For Christians, theologically speaking, life only has value for the impact it has on eternity. Now, this is an imaginary concept. For the future never arrives.
Firstly, there is no life after death, as all atheists know.
Even if there were, what are you going to be doing in heaven? Planning for the future again? Living for the hope of eternity again? Once you reach heaven there is nothing more to hope for. Heaven is a hopeless place. All desires end there.
Sure you still want to aim for heaven?
Say you get all you want in heaven. There is nothing more. You already have all you want. All hope is lost. All hope has been vanquished. You would be as good as dead, and indeed you are, for you are in heaven.
In light of all these concepts, the present has very little meaning for the serious Christian. It’s rather depressing; it explains why very many Christians commit suicide, in spite of the hope of heaven. After all, everything here is only temporary in their eyes.
If you’re fat, it doesn’t matter. You will be thin in heaven. If you’re poor, you will be rich, so why bother to strive? In fact, striving might even bring the opposite effect, for it is more difficult for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter into heaven. So being rich might even land you in hell. (You can also refer to the parable of the rich man vs Lazarus.)
October 19, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Interesting perspective.
October 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm
AllThingsToNoOne,
Thanks dropping in, and for your compliment.
October 19, 2009 at 6:49 pm
My concept of eternity has stolen a lot from Plato. It’s very different to what you talk about.
You also seem to be talking more about the meaningfulness of life than the value.
An existence of a microsecond is valuable if it has meaning. A life that lasts forever is worthless if it has none.
October 19, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I’m sure your eternity is a much happier one. Good for you. Perhaps you wish to share a little?
Meaning is ours to give.
October 19, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Eternity is outside, beyond time. It’s not “time but without an end”.
Meaning is ours to take, but we can’t create it (although we can construct complex meanings from simpler ones).
October 19, 2009 at 8:36 pm
To say eternity is outside of time is a somewhat meaningless remark, for no one has experienced that, other than Jesus. =-p It’s a neat concept, though.
It probably qualifies as an unfalsifiable claim. For example, I could claim that there’s a colour that no one has seen yet, you will see it after you die.
Meaning is what we make of it. We can make something meaningful, or we can choose to proclaim it as meaningless. It’s quite arbitrary.
Example, Holy Communion. It’s meaningful to Christians but meaningless to atheists. The mind constructs its own meanings.
October 19, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Eternity is not an experience though. It’s what it is.
The mind doesn’t construct meanings out of nothing. The mind is given meanings from outside, and sometimes from those given meanings it synthesizes new things. But it cannot create meaning from nothing. It can only accept or reject the meaning offered it.
October 19, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Not true. Meanings are created all the time. What about false religions, cults? Some found meaning in drinking Kool-Aid. God didn’t create that meaning. That meaning was conjured up by by man.
October 19, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I don’t know the specifics about the kool aid thing. But people wouldn’t have done it arbitrarily. To say its meaningful to drink kool-aid isn’t going to be enough to make it meaningful. Suicide can be meaningful, but it needs to be more than just suicide to be so. At one point I wanted to kill myself as proof of my ultimate power over my existence, to prove I could choose to exist or not to exist and that my fear of death and of nonexistence was something I was so powerful I could conquer it. I needed to prove that to myself because I was afraid maybe I would chicken out.
In that instance the desire for power was the source of the meaningfulness of the act. I did not create meaning (I did not give myself a desire for power – I got a desire for power from something outside of myself – be it the fall of man, or the evolutionary pressures) I only ascribed the meaning given to an act to make the act meaningful.
October 19, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Yes, exactly. All meanings can be ascribed or made up, by the mind.
October 19, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Ascribing a pre-existing meaning is different to making one up.
Also some meanings are better than others. :p
Totally unrelated:
What thinkest thou of the existentialists? Sartre, Camus etc.
October 19, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I don’t even know what we’re talking about anymore, lol.
