will never be rewarded or punished.

So, how compatible is the idea of immortality with religion?


I do realise that biological immortality is not complete immortality but this is not the topic. The topic is the idea of immortality itself. Even on this forum ideas of immortality that consider "uploading the brain" come quite close to true immortality by removing the biology.

[Layberinthius]

Remember when Jesus went and messed things up amongst the Jewish people?

 

Remember what happened to him after he was breaking the laws of the land? Healing on the wrong day...

 

I think that they would probably consider it to be fools immortality, like fools gold, and try and prepackage their own version of immortality, and probably go to war against the entire immortality community. Possibly even track us down and kill only immortals in some regions, as a form of god's work.

 

It wouldn't be a far stretch to jump from it being a groundbreaking world shaking scientific discovery to labelling us as Demon worshippers, but it would be a gradual thing, possibly even eventually considering the new invention of immortality as the devil's work.

 

I wouldn't be suprised either if we would be shunned from society for being immortal.

 

I would expect most christians however to just accept it, possibly even reduce attendance to church because they no longer see it as a worthy use of their time now that they no longer need to worry about dying, or maybe even increase attendance as people realize that church now has other uses, like socializing amongst each other.

 

However now that mortality has been licked there would be the debate of morality and the treatment of each other and the careful consideration of single generation space travel as a viable alternative.

 

And consumerism and the entire world economy would possibly collapse then recover, as people consider the ramifications of million year long mortgages, cars that cost multi-billion dollars. Even personalized spacecraft could be envisioned as people are able to now afford the super long contract loans.

 

Combined with drugs which prevent any sleep patterns at all people will even reconsider the concept of time. the measurement of time will feel like 1 week as being 1 day, then 1 month as being 1 day, even 1 year as being one day. As people leave their earthly body clocks behind and begin to remain awake during both the day and night. The concept of large projects will begin to become meaningless.

 

People will replace their eyes, their body parts, with something that doesn't fatigue.

 

New projects like deep space mecha-optical telescopes will bring the cosmos so close that we can even begin to map and measure other objects as they orbit other planets. Even photograph their surface. Looking for telltale manmade structures like cities and highways.

 

In another million years either we will meet god, or jesus or we will discover that he was an Alien from another planet. Then finally people who a religious will have some definiate evidence for their belief structures. Possibly even be able to talk to god or jesus and ask them a few questions.

 

In either case we have 2 billion years left on this planet. And the clock is ticking.

Edited by Layberinthius, 29 April 2014 - 11:28 AM.

[Duchykins]

I get what Addx is saying and it's a fair point, but I partly disagree because of theistic beliefs about the gods interacting with humans during their mortal lifetimes, rather than only after death. A devout theist will tend to believe that their god can render judgment at any time in any anyone's life.


Theists already believe they're immortal; they value soul and afterlife over mortal body and life.

[ZHMike]

oh great.. i sense another shadowhawk thread that will never end....no offense to the OP, but shadowhawk will never let this thread die..

[addx]

I get what Addx is saying and it's a fair point, but I partly disagree because of theistic beliefs about the gods interacting with humans during their mortal lifetimes, rather than only after death. A devout theist will tend to believe that their god can render judgment at any time in any anyone's life.

God is omnipotent - but he can not go against his word, I believe this fundamental understanding stems from the "good book".

The "word of God" is the most stressed aspect of the bible.

In that sense, we have been given free will by God and this means he must not interfere until "judgement call".

On the other hand it is also stated that the devil does act on earth and God does not stop him. We are supposed to exercise our free will and make the right choice and ignore the devils efforts to sway us from the path of God (leading to God eventually rather than immortality). In that sense, the idea of immortality is the work of the devil.

In fact the story about the devil himself depicts a similar motif of trying to be godlike and being cast out.
 

Theists already believe they're immortal; they value soul and afterlife over mortal body and life.

There's obviously theists here who desire immortality, this thread is in fact aimed at them.

Point being, immortality for theists is avoidance of God and his judgement. So, a theist should not expand effort towards immortality.

oh great.. i sense another shadowhawk thread that will never end....no offense to the OP, but shadowhawk will never let this thread die..

I'm quite sure that he will, this thread undermines his entire effort on this forum. And he is known to escape from argument rather than sustain it.

Edited by addx, 29 April 2014 - 05:54 PM.

[Jeoshua]

---

Edited by Jeoshua, 29 April 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[Duchykins]

I get what Addx is saying and it's a fair point, but I partly disagree because of theistic beliefs about the gods interacting with humans during their mortal lifetimes, rather than only after death. A devout theist will tend to believe that their god can render judgment at any time in any anyone's life.

