Ship of Fools: For dust you are and to dust you will return...

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » » Oblivion » For dust you are and to dust you will return...

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Source: (consider it)

Thread: For dust you are and to dust you will return...

Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113

Posted

I have been prompted to start a thread here on a question I put to my Arsebook acquaintance earlier today:

quote:
Where do we get the notion that humanity was never designed for bodily death? Vis. that "we weren't meant for death; our spirits rebel against the mortal state of death." *

In the Judeo Christian tradition, does this idea essentially find its basis in Gen 3:19? "... until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." What other texts (not just Apocryphal, by the way) support it? Who are the proponents of this ideology finding legs?

Is it a doctrine / ideology in other faith traditions, also?

On FB, responses have pointed to Romans 5, Peter Enns, even "the wages of sin is death" (!!), 1 Corinthians 15, Phaedo...

And I want to be clear, as it took a little while for me to articulate all of this in such a way as to really get through to some of the rhetoratti commenting: my question is more to do with wondering where we get the belief system that leads to people saying things like, "We weren't meant for death" which, if followed through, is essentially saying, "We were created to live on earth forever and ever in our mortal bodies and never ever die."

+++

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I am recently -- shockingly, completely-by-surprisingly -- bereaved, and have had a number of Christian peeps say to me, in responding to our shock, disbelief, shared grief, "Death is so unnatural for us. We were not made for death, and so it goes against everything within us" or suchlike. By the way, such comments have not been unwelcome; somehow, they have indeed conveyed comfort and a kind of solidarity.

I guess it's just got me thinking about the origins of this idea. I mean, if I'm honest, I think I have actually always held to the following as being true (I'm a GLE, btw. Recovering.):

Life created and situated in the original paradise: intention = we live forever! Weeeeee!!
Life fucks up and sin enters the original paradise: consequence = we no longer get to live forever.... booooooo.......
God comes as Jesus, takes on the mortal "consequence" of death: intention = we can again live forever in Paradise! [NB: see how I used a capital "P" there? I'm so non-post-modern right now] Weeeeeeeee!!
But you gotsta believe in Jesus: consequence = you won't get to live forever if you don't!

And all of this in an unwritten-doctrine kind of way, know what I mean? People might point me to various scriptures (as mentioned above), yet is the point of those scriptures to convey a truth about bodily death alone? + As well as spiritual "death"? Does it even matter, Mullygrub? Sigh...

Anyway, for a number of years now I have harboured a growing discomfort with this whole it's-all-about-us-getting-to-heaven type of thinking (like I said: Recovering), so I guess it's no surprise that I'm teasing it apart a little at present.

BUUUUUUT that's probably another thread altogether, so let's not be silly and get ourselves all thundered up in a storm of the iTheology fricking revolution. Suffice to say here, though, that I'm interested in hearing your research and reflections on where the thinking behind my initial question comes from, and whether other faiths and cultural groups (both historical and contemporary) espouse similar ideology (deathology? Thanatology??).

Thanks for playing, friends.

*Meanwhile, does this type of comment actually reveal an ideology heavy on the dualism?

--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.

Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

If there comes a time when nobody dies, then nobody else will have to be born either or the FULL signs will be up!

Death is necessary. Death is an intrinsic part of life and nature. The only resurrection I can see as 'possible' is a spiritual one with a completely 'new' kind of body which doesn't involve the natural world.

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:

Life created and situated in the original paradise: intention = we live forever! Weeeeee!!
Life fucks up and sin enters the original paradise: consequence = we no longer get to live forever.... booooooo.......
God comes as Jesus, takes on the mortal "consequence" of death: intention = we can again live forever in Paradise! [NB: see how I used a capital "P" there? I'm so non-post-modern right now] Weeeeeeeee!!
But you gotsta believe in Jesus: consequence = you won't get to live forever if you don't!

It's exactly that narrative that Brian McLaren challenges in A New Kind of Christianity, describing it as coming more out of a Greek/Roman paradigm than a Jewish/Christian one. Might be worth reading, if you haven't.

[Votive]

for your loss. Death sucks.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

Posted

My remarks, copied from the FB thread. Because I am lazy, and I am supposed to be doing something else. And so the learned here can comment and critique.

[If one were to answer in terms of the Garden of Eden story] the first two were kicked out of the mythical garden so that they would not eat of the tree of life and live forever. So it's not all that clear whether the authors understood that human beings were supposed to live forever as we might understand it, that is in physical bodies not subject to decay.
I think it likely that human beings were confronted with the phenomenon of human ageing and death, and attempted to explain these. One strand, which is from the Greek tradition, is the immortality of the soul (best articulation is in the Phaedo). The other, which starts with the ancient Egyptians (exemplified through practice of mummification) and forming part of the Christian tradition, is the resurrection of the body. Most brilliant exposition of that is St Paul's in 1 Cor 15.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged

Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113

Posted

Thanks, guys.