What of the existentialists? I’m not well-read on philosophy. When I was a Christian, which I was for virtually all of my life except these last few years, I only read the bible for philosophy.
What say Sartre and Camus?
October 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Heh, unfortunately I could not do them justice in a comment box.
But I would delve some into philosophy.
And don’t fall into the trap of defining yourself or your worldview against something rather than for something.
October 19, 2009 at 10:23 pm
And that was exactly the point of my post, namely that the meaning ascribed to living for a serious Christian is depressing.
October 19, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Some parts of ourselves can best be defined in the negative. There are some things in life that we feel very strongly against. That’s natural for humans.
It’s equally a trap to think we must only define ourselves in the positive all the time.
October 20, 2009 at 3:25 am
i’d say it’s depressing to be an “otherworldly theist.” i’m a theist and you don’t capture me in any of this. in fact, i would argue that the biblical theism called for and recorded in the judeo-christian scriptures aren’t captured in this paradigm. the scriptures are concerned about the HERE AND NOW. like Jesus prayed “let thy will be done, ON EARTH as it is in heaven.”
oh, BTW: nice to see ya, i found ya from societyvs blog.
October 20, 2009 at 3:46 am
“For Christians, theologically speaking, life only has value for the impact it has on eternity. Now, this is an imaginary concept. For the future never arrives” (Temaskian)
I disagree the only benefits are ‘eternal’. If there were none in the ‘now’ why would anyone bother with such an ideology? Yet billions do bother with the ideology…now billions cannot simply be deluded?
I see the teachings as having determinent amount of benefit in the here and now. I don’t neccesarily see the teachings on the ‘kingdom of God’ as being ‘there and then’ as much as they are about ‘here and now’. The kingdom is not something people can ’see’ (they’re ideas) – that is until they live the ideals out.
For me, and this is just basic common sense speaking, the teachings were recorded to help the person while on earth – thus they have the ideals to read and elaborate from. In fact, everything in the bible seems to record the fact God cares about the ‘earth’ or ‘humanity’ and this was His focus all along. I am yet to read the book where God talks to Himself.
But I agree with your original point – if the focus is just ‘there and then’ (which no one has seen) then it takes away from what should eb the primary focus of helping this planet (which we can see). I contend with Christians for this same thing – perspective. As far as I am concerned all the teachings can be summed up in the ‘now’ – love your neighbor as yourself.
October 20, 2009 at 7:15 am
The benefits for the here and now are as a false hope or escape to make the current unfavorable situation bearable. For instance, being ok with being oppressed, suffering an illness, or anything else because the big shiny eternal carrot is up there being dangled and it all won’t matter anymore once you get it.
This is another reason why I put religious belief it in the same category as drugs and alcohol. Escapism in order to cope.
October 20, 2009 at 9:50 am
You might say he was speaking metaphorically, but the idea is the same, when Jesus spoke of cutting off limbs rather than to fall into sin. The idea is to sacrifice the now for the future of heaven, which is of course non-existent.
Christians who take every word of Jesus very seriously will try to follow the spirit of his teaching at the least, to sacrifice all the now for the future.
More liberal Christians like yourself would resort to “common sense” and to pick verses which sound good, such as the love your neighbor as yourself mantra, which by the way, is a commandment no one can really accomplish without resorting to mind games with himself.
My post was describing Christians who take the bible very seriously, every single word, i.e. the fundamentalists, not people like yourself.
Your path is definitely the better one, practically speaking. But if heaven were real, then it’s a different story.
October 20, 2009 at 9:57 am
Luke,
Thanks for dropping in, nice to meet you too.
You just need to read the beatitudes to find that the focus of Jesus was heaven.
Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
October 20, 2009 at 10:10 am
Philly Chief,
Thanks for dropping in.
I agree, it’s something like an optimism pill.