God is omnipotent - but he can not go against his word, I believe this fundamental understanding stems from the "good book".

The "word of God" is the most stressed aspect of the bible.

In that sense, we have been given free will by God and this means he must not interfere until "judgement call".

On the other hand it is also stated that the devil does act on earth and God does not stop him. We are supposed to exercise our free will and make the right choice and ignore the devils efforts to sway us from the path of God (leading to God eventually rather than immortality). In that sense, the idea of immortality is the work of the devil.

In fact the story about the devil himself depicts a similar motif of trying to be godlike and being cast out.
 

Theists already believe they're immortal; they value soul and afterlife over mortal body and life.

There's obviously theists here who desire immortality, this thread is in fact aimed at them.

Point being, immortality for theists is avoidance of God and his judgement. So, a theist should not expand effort towards immortality.

oh great.. i sense another shadowhawk thread that will never end....no offense to the OP, but shadowhawk will never let this thread die..

I'm quite sure that he will, this thread undermines his entire effort on this forum. And he is known to escape from argument rather than sustain it.

Are you actually trying to contradict my statements with interpretations of Biblical scripture not believed by all Christians?
AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's pathetic. Especially since you're expecting consistency in Christian beliefs.

Christians talk about god providing and god punishing all the time. Even god healing, god blessing, god filling you with light, god giving revelation, god giving you signs, showing you the path, god withdrawing its protection or granting its protection, and all that stuff. This is not god that just sits and watches to see what people do with their so-called free will. In the context of THIS life, not the next. Lots (not all) like to pray for help with various problems in their lives, like to thank god for granting various boons in their lives. They believe their god either can or already has altered things in their lives. These practices and beliefs are consistent with PERSONAL deities like the Christian god.

But like I said, you do have a point with certain theists avoiding *final* judgment (not all judgment) in the afterlife. A god that does not intervene with the ongoings of humans in their mortal lives is closer to a deistic, impersonal god, a god that very few theists believe in.


**Edit: significant and growing numbers of Christians do not believe in the devil/Satan/Lucifer/whatever as a real entity (or hell as a real place). Your arguments only apply to the specific Christians who hold the beliefs your describe

Edited by Duchykins, 29 April 2014 - 06:36 PM.

[addx]

Are you actually trying to contradict my statements with interpretations of Biblical scripture not believed by all Christians?
AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's pathetic.

Nah, it's you who's trying deny the temptation of Christ in the desert depicting the devils plight in 3 gospels and quite literal text with "growing trends in christian beliefs" towards which I'm sure you have ample proof across the globe and also a list of the latest scripture updates directly from the pope himself. Do "growing trends in christian beliefs" analysis include the horoscope or santa clause? Or just things actually written in the bible?

I'm sure that such a "strong argument" in your mind calls for such a celebration quoted above, but in my mind it really doesn't.

It is an argument, quite valid in some respects, but the enthusiasm of the delivery is quite inappropriate, so I'll save my mind the horror of reading your frustrations and never read anything you write again.

[Duchykins]

Are you actually trying to contradict my statements with interpretations of Biblical scripture not believed by all Christians?
AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's pathetic.

Nah, it's you who's trying deny the temptation of Christ in the desert depicting the devils plight in 3 gospels and quite literal text with "growing trends in christian beliefs" towards which I'm sure you have ample proof across the globe and also a list of the latest scripture updates directly from the pope himself. Do "growing trends in christian beliefs" analysis include the horoscope or santa clause? Or just things actually written in the bible?

I'm sure that such a "strong argument" in your mind calls for such a celebration quoted above, but in my mind it really doesn't.

It is an argument, quite valid in some respects, but the enthusiasm of the delivery is quite inappropriate, so I'll save my mind the horror of reading your frustrations and never read anything you write again.

Oh, I didn't know you were a Christian. Forgive me.

[Duchykins]

So since we're being given a backhanded version of the "No True Christian" argument, is there anything else Shadowhawk and his ilk are supposed to believe? Perhaps Biblical literalism? Young earth creationism? Flat earth creationism?

[addx]

Ok, to set the topic on track I'll be more precise.

The MEANING of Jesus being tested against using his powers can quite easily be interpreted to warn us against inventing immortality. So can the story about Lucifer. There are many others and this topic is about how is it at all possible not to interpret them in that way?

Most of revolutionary scientific inventions were in fact treated like that, with pretty much the same reasoning, but unlike those before, immortality truly is a godlike feature and in fact the first such scientific idea which I, a non-believer have trouble finding support for, but on rational claims. So it is quite hard for me to understand that men of faith can not recognise this.



