quote:

---

So, to posit eternal COMMUNION with God, it's necessary that subjective immorality be the case. Cool enough. But who's to say that God wouldn't be completely satisfied with COMMUNION with him in this life, and UNION (reconciliation?) with him in the next that doesn't allow for subjective immortality? Heck, what if God only needs objective immortality where his memories of us (and our communion with hims) satisfy him? Hmm...

---

quote:

---

The mystical experiences of both western and eastern mystics are extremely similar. Both sense a collapse of their entire being into a unity with "God" or the "Universe" (depending on their religious contexts). A sense of individualism is lost, but not in a negative way. Rather than feeling mere "loss," a sense of "gain" is experienced. The longing for unity and at-one-ness with the Divine is tasted and this creates an even greater desire for it...a desire for more unity not less! I would argue that it is possible that in an ultimate way, objective immortality may be more satisfying and meaningful than subjective immortality, but it is simply beyond our current comprehension because we cling to our individuality and equate that with true existence and meaning. (It is no wonder given the extremes of individualism within western culture...this "problem" doesn't even register in eastern cultures!)

---

and...

quote:

---

I beg to differ slightly. Each individual is so important that God became human to redeem each of one us. But I don't think this automatically means that if our destiny is ultimately union with God in an objective immortality, this negates the meaningfulness of our temporary existence as individuals as we currently experience it. Rather, it could be that it brings individuals into a superior, preferable mode of being altogether, totally outside our current experience and comprehension.... "to be one with God" by our own choice, to exist in and through and with God (and creation) in the most total way possible. If that is the case, we can no longer speak meaningfully about "subject + subject" or use any terms/concepts of individuality because existence is no longer "me" and "you" but "us."

---

HECK, YEAH, boo! THIS is part of the reason why that I'm wondering if the "need" for subjective immortality and "final justice" is little more than human falibility in operation. It seems that all the metaphysical needs to live we have CAN be fulfilled without subjective immortality.


Miss E:

quote:

---

I just wanted to address this. First, you're ignoring the complexity of universalism. Most universalists believe that some kind of "reckoning" does occur, and that punishment, although not eternal, still exists. Second, even Hindus and Buddhists (who are universalists in that they believe that all beings will eventually reach nirvana), account for this problem in their doctrine of karma and reincarnation (and also believe in temporary 'hells'!). In that system, the consequences inherent in the universe and our own actions "judge" us (as opposed to Divine judgment). In fact, reincarnation is considered suffering, the cycle of rebirth is "samsara." In other words, I know of no belief system that totally abrogates the concept that "we reap what we sow" in some ultimate way. In that sense, the "easy" answer (eg suicide) is never the best answer...it is not a direct path to unity with the Divine.

---

Problem with that, E. Are you saying that suicide is some sort of DISQUALIFICATION for heaven? If so, WHY? Remember I wasn't saying that with universalism it would matter what one did in this life, with respect to lifestyle. What I was asking was: What is the ANSWER for someone who is so tired of life that they want to die? Now, unless you want to say that suicide warrants hell (which I sure wouldn't), the question still stands.


YAY, Miss E! Love ya, lady!

quote:

---

Yet this describes some sort of subjective experience, does it not? Bliss is a personal feeling, yes? It would not then be objective immortality, would it?

---

quote:

---

Empiress:
Perhaps it is the unity we have with God through Jesus Christ that is the "here and now" of the kingdom. Or, perhaps the solution really is what the Buddhists say: that we already are totally at one with everything, we just don't percieve it yet, and we won't until we reach nirvana (substitute God for everything/nirvana)... so the kingdom is already here, now, waiting to be recognized.

---

quote:

---

Empiress: I would argue that it is possible that in an ultimate way, objective immortality may be more satisfying and meaningful than subjective immortality……

Electra: Satisfying and meaningful for who? These words presuppose a subject.

---

Well, yes, I describe things using words as a subject, I cannot escape my own current subjective reality in that sense. But this does not mean that the ultimate experience of objective immortality is an individualistic or subjective one. If the entire creation has become one in a fully unified way and individual consciousness ceases to exist, this may be "bliss" or "satisfying" in a universal way totally outside that of an individual's experience or subjective reality.

quote:

---

Empiress: ….but it is simply beyond our current comprehension because we cling to our individuality and equate that with true existence and meaning. (It is no wonder given the extremes of individualism within western culture...this "problem" doesn't even register in eastern cultures!)