Boog, what I'm asking for is some theological and academic engagement on the topic.

--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.

Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
[QBIt's exactly that narrative that Brian McLaren challenges in A New Kind of Christianity, describing it as coming more out of a Greek/Roman paradigm than a Jewish/Christian one. Might be worth reading, if you haven't.[/QB]

Didn't realise he'd written a follow-up (I've kind of been out of the emerging church game for a little while).

--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.

Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132

Posted

Mullygrub

quote:
Where do we get the notion that humanity was never designed for bodily death?

A simple answer might be that humanity has always been troubled by the fact that bad things happened and people died inexplicably. They therefore felt that there was something beyond life doing these things. Particularly, someone or something who had been offended in some way. Hence the sacrifice of something living to prevent worse happening.

On top of that, a human mind contemplates time past and time beyond death giving the notion that it is timeless and cannot cease to exist. I find this latter feeling, very powerful in myself. The philosophy (which I can’t name at the moment) which says that time can only exist when a mind exists to comprehend it, seems to me one of the most powerful reasons for believing in God and the continued existence of the person in some form or another after death.

Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012 | IP: Logged

Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
The philosophy (which I can’t name at the moment) which says that time can only exist when a mind exists to comprehend it, seems to me one of the most powerful reasons for believing in God and the continued existence of the person in some form or another after death.

Thanks for engaging, shadeson.

I would be interested in hearing more about the particular philosophy you mention (the only thing it brings to mind for me is Descartes [Biased]

).

In other news, I am absolutely flabbergasted at the fact that, over on the discussion of same on my book of the face, a number of my very dear and non-stupid Evangelical Christian friends claim to have never encountered this thinking before in their various faith communities. [Eek!]

I. Am. Shocked.

Is this also a new concept for others here?

--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.

Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Shadeson
On top of that, a human mind contemplates time past and time beyond death giving the notion that it is timeless and cannot cease to exist. I find this latter feeling, very powerful in myself. The philosophy (which I can’t name at the moment) which says that time can only exist when a mind exists to comprehend it, seems to me one of the most powerful reasons for believing in God and the continued existence of the person in some form or another after death.

I once started a thread on the subject of time and consciousness, and I managed to find it in the wastes of oblivion!

Without wishing to reinvent the wheel, allow me to direct you to one comment I made there, which suggests that consciousness is rather more than the effect of the flow of information or perceptions within the chain of material cause and effect. I argue that there is an objective 'now', which is also infinitesimally small, within which we operate as conscious beings, while at the same time allowing the 'now' in a more general perceptual sense to spill over into the immediate past and future by means of information management (memory and prediction). If the latter aspect is all that explains consciousness, then human relationships and interaction become impossible, because consciousness itself would be an unstable moveable feast, preventing the synchronising of human activity. At a basic level we all live in the same 'now' (even though this 'now' may be measured differently based on different time zones, of course). An easy way of testing this is to go out on a busy road and see if all those conscious beings behind the wheel are aware of the same 'now'!! (Although looking at the way some people drive, one wonders at times...!) To argue that this synchronising is merely a material property based on the regularity of the chain of cause and effect, is a denial of the subjective perception theory of consciousness. Different people relate to memory and anticipation in different ways (I should know, because I work with people with Alzheimers). But despite these huge perceptual differences, we can all relate consciously to each other in the same 'now'.

This indicates that there is a part of our being which is not subject to the chain of material cause and effect, and therefore which exists in a higher dimension, which Christians, of course, call 'eternity'. If the material chain of cause and effect results in the destruction of the physical functions of a human being - aka death - then it doesn't follow that everything about that person must cease to function, because there still exists something in the higher dimension.

Therefore I see "life after death" as an entirely logical inference, and I think it is incumbent on any rational thinker who denies this, to explain consciousness in purely material terms. I don't think this can be done, for the reasons I have given. Certainly efforts by neuroscientists to explain consciousness in these terms involve the circularity of assuming that consciousness is merely a brain function, without actually proving that it is the case.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Mullygrub

quote:
Where do we get the notion that humanity was never designed for bodily death?

A simple answer might be that humanity has always been troubled by the fact that bad things happened and people died inexplicably. They therefore felt that there was something beyond life doing these things. Particularly, someone or something who had been offended in some way. Hence the sacrifice of something living to prevent worse happening.

On top of that, a human mind contemplates time past and time beyond death giving the notion that it is timeless and cannot cease to exist. I find this latter feeling, very powerful in myself. The philosophy (which I can’t name at the moment) which says that time can only exist when a mind exists to comprehend it, seems to me one of the most powerful reasons for believing in God and the continued existence of the person in some form or another after death.