October 20, 2009 at 10:55 am
here’s what i love about the bible.. it says a LOT of things. my fav. beatitudes would be Luke 6: 20-26 which is all about the here and now. check out how the author reframes it:Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now,
for you will be filled.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. (1)
Rejoice in that Day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets. (2)
But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now,
for you will be hungry.
Woe to you who are laughing now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets. (NRSV version)
October 20, 2009 at 10:57 am
then please rename your post to “Another reason why it’s depressing to be a CONSERVATIVE theist” might help clarify.
October 20, 2009 at 11:05 am
“here’s what i love about the bible.. it says a LOT of things. my fav. beatitudes would be…”
Luke,
Yes, the wise Christians choose which verses to listen to, unlike the fundamentalist ones, who try to pay attention to everything.
October 20, 2009 at 11:07 am
“then please rename your post to “Another reason why it’s depressing to be a CONSERVATIVE theist” might help clarify.”
Luke,
The title has been amended.
October 20, 2009 at 11:13 am
On second thoughts, you’re not really theists. You guys are more like deists, because you do not follow strictly according to orthodox theology.
You just interpret the bible to fit into your own thinking. You’re not allowing the bible to change your thinking.
October 20, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“You’re not allowing the bible to change your thinking.”
oh God how i wish this were true! i’m in the hospital at least 3 times a week dealing with things i don’t want to deal with, reaching new conclusions that shatter the old. this has lead me to visit ppl in prison, stand up for social justice and against neoliberal globalization. it has caused me to embrace ppl i despise and wouldn’t talk to if you paid me (like ppl who read Richard Dawkins, attend a mega-church or are missouri synod lutherans). i wish i could change the bible into my safe catagories…. try as i might, i keep finding myself out in places and situations i’d rather not be in.
as for following an orthodox theology, you’re going to have to define what that is. many christians have tried and failed and split into a million denominations. i affirm the trinity and divinity of christ, that’s pretty orthodox but i’ll have to see you’re working definition.
also, i’m going to ask “is there a RIGHT way to interpret the bible?” my theory is that no, there isn’t and in fact, we re-interpret these stories as we come to new places in our lives. just like how we reinterpret our own lives in light of new circumstances. i used to totally think this one kid was crazy and insane when he said he thought i’d become a minister… turns out he was right.
October 20, 2009 at 1:01 pm
this concept is called “The canon within the canon.” thou shalt not steal, unless one is starving. absolutes aren’t absolute, not even the 10 commandments (just read some rabbinic commentary on ‘em!). and absolutes can conflict. take honoring your parents, protecting your wife, and the prohibition on gossiping. that’s an impossible mix my friend!;-)
October 20, 2009 at 10:29 pm
“i used to totally think this one kid was crazy and insane when he said he thought i’d become a minister… turns out he was right.”
Luke,
Are you saying that you’re a minister?
October 20, 2009 at 11:34 pm
“For instance, being ok with being oppressed, suffering an illness, or anything else because the big shiny eternal carrot is up there being dangled and it all won’t matter anymore once you get it.” (Philly)
What you label ‘escapism’ I label ‘perspective’. Oppression, suffering, and illness all happen to people all the time in this world of ours. What should their exact reaction be – if religious hope is ‘escapism’? Should they not be ‘ok’ with the turmoil they are suffering – what do you suggest Philly? I would love to know – this intrigues me.
You blast religious hope as escapism and similar to a ‘drug’ in it’s effect – yet offer no alternative to dealing with oppression, illness (I am guessng like cancer), and suffering – which are realities in this ‘here and now’ we live in.
Maybe the hope of an afterlife for some is the positivity they need to push forward – to face some of these scenarios…even to seek their change (ie: oppression).
October 20, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Whoa, whoa, whoa…I take the whole bible at face value – what it says it says. Just because we don’t all interpret it to some literal ends – and believe in word play like metaphors (known to be used in the gospels – ie: parables)..were picking n choosing? Personally, I think the people that interpret the bible in a very literal fashion are dis-respecting the process of what is written. It’s like saying Adam n Eve are literal people – it just doesnt seem to be the case.