Electra: Jews and Christians understand loving union as something willed by one subject for another and for itself. Thus loving God is described in terms that involve the subject’s heart, mind, and soul; loving neighbor is described in terms that cannot be separated from the subject’s own self. I agree that individualism is a huge problem in western culture. But I don’t think that seeking ultimate meaning in objective vs. subjective existence is the solution—in fact I think it is a huge part of the problem!

---

Yes, you are entirely correct in describing how we currently relate to God: as subjects in a willed and loving union. But what if part of what we could "choose" as the ultimate step of love was to be one with God, one with the Divine will and heart, so much so that we ceased to be distinct from God as individuals? I am suggesting that this is an entirely different mode of being and of reality, beyond meaningful comprehension. I agree this concept seems to threaten something extremely valuable to us: our individuality and personal experiences, but I am simply suggesting that perhaps it is our limited perspective that makes it difficult to embrace rather than this potential reality itself.

quote:

---

Empiress: Again, if God is love and God has created us with a plan for our ultimate "good," then I imagine this objective immortality could be true bliss in the way nirvana is understood to be bliss in eastern faiths. Our wills so intermingle with God's that our wills become one and our individual existence/wills no longer matter or have meaning.

Electra: I would say the opposite: If God is love and God has created us with a plan for our ultimate "good," then this requires our ongoing subjective existence. Our wills so intermingle with God’s that our wills become one and our individual existence/wills matter more than ever and are more meaningul than we ever imagined.

---

Right, this is our point of disagreement. I'm merely saying I do not believe it is a necessity that we remain subjective individuals in order to participate in, what could be, the ultimate, best, most loving plan for creation: total unity in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I want to ask, why, once we have chosen to intermingle our wills totally with God's, do our individual wills continue to remain more meaningful? What necessary distinction is there between our wills' and God's if we are in perfect unity with God? It seems to me that God's will, with ours in unity with God's, becomes all meaningful as -one.-

quote:

---

Empiress: I actually had a trinitarian perspective in mind when I wrote that. Is the Trinity an "I" or an "us"? Is the Trinity one or three? The problems we have describing the Trinity is the same problem we have discussing what an objective immortality in unity with a Trinitarian Godhead would look like. Inasmuch as I we fail to comprehend the Trinity in a meaningful way, so we fail to comprehend what this superior mode of existence within the Trinity would be like. That's why I'm saying that language and our current experience breaks down.

Electra: Good point. Language breaks down when we try to describe God as an “I” or an “us.” But I don’t think this supports a view of ultimate existence as objective, especially in light of the incarnation.

---

But it does apply when we claim, as I did, that we will become one with the Trinity so that our reality is identical and one with the reality of the Trinity.

Electra wrote:

quote:

---

Here’s a hang-up I have. I don’t understand how an “object + object” relationship is intelligible (unless a subject wills their relationship), and I associate “subject + object” relationships with violence (that’s why I used the rape example). Maybe someone can help reframe this for me?

---

I think you're having trouble because you're thinking in purely dualistic/dichotomous terms. I am not proposing that we somehow move from a "subject + subject" relationship to an "object + object" relationship. I am claiming that it is possible that the ultimate end of our subject + subject relationship with God culminates in a total unity with the Godhead, one in which such language ceases to have meaning. One in which we are now one with the "subject" of our love, existing in union within God in the Trinitarian relationship without independent subjective experience.

Does that help?

Peace,
Empiress

P.S. I've heard a lot of scholars say that the Jews did not develop a notion of the afterlife until much later in their history, can anyone confirm or contradict this? It's certainly not discussed much in the OT.

P.S.S. Pennywise is my guy...I twisted his arm to start posting so be nice to him!

quote:

---

Are you saying that suicide is some sort of DISQUALIFICATION for heaven? If so, WHY?

---

quote:

---

from Vladimir Lossky's "In the Image and Likeness of God", a chapter called 'Catholic Consciousness: Anthropological Implications of the Dogma's of the Church' (pages 192-194)


This "He will bring to your remembrance all" (uTCO^JLVr|0£i U(JLac; TiavTOc) is addressed not only to the apostles who accompanied Jesus Christ from the very beginning, but also to all Christians, to all the members of the Church, who have a common memory of the words of Christ, of what was "from the beginning": a memory which is called Tradition. This memory is common to all; it belongs to the unity of the Body of Christ, the Church; it is its memory or tradition, but it is actualized in each particular person upon whom the Holy Spirit confers His grace.