Very nice post. I have come across this in some strands of Eastern religion, that for example, the present moment is eternal, not in the sense of lasting a very long time, but not being in time. Thus, the present moment is immeasurable, which is quite odd really. It has no boundaries apparently.

This might suggest that there is no time, which goes against the grain of modern science, possibly, but not against the grain of the experience of people in meditation and contemplation. Thus, it is also found in Christianity, see for example, the rather 'extreme' sayings of Angelus Silesius:

“I myself am Eternity when I leave time, and gather myself together in God, and God in myself.”

“The rose which your external eye sees here, has bloomed like this in God through Eternity."

The argument that it is the mind which perceives time (and in fact, everything), seems to be linked with philosophical idealism, e.g. Berkeley. To be is to be perceived, esse est percipi. All fascinating stuff, but no space, alas.

I would say that this stuff became very unfashionable for a while, partly because of the success of modern physicalism and so on, but it is also showing signs of recovery, as physicalism seems unsatisfactory to many. From the alone to the alone, as Plotinus said.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

I forgot to add that Lady Gregory, Yeats' patron, is supposed to have argued that there is only now, but that we find this intolerable, and therefore invent time, dismiss God, in order to deny the Oneness of now, to which we are invited by God. But eventually, via suffering and bad stuff, we begin to suspect our own denial; hence, the story is of moving from the great No to the great Yes. This is voiced in the film 'Waking Life' (Linklater).

I suppose this used to be dismissed as Irish twilight diddle-doddles, but again, people are interested in it again, which is good.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

You only need to watch dogs to see the pleasure in living only in the 'now'!

(Sorry Mullygrub - I'll get back in my non-academic box now [Biased]

)

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

Yes, I think that's a very important point about dogs, as humans sometimes seem to experience this absolute now-centredness, and then, they are off into their minds, doing the old mind fucking business, which is both a blessing and a curse. So we are both here, and not here, present and absent.

This has been argued to mean that the I is uncaused, like God actually.

[ 26. September 2013, 12:22: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(Sorry Mullygrub - I'll get back in my non-academic box now )

No no! Sorry, Boogie, no disrespect intended. My tact-o-gauge is somewhat lacking of late.... I want to say "post-bereavement", but that might be a cop out [Biased]

And I really do appreciate everyone's engagement. I'll try to dot-point some of the thoughts that are turning up on my Facebook thread of same.... there's some good, interesting shit wandering around there...

--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.

Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

Posted

While I appreciate EE's perspective, including the attempt to talk about this idea in scientific language, it leaves me cold. But aside from my own feelings about it, it's flat out anachronistic. The ancients who first came up with the ideas that Mully is talking about did not think in scientific ways. And, despite Descartes influence, we don't have to either (thanks to Heidegger and Husserl).
But in terms of the ancients, living in a world where the divide between the gods and men was much more permeable (as Charles Taylor tries to explain), there was a realm where the god/s existed and did their godlike thing. And the question becomes how can perfect being create imperfect matter, subject to decay and change. The narrative of sin is a pretty good (some might say) answer to that. We were perfect, but because of sin we aren't now.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged

Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(Sorry Mullygrub - I'll get back in my non-academic box now )
No no! Sorry, Boogie, no disrespect intended. My tact-o-gauge is somewhat lacking of late.... I want to say "post-bereavement", but that might be a cop out

Gah... just re-read That Comment Of Mine from earlier...... I. Am. A. Douche. Apologies [Hot and Hormonal]

Now, quetzalcoatl, you have just introduced me to Angelus Silesius for the first time, and I like the quotes you've shared (and what I read on Wikipedia [Big Grin]

); is there a work of his or biography or something you might recommend for a first-timer?

--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.

Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

I have heard Christians say that if Man had not fallen, we would all have the same experience that Enoch did. {Genesis 5:22-24}

quote:
Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah for three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470

Posted

There are also Jewish traditions that say Rahab lived forever (Joshua 6:25 - but check the Hebrew as not all the English translations translate "unto this very day")

--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.

Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:

quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(Sorry Mullygrub - I'll get back in my non-academic box now )
No no! Sorry, Boogie, no disrespect intended. My tact-o-gauge is somewhat lacking of late.... I want to say "post-bereavement", but that might be a cop out
Gah... just re-read That Comment Of Mine from earlier...... I. Am. A. Douche. Apologies

Now, quetzalcoatl, you have just introduced me to Angelus Silesius for the first time, and I like the quotes you've shared (and what I read on Wikipedia ); is there a work of his or biography or something you might recommend for a first-timer?

Hi. His most famous work is 'The Cherubinic Wanderer', which contains a lot of his two liners, some of which are mind-blowing, and read rather like Zen stuff.