October 20, 2009 at 11:54 pm
“You just interpret the bible to fit into your own thinking. You’re not allowing the bible to change your thinking.” (Temaskian)
I agree – I am not orthodox – but my faith and that bible do not ask me to be. Nowhere am I ever asked to adhere to the thought of a trinity and various atonement theories. Anyone that says anything like that has not read all 27 books and letters in the NT and cross-compared the vaiety of messages being offered from the synoptics, to Paul, to James, to John. These things need to be weighed out a lot better IMO.
As for interpretation, I would call what I do elaboration – in line with the rabbinic literature should be approached. These are not just words on a page – they need to be examined and re-examined and then re-examined somemore for the reality we have to face…what I call experiential theology…living the ideals.
If the teachings are just literal – then literal needs to be defined better and linguistics also needs to be looked at with regards to what is written (and context). I would say ‘yes’ they are ‘literally words on a page’…but they are meaningless without some substance…and now for 3 examples.
(a) The words become flesh – literal or metaphorical? For example, I am talking about an experiential theology – living what it is you are reading…in a sense I am saying…you are the words become flesh (a spiritual paradigm). This point is being made about Jesus in John’s intro – a book I find filled with symbolism and not literalism.
(b) You mentioned the beatitudes – namely the persecution aspect of those beatitudes. You only want to see a literalism to that verse – and not what it is pointing the person towards. Agreed, people will suffer for their faith – for holding to teachings that run contrary to some aspects of society…ever try be loving person in a gang? You don’t only lose respect I can tellz ya that.
But that teaching is about holding firm to your beliefs – having integrity even when it might hurt. Its confirming your faith is not just some magical feeling but experiential in nature and real…tried, tested, and true. It is also pointing the person towards change. If you don’t like the fact the Romans have prgies to their gods – then stop paying tribute to that god or attending those bathhouses. It’s about standing firm for change – and either the situation changes or you will suffer – but either way knowing your going to suffer you make a concrete stand in the face of opposition (ie: like civil rights activists in it hay-day).
I would say that teaching in the beatitudes is the reasoning for keeping one’s core beliefs. Yes there is an aspect of ‘other-worldly’ but your not persecuted for your stand in heaven – but on earth…that teaching is addressing the scenarios people will face ‘here and now’ and asking them to stand firm.
October 21, 2009 at 12:17 am
[...] ***Comment originally aired at Temaskian’s blog ‘another reason why it’s depressing to be a theist’ [...]
October 21, 2009 at 8:11 am
Jason,
Just a clarification: when I mention orthodox theology, I don’t mean mainstream teaching, but theology as you would come to should you read the bible correctly.
I appreciate the tone of your comments; you are truly non-combative in the way you engage in a discussion with me, at least so far, lol. Let’s hope we never have to come to blows.
“Yes there is an aspect of ‘other-worldly’ but your not persecuted for your stand in heaven – but on earth…that teaching is addressing the scenarios people will face ‘here and now’ and asking them to stand firm.”
And that was my point of the original post all along; that the instructions for the present life are predicated on the hope of a future heaven (that may not even exist).
October 21, 2009 at 10:24 am
Firstly, there is no life after death, as all atheists know.(Temaskian)
Lol, you must have been a Theist before you became an atheist. Your language reeks of Fundamentalism.
October 21, 2009 at 10:29 am
hahaha.. you haven’t read the source material have you? yet you feel free to label me. once ya label me dawg, ya miss me entirely. check my site, it’s a click away. and yes, i’m in seminary working to me a minister.
October 21, 2009 at 11:19 am
Yes, I was. That has been openly stated in all my posts. That’s what this whole blog is about, lol! My ex-fundamentalism.
October 21, 2009 at 11:21 am
What source material are you talking about?
And in what way have I labelled you?
