PDA

View Full Version : Life after Death?



Blutwölfin
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 10:59 AM
Early Christianity told us about rebirth and resurrection, Gnostic groups still believe in reincarnation, the Norse faith tells us about Walhalla, where the brave warriors settle down at a feasting table with Odín after they died a brave death on the battlefield, and the Vatan explains to us that the souls are coming from a divine source, separating from it, and start developing through different states of being, then get back to the source just to recover and then seperate again to try another state of being; a never ending circuit of coming into being.

So what do you think will happen after you (or just your body?) dies? Please elaborate on your vote.

Weg
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 03:35 PM
Honestly, I'm still wondering... I've never believed in resurrection or reincarnation myself. It's always been hard to imagine to me. Heaven and Hell could be nothing but metaphores afterall. It's all about symbolism. As for a life after Death, for the moment I believe there could be nothing after we pass. Dust to dust. (I'd prefer to be burned in an open space, not in a box in a gloomy crematory) I think we can't prove this existence just because all mythologies and religions have their own paradise, tells of an after death life. If so, I'd have to believe in the Bible, what I don't...

Gorm the Old
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 04:27 PM
I try not to "believe" anything. Either I know or I admit that I don't know, as I did in responding to this poll. Whether "I" exist after death or not depends on just what I mean by "I". There can be, as I see it, no objective evidence for the existence of the soul. Therefore, one is forced to rely upon subjective impressions, one's inner experience, to answer the question of the soul's existence. Subjective experience, not being objectively verifiable, is the arena of wishful thinking and self-deception. Therefore, I distrust it. However, where this question is concerned, it is all I have to go on. My self-consciousness tells me that I am some kind of entity which uses this body for the execution of its will. Accepting this impression for the sake of discussion (which does not mean that I "believe" it but that I am willing to use it as a working hypothesis) a question which arises is: Is the soul inextricably linked to the body ? Is it but, as many have claimed, a mere epi-phenomenon of the operation of the brain ? If it can exist independently of the body, then what is its relationship to the body ? If the soul is associated with the body but independent of it, where is it located ? Is it localized or does it permeate the body ? If it permeates the body, what happens if part of the body is lost ? I read recently about a young Marine who lost his right arm and most of his right leg to a land-mine explosion. That's about 1/3 of the bulk of his body. Did he also lose about 1/3 of his soul ? Evidently not. Does that mean that the soul is localized somewhere in the body, the heart, the brain, elsewhere ? It has occurred to me that, if the relationship between the soul and the body were analogous to the relationship to the relationship between the image in a hologram and the physical hologram itself , it could permeate the body yet be indiminshed by the loss of part of the body. The image in a hologram exists in its entirety at every point in the hologram. Cut a piece out of the hologram anywhere, illuminate it properly, and the image appears. Perhaps, the soul could have this sort of relationship to the body. If so, though, does the soul need the body to exist ? It needs the body to execute its will, but can it exist as a discarnate entity. If the former, then the soul could not survive the death of the body. If the latter, then it does not need the body to exist and can persist as a discarnate entity after the body has died. The "near death" experience (which its critics call the "non-death" excperience) is supposed to prove that the soul is independent of the body. The evidence presented so far is far from convincing. It may be, as some have called it, "the last bedtime story", or it may be real. There is one case on record in which a patient was intentionally maintained for several minutes in a "brain-dead" condition during surgery, resuscitated, and reported awareness of events which occurred during the "brain-dead" state. This is what scientists call a "series of one" observation. Before I could regard this as the experimentum crucis, I would want to see the results of several other such observations. So, I am forced to maintain my agnostic position.

Alizon Device
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 07:02 PM
It's such a huge question, yet simultaneously such a small matter. (Small because it's the only thing in life that is a dead certainty (sorry for the pun)).

The concept of not existing is very hard to grasp.
Which would I prefer? Simply no life after Death, or yes, life after Death, but in Hell?! :D

OK Blutwölfin, good Thread. But you've had your fun... can you tell us the Answer now?

Arlette
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 07:29 PM
In my opinion, it really depends in which sense you look at the subject of "afterlife". To me, the concept of Valhalla in itself is metaphorical in that it encourages honourable deeds in life. If one is an honourable, brave individual in life who upholds strong values then one will be remembered by their kin for generations to come. In that sense, one lives on after death in the memories of their kin or folk, and through their descendants. So I suppose I do not believe in an afterlife in the most literal of senses, but in a spiritual sense.

Cuchullain
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 07:32 PM
Personally I left such notions behind with the christians. I have a more existentialist view of life and death. Religious notions of an afterlife are just a comfort for those who fear death. I don't fear my own death but I do fear the death of those whom I love.

My belief is that one lives on after death in the hearts and minds of those who remember you. Our ancestors knew this and this is why the Bard was an important part of their culture, we live on in the stories of our deeds. Beowulf has some good examples of this.

I am content to live in the hearts and minds of those people that I am close to. I hear lots of stories of past generations of my own family and their deeds. I guess I am lucky to have the kind of family that makes a point of remembering. Us Irish love telling and hearing stories as you probably know.

My grandfather is a man of 91 years and he loves to tell stories of the past and I love to spend hours in front of his fire listening to the history of my folk and those around them. It is good for him also as it helps him to cope with what must be a lonely life, most of his contemporaries are dead now, through telling stories of them he keeps a part of them alive.

Slainte

Arlette
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 07:48 PM
I agree completely, Cuchullain. Learning family stories and tales of our kinsmen from the past is an essential part of reconnecting ourselves with the traditions and spirituality of our ancestors. It is up to us to safeguard the memories of our honourable dead.

Aragorn
Friday, November 25th, 2005, 10:52 PM
I believe in reincarnation, but probably believe is the wrong word. For me, it is a essential part of my being, it is a kind of view. I dont believe in a hell or heaven, those are fairytales and prove nothing. Secondly, I dont believe in what some people think: that, when we are death we just dissapear into the nothing. To simple. Reincarnation, however is a subject with contents. It explanes why some people have certain talents or gifts, any one ever knew about dejavue? Besides, in deep dreams lies a lot of hidden information, some people are being able to find their way to their lost lives. Maybe I was Adolf Hitler??:D :D :D :D

Preußischer_Schatten
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 03:25 AM
I have to agree with Cuchullain and Agnar.

And I have nothing to add lol.