Along with Eckhart, this stuff blew my head off about 30 years ago, and I forgot to put it back.

I suppose this stuff has been suspect sometimes in Christianity - for example, I think Eckhart was up before the beak.

For some reason, Wiki lists his works with their original 17th century German titles. Eh?

“If Christ were born in Bethlehem a thousand times and not in thee thyself; then art thou lost eternally.”

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

Incidentally, some of the great Sufis said rather similar stuff to the Angelus, and some suffered greatly because of this.

See for example Rumi:

Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself.

But maybe this goes too far for many Christians.

Of course, today Sufis are suffering greatly through persecution - but Rumi was not persecuted, (I think).

[ 26. September 2013, 13:41: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:
Where do we get the notion that humanity was never designed for bodily death? Vis. that "we weren't meant for death; our spirits rebel against the mortal state of death." *

Like Darknight I would agree that in Genesis, the narrative states we were created mortal, not immortal. In the Old Testament (for the most part) you live, you die.

quote:
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

The notion of a final, bodily resurrection of all the dead (which is a uniquely Jewish idea by the way ) emerges in the inter-testamental period.

My condolences on your loss.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009 | IP: Logged

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(Sorry Mullygrub - I'll get back in my non-academic box now )
No no! Sorry, Boogie, no disrespect intended. My tact-o-gauge is somewhat lacking of late.... I want to say "post-bereavement", but that might be a cop out ..

Not at all - I am in a touchy state about the subject (And I'm permanently touchy about having nothing academic to contribute!) so I'm sorry too. And sorry for your loss [Votive]

In one sense I am in a constant state of bereavement. My Mum has dementia, she knows no-one and enjoys nothing. A few weeks ago I could still say things to make her smile, but no longer. In one sense she lives only in the 'now', but not in a good way like the dogs do. Her life is far worse than any dog, but she can't be put down. We are far kinder to dogs. Don't get me wrong, she's not miserable, but she doesn't live either.

I must say I'm finding this thread fascinating - so thank you.

[ 26. September 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
............... The only resurrection I can see as 'possible' is a spiritual one with a completely 'new' kind of body which doesn't involve the natural world.

This is consistent with New Testament teaching according to Canon David Winter in his Church Times' column on Sept 6th. He refers to having lunch with a senior executive of the Gallup Poll Gallup poll organisation 20 years ago after a poll in which bishops were asked "Do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus?" Almost all the bishops refused to answer the question as it was posed :

quote:
The problem was the word "physical".
I enjoyed pointing out to him that, in doing so, they were simply being faithful to the teaching of the New Testament. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God," St Paul wrote. Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit", St Peter said. "Physical", I told him, was precisely the wrong word. If the researchers had asked : "Do you believe in the real (actual, visible, historical - choose your own word) resurrection of Jesus? " they would have got some positive answers. ..............
Physically? Spiritually, surely; and infinitely superior, better, more glorious and real for that. Or have I completely misunderstood 1 Corinthians 15?

I believe in the immortality of the soul and that resurrection involves embodiment but not the same physical body I currently inhabit.

[ 26. September 2013, 14:32: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:
Is this also a new concept for others here?

I first encountered it here on the ship. I've assumed it's from early church thinkers figuring that since death was not a Good Thing, it could not have been part of God's original creation and must have been a consequence of the Fall.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

Although in a Darwinian theodicy, death and suffering are seen as beneficial for living beings. I suppose this is a car-crash for many Christians, but I find it interesting. Thus, pain is highly beneficial, providing a warning system of danger, disease, injury, and so on. Death recycles stuff, and provides space for new life. And so on.

This is part of an integration of e * o * u * i * n with Christianity, ongoing and hot off the press, well sort of luke-warm really.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Death recycles stuff, and provides space for new life. And so on.

Yes, at all levels of creation, from elementary particles through organic cells and stars, the life-and-death cycles of lower level entities provide the basis for the ongoing existence of higher level entities, such as atoms, organisms, and galaxies. Such a marvelous way to breath life into inert dust.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

I suppose there's a major problem though, with switching from saying that pain and death are consequences of the Fall, to saying, hang on, they are highly beneficial, productive, and at the core of life's amazing ability to renew and at the core of the divine pleroma. Hmm. Strokes beard. Goes for drink. Better. Clear as mud.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802

Posted

quote:

In the Judeo Christian tradition, does this idea essentially find its basis in Gen 3:19? "... until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." What other texts (not just Apocryphal, by the way) support it? Who are the proponents of this ideology finding legs?

"Dust you are and to dust you will return" seems pretty explicit that humanity cannot expect to live for ever.

Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013 | IP: Logged

no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

Posted

I'm interested in the aboriginal peoples of Canada, the ones I'm familiar with are Dene and Cree for the most part. I don't pretend here to be providing a fully accurate account, and I expect what I'm typing up is a synthesis of my ideas with what I have been told.

The people I am acquainted with for the most part are one generation (or two) removed from the living off the land, subsistence and selling the surplus or the furs to buy things. Most of them partly live by hunting and partly by employment. The prior generations for several hundred years were connected to the settled and settling people from Europe, but distinctly did not adopt the customs and habits of them until forced. Mostly this was due to the extermination of wildlife and banishment to marginal lands of Indian Reserves (the USA term is "Reservation" and it matters). A lot died due to introduced disease, and had their culture taken, particularly in the west and the north of Canada by a deliberate policy of Chritianisation and forcing English, a lot of that was violent. There was the recognition of better technology: guns, aluminum (prior was wood and canvas, prior to that stuff from the forest) for boats, better housing, different and attractive high fat, high sugar foods with associated health consequences etc.

What I learned is the living presently, i.e., now. Yes, the preserving of food, yes the plans to move seasonally from one camp to another. But the connection with the environment in ways that they perceive it talking to them, as they read the signs sensitively around them. Kind of like people read dog mood and intent by watching body language, except this is environmental language. The closest I can express is Celtic ideas of thin places, except that it's all thin, and always apparent, and it is not a received experience, it is an interaction.

As far as I can tell, the concept of death when less contaminated by Euro ideals, contains a couple of things. First, that the present is good, and thus any form of after life will be more of the better things that we already experience. Not a quantum leap to another reality. Rather, a good lake, where fishing is easy, a good forest where hunting is easy, a good campsite where socializing is fun and enjoyable and people are happy. Where the kids are happy and well fed. Thus, Eden or heaven, they are both just slightly less degraded than what we already have. There's no armageddon or revolutionary change, there's no progress or yearning for a past golden age, nor for a future of absence of suffering. The Christian message does "sell" though in the context of what they might consider a progressive holocaust, though the term "cultural genocide" is the one I hear most.

The second component is the sense that spirit tends to live on within other people who have been born after someone has died. Thus, a baby might be both a baby with name, but also might be grandmother or auntie and due the respect that grandmother or auntie had, and sort of, non-demandingly, expected to grow into the more of the full character of the deceased person, but it is not reincarnation. The baby might be born years later, and an elder might read something of the baby, the same way the environment is read to detect that the day is good for fishing today. A person may also harbour components of the spirit of an animal, in roughly the same way, but I haven't detected that this is individual to animals, rather to the characteristics of the animal, say a muskrat, bear, beaver.

I'm not versed enough to say much more. But it does have some comforting aspects. I went on a canoe trip with a now-deceased friend some months before he died when he was between chemo therapy series. En route, we stopped and talked to a Cree man who lived in the bush, we hadn't seen anyone at all for about 10 days. We had tea (the usual custom in the north) and got to talking. The sense of the man's immediacy with us was palpable. The cancer came up, but not as the usual subject of either sympathy/empathy or detailing medical progress. The understanding seems to be that death and life are really the same thing, not so different, and not anything to really think on. States of being, like water and ice I think.

{edit} What is GLE please?

[ 26. September 2013, 17:24: Message edited by: no prophet ]

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010 | IP: Logged

Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

Posted

quote:
"Dust you are and to dust you will return"

This isn't unique to Biblical accounts. At the Buddhist Monasteries in Nepal, when a monk dies they ritually beat the body into dust while singing and chanting, then let the wind blow it away.

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005 | IP: Logged

shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132

Posted

quetzalcoatl

-thanks for the reminder of Bishop Berkley. That’s the one. But I can’t go along with his idea that “neither nature or matter exist as a reality independent of consciousness”. I think that it is only time that depends on the mind to have a dimension. The mind remembers patterns of cause and effect and thus assumes a dimension for time. (possibly 3D beings at the edge of a 4D expanding reality?). All a bit wobbly.

I would not infer from this that we are not made in the image of God - we do have constructs of the future and free will to choose them together with love and trust. It seems God can do this out of mere dust.

On the theology front, The Genesis story is interesting because God gave A&E the possibility of eating from the tree of life besides the other one. So on that basis death was built into life from the beginning - which of course begs the question of what the apple really did.

Regarding resurrection, I think that God will make a new creation, including our bodies, that does not depend on death and decay. Jesus being the first. I cannot imagine a soul independent of a body. Things do get complicated; how much of our person is located in our memories? I guess God can handle it.

Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
quetzalcoatl

-thanks for the reminder of Bishop Berkley. That’s the one. But I can’t go along with his idea that “neither nature or matter exist as a reality independent of consciousness”. I think that it is only time that depends on the mind to have a dimension. The mind remembers patterns of cause and effect and thus assumes a dimension for time. (possibly 3D beings at the edge of a 4D expanding reality?). All a bit wobbly.

I would not infer from this that we are not made in the image of God - we do have constructs of the future and free will to choose them together with love and trust. It seems God can do this out of mere dust.

On the theology front, The Genesis story is interesting because God gave A&E the possibility of eating from the tree of life besides the other one. So on that basis death was built into life from the beginning - which of course begs the question of what the apple really did.

Regarding resurrection, I think that God will make a new creation, including our bodies, that does not depend on death and decay. Jesus being the first. I cannot imagine a soul independent of a body. Things do get complicated; how much of our person is located in our memories? I guess God can handle it.

You also find a form of 'creative idealism' in some Eastern religions. I recall sitting next to a guy on a Zen retreat, who kept bellowing 'I do my being, I do my being', and I think he had had a satori experience.

So here, every point in reality is an 'I am' or a creative flowering.

I suppose you find this in some of the Abrahamic mystics as well. And I have known people come out of the Zen method, and go into Christianity, so maybe there is a link. I am a great becoming. But this occurs via a great self-abandonment.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712

Posted

Death is a part of life. Now no one wnats to die but we have torealize it is something we all experience. T oo many people are kept alive by artifical means now a days . And what about denentia cases ? This I know something about, my mother had dementia and between that and heart problems she had a rough last few years of her life. Would I like her here with me now ? Sure BUT not as she was, now she is whatever part of the hereafter Vod has for her . And one day I will catch up with her , anolder sister I never met , her 1st husband d 1943, and my father> I kind of am looking forward to the end of the begining.
And I have to assist with a funeral next week of a friend and will take the view that one day his wife will catch up with him so be not overly sorrowful.
to all who mourn may you find peace in God
PaulBC [Votive]

--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8

Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008 | IP: Logged

Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
"Dust you are and to dust you will return" seems pretty explicit that humanity cannot expect to live for ever.

Great. Thanks for that. Your position is therefore.... what? That you dispute the thinking my OP is querying? By all means, expand your response.

quote:
Queried no prophet:
What is GLE please?

Good Little Evangelical, a phrase, incidentally, I first encountered here. Had never heard of it before scrambling aboard. Is it no longer in use 'round these parts?

Also, no prophet, THANK YOU for providing that beautiful glimpse into your observations of how these types of beliefs and such are held within indigenous communities in Canada. Absolutely fascinating, and so, so full of (and I'm doing hand gestures here, trying to get my sentiments out -- interpretive dance, anyone?) HEAVINESS but the GOOD KIND OF HEAVY, know what I mean?

Now, this is rather an aside to the OP, but follows on from no prophet's post, I think. The Australian indigenous people of the Kulin Nations (in and around Melbourne, Victoria) tell of the creation of the First Man: he was formed from the soil of the land, and lay inanimate until Bunjil the Eagle (the Kulin's creator spirit) came and pecked three holes in the man's body -- nose, mouth, belly button -- and breathed life into him.

I got shivers the first time I heard an elder tell that story.

Meanwhile, back over on my Facebum thread, a friend of mine has posted some interesting thoughts. I'd like to share them here to add into this discussion:

quote:
In terms of your original question ( where this idea comes from) from a Judeo-Christian perspective, notions about eternal life didn't really strongly enter the Jewish community until the time of the Pharisees. This was one of the big stand-offs bw the Sadducees and Pharisees - whether there was eternal life or not. Jesus, took sides with the Pharisees (theologically) and the Christian tradition picked up from there, and then started reading back into OT scriptures inklings of eternal-ness.

In terms of other religions - most carry some kind of notion of eternal life, though very few emphasise bodily existence in eternity like the Christian tradition does.

In terms of the other thread of this conversation, which I guess has to do with the place of death in the grand scheme of things, I'd like to offer a slightly different take. Instead of thinking of original creation as God's 'plan A' that got stuffed up, I tend to think of what God is ultimately doing (bring in the reign/kingdom of God - heaven, if you I like) as his act of creation - his 'plan A'. The garden of Eden was just the kick off, the blank canvas onto which we have been invited to participate to 'create' the world that will always be. Everything that has transpired is part of the plan, part of the what is required to bring about the ultimately reality. The mystics such as Teresa of Avila used to say 'the fall was necessary' - death is the way in which new life comes about - it is written into everything, most exemplified in the way that Jesus brought about the ultimate redemption of the world.

So is death unnatural? Well, yes, I guess so, in some ultimate sense. But not entirely in the present sense (if you can say the present makes any sense at all ;-)). To me it seems to be part of the way that God is bringing about his ultimate reality, one that will be shared with all those who have gone before us, those who have helped to create this new reality, even with their very lives.