The devil may or may not be considered a real entity. The bible states that it is, but even if we interpret that as just an allegory the same meaning remains:

Either the devil and God are understood as two paths (of right and wrong, gods work and devils work) or they're understood as two acting deities or one deity with a bad pupil, however you want to say it. In which case the notion of gods work and devils work remain, but they can perform it themselves if there's humans lacking in will or if they feel dissatisfied with the amount of work done on their behalf. Or a compromise - they only act in visions, not in real deeds.

In the first case, it is up to us to detect which way is the devils and which is Gods.

In the second case we should expect seeing devils to tempt us and angels to reward us when we resist temptation.
I don't think we've seen much evidence of the second case.

Whichever it is, it doesn't invalidate the argument. One would have to ignore much of the Bibles meaning in order to blind himself to the devilishness nature of immortality desires.

Edited by addx, 29 April 2014 - 09:07 PM.

[Duchykins]

I like that argument much better.

It seems a soft version or maybe a precursor of the "Christianity is death worship" argument.


I wasn't going to offer the following argument if Shadowhawk was going to reply in this thread. Since he just replied to me two other threads but hasn't commented here I'm going to assume he is avoiding this thread and post accordingly:

Christians use their own sense of morality. Christians decide that their god is moral using their own moral judgment, they use their own moral judgment to decide if Biblical laws are just, they use their own moral judgment to decide that "Christian values" (whatever those are) are worthy of adhering to and practicing in their daily lives. In this manner they are choosing their own moral codes.

There is absolutely nothing they can say to circumvent this. Christians cannot say "only God can judge"; who judged God to be good? Christians did. Christians cannot say "human morality is inferior and too unreliable to use, we must use God's"; how did they judge their God's morality? With their own moral judgment.

This is actually a good tool for showing how Christianity doesn't necessarily cause immorality, it can merely offer an excuse for certain immoral behaviors. People inclined to be cruel will favor the crueler interpretations of scripture and claim the Bible did it after the fact. It also doesn't cause morality, people who are already inclined to be gentler will favor the gentler interpretations of scripture and claim the Bible did it after the fact.


We even have nondenominational Christians rejecting traditional denominations left and right because those denominations don't sit well with their own sense of morality. In this manner, we have nondenominational Christians inventing new religions for themselves based entirely on their own perceptions of morality.

[Duchykins]

So, if there are Christians around who are drawn to this immortality stuff, they will figure out a way to make it seem morally justifiable.

[addx]

I went to catholic school on saturday and have all the sacraments and I live in a very very catholic country as I depicted on the other threads. I didn't believe a single brainwashing word I ever heard.

But I have never really disputed any of Jesuses "doctrine".

Jesus is an almost 100% perfect "slave morality"(nietzsche) advocate and as such I see him as a troubled BPDer who played out the typical BPD insanity scenario at the appropriate age for this. As a BPDer he deems himself completely unworthy to rule or own, and is unable to stop projecting narcissism(master morality) into everyone. He accepts it as truth of all and starts taking in the pain from all that projected narcissism without anger but rather bliss signalling that he gave up on himself and is now "free of ego". He finds peace in the notion that his extreme slave morality will be rewarded by a delusion of the afterlife, that there is something not-narcissistic out there that will redeem this life here. He is not sure of this and is tempted often, but he remains strong to the very end. Interestingly, his BPDish saving of whores(he supposedly in fact married Mary Magdalena showing his maddona-whore issues and savior complex) is censored by the Catholic "authorities" from the bible.

I have no objection to anything Jesus said.

Nietzsche for example and unlike Jesus, took a different path trying to avoid the same BPDish self-torture. He realised the "two moralities" (which I can neurologically and psychologically explain or at least try to if anyone is interested) and desperately wanted to be a player of "master morality", induldged in drugs and basically any means to remove/dull his overburdening BPDish conscience but in the end he lost his mind at the scene of a horse flogging and showed his inevitable "true colors" of "slave morality" inbuilt into him since he remembers.

The new testament IMO truly is something different from the "Jewish god" and the rest of the "my God is stronger" pissing contest.

I have always resented the old testament being combined with the new. Jewish vengeful God is declared to be only Jewish (which is precisely why Christ as a universal God does not appeal to the jews) basically everywhere in the old testament so I don't get the rest of the humanity "cheering" for it. In fact the old testament represents more "master morality" with the jewish god being the master of masters. The old testament doesn't even reject the notion of other Gods, it only forbids worshiping them. I don't remember the old testament ever claiming Jahve to be the ONLY God. Anyway, the Jewish God is not really a live giver, he is a life *allower* (fear-conditioning - NPD - vasopressin). Unlike jesus who is a live *giver* (love-conditioning - BPD - oxytocin).

