A Question for Christians

[bluesbassman]

A related question to Christians is what, exactly, is the mental manifestation of my "soul" in the afterlife? For example, if I die completely senile from Alzheimer's at 90 years old and go to heaven, will I (or my "soul") also be senile in the afterlife? If not, at which "point" from my mortal life will my cognitive function be restored? As I was at age 21? Age 40? From my perspective, that has changed significantly over my lifetime so far.

How about those who die as newborn babies, or even before? In what sense do such souls experience an afterlife?

I suspect the answer from Christians is that our souls are cognizant in the afterlife in a way we cannot understand as living beings. However, that means the Christian (and others) beliefs once again collapse into a muck of unintelligibility upon close examination.

[ QUOTE ]
In what sense do such souls experience an afterlife?


[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you read the Bible if you really care for the answer to that question, rather than having it spoonfed to you over an internet forum.

Though, as any intelligent person can surmise, answers to such questions clearly do not exist outside of one man's interpretation of the Bible (which clearly does not automatically equal another man's interpretation)

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you read the Bible if you really care for the answer to that question, rather than having it spoonfed to you over an internet forum.
Though, as any intelligent person can surmise, answers to such questions clearly do not exist outside of one man's interpretation of the Bible (which clearly does not automatically equal another man's interpretation)

[/ QUOTE ]
It's 2-way comments like these that baffle me. I ask my neighbour george, "What's your opinion of X". He says, "Go read the bible. Mind you, It won't give you my opinion. and everybody may well have a different opinion"
I take it that bible will therefore give me my opinion ( which is one of my basic claims about religion - we bring our morals and prejudices to it, and either find one that supports them, or interpret one in a way that does.)

[Lestat]

I think you need to look outside the 5 senses. I'm a non-believer and I think our 5 senses are actually limiting our experience of the universe.

If I were a believer, I'd tell you that once we die, the soul is freed, no longer bound by just the 5 senses in which we can experience everything. We are now exposed to God's full glory and His creation. Things like Alzheimer's, senility, and the lack of earthly sensory perception of a newborn are baseless.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to look outside the 5 senses. I'm a non-believer and I think our 5 senses are actually limiting our experience of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, we are blind because we can see, and deaf because we can hear. What alternative, superior sense modalities do you propose?

[ QUOTE ]
If I were a believer, I'd tell you that once we die, the soul is freed, no longer bound by just the 5 senses in which we can experience everything. We are now exposed to God's full glory and His creation. Things like Alzheimer's, senility, and the lack of earthly sensory perception of a newborn are baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question asks what, precisely, is meant by the verb "to experience" in the afterlife, not how do we sense external stimuli. My experience, i.e. my consciousness, is a direct result of the neural firings in my brain. Since those firings cease upon death, I don't know in what way I can continue to "experience" anything which is not a result of that neural activity.

Like I said, any answer is unintelligible.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">In other words, we are blind because we can see, and deaf because we can hear. What alternative, superior sense modalities do you propose? </font>


I'm pretty convinced there are dimensions outside our own existence and expererience. One might ask, how could a soul experience anything without eyes, smell, taste, sound, or feel? What I'm saying is those senses are limiting us from experiencing all that is beyond. Imagine viewing a parade through a keyhole. You see only certain parts marching past your view, but open the door and Whahla! There is so much more.

[paraphrasing slightly because I can't remember the exact quote]

"Once the doors of perception are opened, we begin to see things as they truly are, infinite."

-Huxley

[hmkpoker]

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: Infinite. This I shall do by printing in the infernal method by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid."

William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0234.html


Huxley, on the other hand, would have just come out and said "try mescaline" ^_^

[Lestat]

Oops! I KNEW it was William Blake, and tried to google it, but all I got was Huxley. I'm most familiar with the phrase as Jim Morrison said it.

Thanks for the correction.

[fuego527]

The reason why saying "read the Bible" is a cop-out is that we don't care what you think Job did or what the main course was at the Last Supper. The concept of "something that happens in a story" is very familiar to us already. The things that interest us are the "why do you think that?" and the "how did you come to this conclusion?" The problem is that the answer is not based in fact, which is the only thing that we will accept. It is, instead, based in belief. You feel safe in this belief because there are a lot of people that believe in the same thing. That is OK with me (which I know doesn't mean [censored] to you, as it shouldn't), believe what you want. I do not have that luxury, my brain does not allow me to believe things beyond the extent of "this seems probable" without proof of such things. So, from this perspective, you can probably see why threads like this one exist. People like Lestat and myself need to understand such specific details to think that something is true. The attempt is not to trap as much as it is to understand your specific belief. The truth is, however, that your system is not based on fact, and therefore can not stand up to such analysis. The last sentence is not intended in a derogatory manner, I just meant that that stuff CAN'T be proven.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why saying "read the Bible" is a cop-out is that we don't care what you think Job did or what the main course was at the Last Supper. The concept of "something that happens in a story" is very familiar to us already. The things that interest us are the "why do you think that?" and the "how did you come to this conclusion?" The problem is that the answer is not based in fact, which is the only thing that we will accept. It is, instead, based in belief. You feel safe in this belief because there are a lot of people that believe in the same thing. That is OK with me (which I know doesn't mean [censored] to you, as it shouldn't), believe what you want. I do not have that luxury, my brain does not allow me to believe things beyond the extent of "this seems probable" without proof of such things. So, from this perspective, you can probably see why threads like this one exist. People like Lestat and myself need to understand such specific details to think that something is true. The attempt is not to trap as much as it is to understand your specific belief. The truth is, however, that your system is not based on fact, and therefore can not stand up to such analysis. The last sentence is not intended in a derogatory manner, I just meant that that stuff CAN'T be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.