(I've been trying to get this guy on board the Ship for years now, but, you know, he has a life... or something...)

--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.

Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

quote:
Mullygrub: Jesus, took sides with the Pharisees (theologically) and the Christian tradition picked up from there

I am finding the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees more and more interesting.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

Interesting also that 'eternal' as in 'eternal life' seems to have two meanings:

1. going on for a very very long time.
2. not being in time.

A lot of people seem to take 1 as the meaning, so I don't know how much 2 is influential or not. It connects possibly with being uncaused.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

Posted

Eternal life has more meanings than that. In the gospel of John, eternal life has the meaning of "God's quality of life." So eternal life is not just life that goes on forever, but God's kind of life lived out here on earth by us. A much more existential (and that certainly is anachronistic) approach to eternal life.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged

quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Eternal life has more meanings than that. In the gospel of John, eternal life has the meaning of "God's quality of life." So eternal life is not just life that goes on forever, but God's kind of life lived out here on earth by us. A much more existential (and that certainly is anachronistic) approach to eternal life.

Excellent. I also take the sense of 'immeasurable', since while physical things are measurable, the things that matter are not.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Death is a part of life. Now no one wnats to die but we have torealize it is something we all experience. T oo many people are kept alive by artifical means now a days . And what about denentia cases ? This I know something about, my mother had dementia and between that and heart problems she had a rough last few years of her life. Would I like her here with me now ? Sure BUT not as she was, now she is whatever part of the hereafter Vod has for her . And one day I will catch up with her , anolder sister I never met , her 1st husband d 1943, and my father> I kind of am looking forward to the end of the begining.
And I have to assist with a funeral next week of a friend and will take the view that one day his wife will catch up with him so be not overly sorrowful.
to all who mourn may you find peace in God
PaulBC

This resonates with the sermon I heard this morning and which has given me some food for thought. I posted above that I believe in the immortality of the soul and also that the immortal soul is embodied but not necessarily in the same physical body used in earthly life. This morning's sermon referred to the heresy of Gnosticism which denies the central truth of the gospel - that in Christ God entered fully into human life. God became fully human as well as fully divine. God therefore is present in the whole physicality and mess and suffering of life. So, it follows, present in the dust too. The belief that Mary conceived without the human act of copulation was given as an example of a Gnostic heresy.

I think the answer to the question about whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was physical would be "yes, and no". Yes, in that it was a physical human body and no, in that it was a transformed human body. So not a resuscitated corpse but a changed and renewed body. Supernatural rather than entirely natural or entirely spiritual.

[ 29. September 2013, 12:29: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose there's a major problem though, with switching from saying that pain and death are consequences of the Fall, to saying, hang on, they are highly beneficial, productive, and at the core of life's amazing ability to renew and at the core of the divine pleroma. Hmm. Strokes beard. Goes for drink. Better. Clear as mud.

OR that it supports the idea that we were shaped into a temporal space by a supratemporal being... I don't know...

This kind of reminds me of the concept that (some??) mental illness is evidence of humanity's capacity to survive horrendous trauma, rather than relegating the afflicted to the realm of complete broken-beyond-repair-ness.

[DISCLAIMER: I'm no neuropsych or anything, so those more learned in this field, please feel free to jump on in and clarify / correct / banish [Big Grin]

]

For example, I remember reading about the neuro-biology of DID -- formally Multiple Personality Disorder (hi Sybil!) -- and how the splits that occur are the brain's beautiful attempt at protecting the identity of the individual -- the personality which holds the core of who they are, if you will -- from mistreatment that would surely be too much for the mind to hold in tension with the fragile sense of self (identity, as above). And so, the mind splits; one personality holds the experience of the trauma, to protect the other/s.

We see multiple personalities emerging as the brain continues to traverse the neural pathways (look at me, using all these big words) that reinforce the splitting.

But anyway, my big moment of Holy Fucking Zeus That's Amazing came when I sat with this information in light of my creationist view of human life; if I believe that humanity is today how it was first created (which I think I do), then I believe that the human brain had the capacity for this self-protection thing built in, even before there was ever any need of it (vis. in the perfection of the Garden, before hate and pain and suffering).

I guess what I'm saying, quetzalcoatl, is that I don't necessarily see it as a "major problem"...

Meanwhile, HOLD THE PHONE:

quote:
justlooking said:
The belief that Mary conceived without the human act of copulation was given as an example of a Gnostic heresy.

WHAT THE FRAKKING MOJITOS?

I.Am.Stumped.

Unlike that of the OP of this thread, I'm pretty sure that the understanding that Mary conceived "by the Spirit of God" rather than through any act of actual, physical, business-time copulation was a belief verbally espoused in my denomination.

