(no subject)
Oct. 26th, 2003 09:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaCrossposting to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
challenging_god.
On a thread hidden in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ricochet_rabbit's discussion about hell, ithryn asked, with regard to apocatastasis:
I do not believe in the immortality of the soul, for lack of evidence that any part of "me" will survive beyond the death of my body; yet I am a theist. This seeming contradiction multiplies the difficulty of my position.
Physicists have observed that in the void of space, particle-antiparticle pairs "burst forth" into existence all the time. This is not creation ex nihilo; the pair of particles are what result from the spontaneous transformation of a photon or packet of energy. It is not uncommon for the particle and anti-particle to meet up again and destroy one another, their mass converted to energy in the form of a photon.
I view the cosmos as a larger scale, more complex kind of odyssey akin to that of the particle-antiparticle pairs. Nothing we have observed is constant; everything, even the most fundamental properties of the spacetime continuum itself, changes over time. I view ideas like apocatastasis, the vow of the bodhisattva in Buddhism, the tikkun olam in Judaism, and the Great Work of modern occultism, as reflections of this idea that all things will eventually return to the Source, and so it is good and holy to aid this.
As an individual, I am simply a permutation of several patterns much larger than myself. I have come, as many mystics do, to identify my "true self" not with this temporal and very mortal body and mind, but with the more timeless patterns which I reflect. The "true me" will live and thrive after my death; other beings will benefit from the body I leave behind; and all is as it should be.
There seems to be an almost primal fear that many people feel when they consider that maybe there is no cosmic meaning after all. If this is so, I see it opined, then we might as well kill ourselves, or kill one another, but only after indulging our basest needs to satisfaction. Atheist mystics (yes, such a thing is possible and not really uncommon) with whom I have conversed describe the problem thus: the quest for meaningful-ness in a universe where messages from God are not forthcoming, where meaning itself appears to be a purely human invention. The next most logical answer is to look within, and discover the ways in which I can be better as an individual and as a member of my society. Meaning in this model is an unfolding, not a given; a revelation from within, not from without.
It seems to me that nothing can be more good and right than fulfilling that which I perceive is my purpose. If virtue is indeed its own reward, there is no need to worry about the possible meaningless-ness of existence.
challenging_god.On a thread hidden in
ricochet_rabbit's discussion about hell, ithryn asked, with regard to apocatastasis:That idea is attractive, but that makes temporal existence very puzzling. If we're all going to heaven, why are we even here? Why aren't we instantly put into heaven now, or why weren't we created there in the first place? Why suffering? If all of us are going to end up perfectly good, why give us free will? It seems incongruent that God would dispense free will and then would utterly negate it in the end.
I do not believe in the immortality of the soul, for lack of evidence that any part of "me" will survive beyond the death of my body; yet I am a theist. This seeming contradiction multiplies the difficulty of my position.
Physicists have observed that in the void of space, particle-antiparticle pairs "burst forth" into existence all the time. This is not creation ex nihilo; the pair of particles are what result from the spontaneous transformation of a photon or packet of energy. It is not uncommon for the particle and anti-particle to meet up again and destroy one another, their mass converted to energy in the form of a photon.
I view the cosmos as a larger scale, more complex kind of odyssey akin to that of the particle-antiparticle pairs. Nothing we have observed is constant; everything, even the most fundamental properties of the spacetime continuum itself, changes over time. I view ideas like apocatastasis, the vow of the bodhisattva in Buddhism, the tikkun olam in Judaism, and the Great Work of modern occultism, as reflections of this idea that all things will eventually return to the Source, and so it is good and holy to aid this.
As an individual, I am simply a permutation of several patterns much larger than myself. I have come, as many mystics do, to identify my "true self" not with this temporal and very mortal body and mind, but with the more timeless patterns which I reflect. The "true me" will live and thrive after my death; other beings will benefit from the body I leave behind; and all is as it should be.
There seems to be an almost primal fear that many people feel when they consider that maybe there is no cosmic meaning after all. If this is so, I see it opined, then we might as well kill ourselves, or kill one another, but only after indulging our basest needs to satisfaction. Atheist mystics (yes, such a thing is possible and not really uncommon) with whom I have conversed describe the problem thus: the quest for meaningful-ness in a universe where messages from God are not forthcoming, where meaning itself appears to be a purely human invention. The next most logical answer is to look within, and discover the ways in which I can be better as an individual and as a member of my society. Meaning in this model is an unfolding, not a given; a revelation from within, not from without.
It seems to me that nothing can be more good and right than fulfilling that which I perceive is my purpose. If virtue is indeed its own reward, there is no need to worry about the possible meaningless-ness of existence.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-10-27 05:00 am (UTC)I've always found that idea to be absurd. If we break it out into semiformal logic, we get something like:
The assumption seems to be that all morality and decency comes from A Higher Power, and that mere carnal humans will only do evil. This ignores the possibility that some mere humans actually enjoy doing good.
... all of which is a longwinded and circuitous way of saying, "Yeah, what you said." Personally, if I go to bed knowing that I made someone's day better, I won't lie awake pondering Deep Philosophical Issues.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-27 07:28 am (UTC)Thanks for this post :)