And since when did I label you dawg, whatever that means?
October 21, 2009 at 12:51 pm
The thing is, its not so ex………youre still a fundy, you just switched sides. Bookends baby, bookends.
October 21, 2009 at 2:22 pm
TitforTat,
Sorry, but what do you mean by the reference to bookends?
Well, ex-Christian-fundamentalist. You are judging me as an atheist fundamentalist? How do you define an atheist fundamentalist?
Perhaps you were a liberal Christian. Conversely, it’s also possible that once a liberal, always a liberal.
It all depends on the definition.
October 21, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Rarely do fundamentalist or extreme personalities fit in the middle. Hence the term bookends. Absolute statements about what is or isnt happening after death doesnt help. Maybe if you changed the way you worded things you wouldnt look so, you know, fundamentalist.
October 21, 2009 at 10:40 pm
TfT,
Thanks for the explanation. Truth is also at the end of falsehood. Nothing wrong with being at the end of the spectrum.
Perhaps I could request you again to define what exactly you mean by an atheist fundamentalist, since you seem eager to bestow this title onto me.
October 21, 2009 at 10:54 pm
TfT,
It’s quite safe to acknowledge that there is no heaven after death, as heaven is just an artificial construct of the human mind.
Nothing wrong with making statements about things you’re certain about. Perhaps such statements are just not palatable to you because you do not wish them to be true.
Now, if you want to talk about extreme attitudes, there’s one right there. Normally, if someone says something I think is not true, I would either ignore them or tell them why I think it’s not true. I don’t usually just tell them, “Oh, you’re so fundamentalist.” It may say something about a person who keeps doing that. Don’t you think?
October 21, 2009 at 11:09 pm
“On second thoughts, you’re not really theists. You guys are more like deists, (LABEL) because you do not follow strictly according to orthodox theology (ASSUMPTION UNVERIFIED AND LABELED UNORTHODOX).
You just interpret the bible to fit into your own thinking (UNVERIFIED WITHOUT READING MY BLOG). You’re not allowing the bible to change your thinking (UNVERIFIED WITHOUT READING MY BLOG).”
source material would be my blog. labels speak for themselves… as an atheist, i figured you’d at least follow the scientific method. but instead you’re sticking to what you know best, unverified assumptions about the world. best of luck with all that.
October 21, 2009 at 11:10 pm
TfT, agreed.
October 21, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Luke,
“On second thoughts, you’re not really theists. You guys are more like deists, (LABEL) because you do not follow strictly according to orthodox theology (ASSUMPTION UNVERIFIED AND LABELED UNORTHODOX).
Deist may be a label but it’s not pejorative at all, compared to ignorant, rigid fundie this, and rigid fundie that, which you have called me in your other comment.
And I said you do not follow all the bible says because when I quoted you a passage, you just quoted another passage right at me, ignoring the first one. You chose to focus on the aspects of the bible which fit with your personal world-view, instead of accepting what the bible verses are actually saying.
“You just interpret the bible to fit into your own thinking (UNVERIFIED WITHOUT READING MY BLOG). You’re not allowing the bible to change your thinking (UNVERIFIED WITHOUT READING MY BLOG).”
Dude, it’s not my duty to check out everyone’s blog that comments here. I do check out people’s blog, but only if I like what they’re already saying, and if they’re all nice and reasonable. But if the person commenting here already irks me a little, I do not want to give myself a bad day by reading more of the same. Fair? Actually, I did check out your blog a little, but not all the posts, definitely.
“source material would be my blog. labels speak for themselves…”
You call your blog a source material? Wow.
So it appears you’re actually ok with labels; you just don’t like the one I gave you, namely deist?? Well, I didn’t know deist was such a bad term for someone who claims to be liberal.
“as an atheist, i figured you’d at least follow the scientific method. but instead you’re sticking to what you know best, unverified assumptions about the world.”