[Confused]

Am I unknowingly a Gnostic?? Good Lord. I mean, I know I'm a backsliddenheathengoingstraighttohell, but a Gnostic?? Seriously???

--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.

Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

Posted

I would like to hear more from justlooking on how the virgin birth could be considered a Gnostic heresy. It certainly isn't heretical now, but part of orthodox belief. I don't happen to believe in the virgin birth myself, but I don't see how it is heretical. Also, the gospel accounts of the virgin birth are likely to early for the development of Gnosticism, so the statement is anachronistic.
I wouldn't worry too much about being Gnostic, Mully. The most recent research on that mob suggests that in the nascent church, Gnostics and what we would now call "orthodox" (with a small "o") believers mingled together in fellowship. No one was too concerned until some of the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius from memory was the head arsekicker in this regard) started denouncing Gnosticism as heresy. The licentious branch of Gnosticism ("do whatever you want because it can't affect your soul") sounds like a lot of fun, but they were very much the minority. Much larger was the ascetic branch ("mortify the body and your desires because only the soul matters"), which kind of sucks.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

The way this was explained on Sunday was that the Gnostics saw something intrinsically wrong or evil about the physical, and especially the physical process of procreation. There were those in the early church who could not accept that God had created something so imperfect as the physical world which involves so much suffering. Gnostics therefore developed a view of the natural world as created by a 'fallen angel'. Salvation is obtained only through the spiritual life. All of which is contrary to the gospel which shows God as entering fully into human life and being there in all the pain and suffering. Fully human and fully divine.

What is traditionally translated as 'virgin' could also be translated as 'young girl' or 'young woman'. The creeds express belief in the 'Virgin Mary' which allows for 'Virgin' to be a title rather than a physical state.

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

Posted

I think our writings and stories are really just attempts to metaphorically tell each other campfire stories, i.e., before we farmed we herded, or just kept to hunting and gathering. We camped out and sat around fires in the evenings and told each other stories, and we had limited understandings of natural processes. We retold stories that others had told us, and we modified them a little bit here and there, so as to make then stories better, more convincing, and what we discerned as more true. Wrote them down a long time later, or rather, someone wrote down what they heard around their specific campfire, maybe not quite the one told at all campfires.

In the more amusing department, it seems that the Adam's rib being used to form Eve is a pun based on a Sumerian word for rib and Eve's name. "Nin" and "ninti". Link with some info. Makes the likelihood of the pun being the basis for specifics of the story reasonable, and the ideas of a man being the controller of the mysterious female control of procreation by carrying children a nice post-hoc feminist response, but it may still be about a pun (or not, but I like it).

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010 | IP: Logged

Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The way this was explained on Sunday was that the Gnostics saw something intrinsically wrong or evil about the physical, and especially the physical process of procreation. There were those in the early church who could not accept that God had created something so imperfect as the physical world which involves so much suffering. Gnostics therefore developed a view of the natural world as created by a 'fallen angel'. Salvation is obtained only through the spiritual life. All of which is contrary to the gospel which shows God as entering fully into human life and being there in all the pain and suffering. Fully human and fully divine.

What is traditionally translated as 'virgin' could also be translated as 'young girl' or 'young woman'. The creeds express belief in the 'Virgin Mary' which allows for 'Virgin' to be a title rather than a physical state.

This is simply false. First, the Gospels were written before Gnosticism was much of a force in Christianity. If there is Gnostic influence in the New Testament, it is a minor thing.

As for the word virgin, the Gospel writers definitely meant a girl that had not had sex, and this is the same sense in the Creed. Matthew tried to bolster his case by citing the Greek Old Testament, which also used the word virgin in the same sense. The original Hebrew of the cited prophecy, it is true, uses a word that can mean young woman, but Christians have always meant to refer to Mary as a virgin.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

I don't think it's possible to be definite about the meaning of the word translated as 'virgin'. From what I've read, the original text of Isaiah, 7.14:

'Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.'

Can be translated as:

'Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.

'Almah' was translated into the Greek 'parthenos'. The Hebrew word for virgin was 'betulah.' Parthenos' is taken to mean 'virgin' but it can also be understood as 'young woman' or as 'unmarried woman'.

Much of the traditional RC teaching about Mary is derived from non-canonical sources, including Gnostic accounts.

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

Posted

Sure, the Isaiah is ambiguous. But Matthew and even more so Luke are pretty unequivocal about what they mean. "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" Unless "virgin" means "have never had sex" this question would be a bizarre thing to have Mary say.

I suppose you could double-down by saying that Matthew and Luke are Gnostic... but that would seem a bit mad... what counts as "orthodox" then?

Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005 | IP: Logged

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website