The obvious conflict of meaning embedded in the two testaments is fundamental to the human mind/emotions/soul/pshilosphy/moral beleifs.

Jesus plight deserves deep consideration and his teachings are very accurate to recognize the truth of morale (slave morale at least) that is timeless. It is rare that such people get a page in history and yet they often possess profound wisdom and deserve consideration. He is also practically the first to create a "slave morality" based religion, all other "white men religions" are proud of their "master-Gods" and like to enter them into "Magic The Gathering Card Game ™"(my God has +2 in flood inducing spells etc) pissing contests.

Point being, the Bible contains two version of morale, all denominations of Christianity SHOULD uphold Jesuses version as he supposedly replaced the old testament rules (10 rules) with his own (2 rules) and replaced the whole idea of God. In that sense Christians should not refer to the old testament other than for historic reasons. It is my beleif that Jesus purposefully decided to ALTER the existing religion which was of the "opposite morality"(master-morality) to his sensibilities(slave morality). He wanted to wipe out Judeism as it was, his loss of temper at the temple clearly shows his BPDish plight against the narcissism of the world.

Furthermore, the old testament in fact does not facilitate an insitution of forgivness, all transgressions are therefore punished (and in fact the old testament is packed with stories of Gods punishment) meaning it is near impossible to live your entire life without disobeying at least 1 of the 10 rules one time.

I do believe the moral messages of the new testament are undeniable and also fundamental and timeless. I have nothing against them. And if one is honest, there is no way to distort Jesus messages to do ones bidding proving the fundamental and timeless nature of them.


-----

So, I'm sure there are Christians who understand the morale philosophy in the bible, but most of them don't and just manipulate themselves into thinking whatever they want about morals. I do agree with that and you argument is very profound in that sense.

I only object to the, perhaps unintentional notion that the Bible (at least the new testament) does not provide a very pure and coherent moral philosophy that is NOT really subject to interpretation.

But as everything, it CAN be abused into different interpretations in spite of its pure message.

-----

So, my reason for opening this thread is that my understanding of morals which I believe to be concurrent with Jesuses (minus the magic act) marks desire of immortality as wrong.

My same understanding of morals would never burn Giordano Bruno at the stake, in fact quite the opposite, so I believe myself to not be misinterpreting the bible for my own goals but actually responding emotionally to something real.

I have also made a case of this in a few threads explaining ratioinally with no remarks abour religion why full biologic immortality is not a good idea.

The thing is, I am conflicted about the research towards immortality. The research towards biologic immortality is in fact also simply beneficial for quality of life (cures debilitating illness) which I do desire to increase, but I do not enjoy the notion of the end goal of full immortality. I do not want to hinder progress towards it, in fact I want to help and I do not want to stop anyone from achieveing it, but I don't want it for myself.

Now, it is hard to understand for me that there are actually Christians here who fail to see this. I can't imagine someone being a "die hard" Christian like shadowhawk and yet somehow also wanting immortality. It doesn't make ANY sense.

Edited by addx, 30 April 2014 - 07:31 PM.

[Duchykins]

We are in agreement that immortality may not be that cool. My reasoning for that is different in that I believe death assists in defining life and giving value to it; additionally, there may be concern about boredom after a few million years :D

We also agree about the strangeness of Christians desiring physical immortality.

Edited by Duchykins, 30 April 2014 - 09:14 PM.

[addx]

We are in agreement that immortality may not be that cool. My reasoning for that is different in that I believe death assists in defining life and giving value to it; additionally, there may be concern about boredom after a few million years :D

We also agree about the strangeness of Christians desiring physical immortality.

Damn, I noticed on two or three separate places that I randomly misspell life as "live". Up in that post two times as well, "live giver" should be "life giver" etc.


I don't think your reasoning is different. The "rational reasoning" with which I came to that conclusion could be condensed into what you said.

I'm not sure if you've seen my poll thread about this. It goes very deep to explain exactly that - that death is an integral part of life and that ageing is in fact one of two most important mechanisms fueling evolution, the other being with sexual reproduction. Without ageing life would have never become what it was. I explained the importance of death for simple life, subconscious life, conscious life and aware life(us).

Anyway, it's a long read, but I believe in the contents of it. I went too far a couple of time and made some obvious blunders along the way but the central thesis for me is still undeniable. There's a rehash of my thesis about half way into the thread as I was asked to clarify some of the weird terminology, after that I posted many studies to prove my case.

http://www.longecity...n-in-evolution/

[Duchykins]

Thanks.

[addx]

Heh, why thank me? If you actually went there to read it, I would appreciate an opinion and thank you for it