Wow, you’re assuming here that ‘the thing I know best’ is making ‘unverified assumptions about the world’. You’re really heaping on the abuse. Or is this liberal-Christianity-style love?
I thought you guys love your neighbor as yourself? Is that how you love yourself? Calling people names and such? For me, if I were to engage in such behavior, I at least have an excuse. I’m a godless heathen with no godly morals. But I didn’t expect such behavior from Christians, liberal or not.
“best of luck with all that.”
You keep wishing me luck. People’ll start thinking I’m a gambler or something.
October 22, 2009 at 12:08 am
“Deist may be a label but it’s not pejorative at all”
no it isn’t, but given i’ve commented once on your blog before this label, i find it hard you have any evidence for this.
“ignoring the first one… instead of accepting what the bible verses are actually saying.”
no, i showed how the bible is not just other worldly (like you’re thinking) but concerned very much for this one. thus, i prefer Luke’s beatitudes over Matt’s. and the verses don’t SAY anything, it’s all about the interpretation and there are just a few 100 on the beatitudes alone. gotta give up the “1 right meaning” idea that is so prevelent in conservative circles (i.e. your circle of theological origin.)
“You call your blog a source material? Wow.”
were i wanting to know about you, where would i go if you commented on my blog? therefore your blog is source material to find out about you.
“Well, I didn’t know deist was such a bad term for someone who claims to be liberal. ”
as stated, i was more offended that you so quickly jumped to the conclusion without any verification. to me, that is evidence of what you and i loath in conservative circles… namely stereotyping without evidence and dealing with a false preconception of the world and seeing all things through that filter.
i get really testy with ppl who do that and that’s what i did here. reactionary and i ask forgiveness.
as for the liberal-Christian style of love, i thought a goddless person of complete reason could take it
apparently not. reason and experience are two things i value greatly. as well as lively discussion. i was hoping for more curiousity on your part as i don’t represent any type of christian you’ve come across given what i’ve read on your blog. i am also a moderate in many things, so the extreme swing i’m seeing from your blog post troubles me greatly.
October 22, 2009 at 12:37 am
Luke,
You sound much better now. Much appreciated.
“no it isn’t, but given i’ve commented once on your blog before this label, i find it hard you have any evidence for this.”
I said you were deistic because of you quoted another passage right at me instead of… let’s forget all that.
“were i wanting to know about you, where would i go if you commented on my blog? therefore your blog is source material to find out about you.”
Now I know what you meant by source materials. By the way, I prefer to ask questions if I get the chance. 2 reasons. People change, so by asking you get the latest view. Secondly, it’s more efficient. When I read your posts after knowing you better, I might understand the posts even better.
“i get really testy with ppl who do that and that’s what i did here. reactionary and i ask forgiveness.”
Given. Let’s just forget all that, that way we can start afresh.
“as for the liberal-Christian style of love, i thought a godless person of complete reason could take it
apparently not.”
I spent most of my years in a conservative culture. So you’ll pardon me if I don’t appreciate the other style. Which is what actually? Not name-calling, I hope?
“reason and experience are two things i value greatly. as well as lively discussion. i was hoping for more curiousity on your part as i don’t represent any type of christian you’ve come across given what i’ve read on your blog.”
I’ve had up to my gills with Christians. But yes, I was hoping that liberal Christians would be better than the fundie ones.
“i am also a moderate in many things, so the extreme swing i’m seeing from your blog post troubles me greatly.”
Was just trying to be as honest as I could. I’m open to changing my mind about things, if reasonably persuaded.
October 22, 2009 at 12:46 am
“I’m open to changing my mind about things, if reasonably persuaded.”
NOW THERE!!! is some common ground we can start from! excellent!
i too have had it up to the gills with fundie christians… i wasn’t trying to name call but challenge. there is a lot to consider in the whole spectrum of theologies and philosophies (or lack there of). thanks for the fresh start and i’ll keep at the questions and challenges! thanks!