If this opening of consciousness on the interior evidence of the Truth is brought about by the Holy Spirit in each Christian person, it is nevertheless not uniform, for there is no measure common to all where persons are concerned. The evidence of Truth, the memory or tradition of the Church, that which constitutes the content of consciousness, is one and the same for all; but that does not mean that there is one single consciousness of the Church, which is imposed uniformly on all, as a "supra-consciousness" belonging to a "collective person." If one must recognize in ecclesial reality not only unity of nature but also multiplicity of hypostases, there necessarily will be a multiplicity of consciousnesses, with different degrees of actualization in different persons, more intensive in some, practically absent in others. Persons who are more deeply rooted in the Church, conscious of the unity of all in the Body of Christ, thus are more free of their own individual limitations, and their personal consciousness is more open to the Truth. Here is the paradox of catholicity: consciousness here is not a "self-consciousness" but a liberty concerning oneself. He is conscious of the Truth who ceases to be the subject of his own consciousness. Thus the Truth which one confesses is presented in all its objectivity: not as "one's own" opinion, not as "my own theology," but as the possession of the Church, Koc69 6Xov, as catholic Truth. The mystery of the catholicity of the Church is realized in the plurality of personal consciousnesses as an accord of unity and multiplicity, in the image of the Holy Trinity which the Church realizes in her life: three consciousnesses but a single Subject, a single "Divine Council" or "Council of the Saints," a divine catholicity, if we dare apply this ecclesiological term to the Holy Trinity. In ecclesial reality, in the becoming of the new creation, the many personal consciousnesses are consciousnesses of the Church only insofar as they cease to be "self-consciousnesses" and put in the place of their own "self" the single subject of the multiple consciousnesses of the Church.

Since the catholicity of the Church is expressed in many consciousnesses of the same truth, of the same memory of the Church, actualized by the Holy Spirit in those who seek to define, to exoress in dogmas, and to defend the truths of Revelation, a Council (local or general), in which the voice of the Church must normally make itself heard, will have nothing in common with a democratic institution. It is not preponderant opinion which determines catholicity, nor collective consciousness which forms it: The Church does not know impersonal collectives any more than she knows individuals in revolt. The champions of catholicity are those who possess the consciousness of the unity of the Body of Christ, of the apostolic tradition common to all, those who struggle unremittingly that catholic Truth triumph in all consciousnesses. There are times when one is obliged to oppose a crushing majority: let us remember that after the Council of Nicaea dogmatic struggles continued for sixty years until the definitive triumph of O^OOUGLOC;. "For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (I Cor. 11:19). These champions who must be recognized so that all may be conscious of the Truth, so that catholic evidence may be actualized in all consciousnesses, are in the first place all those whom we venerate as Fathers of the Church. It is very significant that in the course of its liturgical year, the Orthodox Church, on the anniversaries of the great councils, celebrates the memory of the Fathers of the Councils rather than honoring this or that council as a collective group.

It is the consciousness of some, free from all subjectivity, which makes Truth triumph in the Church at large—the consciousness of those who speak not in their own name, but in the name of the Church, positing the Church as the unique subject of multiple personal consciousnesses. If we wish to apply the notion of consciousness to ecclesial reality, we must understand that in this reality there are many personal consciousnesses but only one subject of consciousness, only one "self-consciousness" (Selbstbewusstsein), which is the Church. In this sense the Fathers of the Church—and all those who, freed from their individual limitations, follow in their steps—are the fathers of the consciousness of the Church, those by whom Truth could be expressed in the councils in the form of dogmas, not as the "supra-conscious" constraint of a deus ex machina, but in full personal consciousness, engaging human responsibility . It is precisely this which permits us to make judgments in questions of faith and to say with catholic audacity: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28).

---

quote:

---

Modes' post made me realize that I ought to add a clarification here. And that is: my belief is that the after life is one of subjective immortality, I believe the distinction between ourselves and God will be maintained in a way similar to what Pennywise described.

My point was merely to suggest that Theism does not necessarily lose its meaning for me (or others) if an objective immortality were the case.

If we want to talk about what is most Scriptural, I think we can point to a number of Biblical metaphors, the Bride and Groom metaphor that Modes used is a good one, that demonstrate a belief in an independent and subjective immortality as posited in the Bible.

I do question the extent to which we take these metaphors however, because ultimately I do believe our current language and comprehension breaks down entirely when it comes to discussing the after life and what it means to be "one" with the Trinity.

My contribution was merely defending a "meaningful Theism" in an alternate conception of the after-life more in keeping with eastern thought. Why? I don't know actually, ask Mephi. I just talk about stuff that intrigues me.

Pax,
Empiress

---

Hi Empiress. I didn't see this post until after I posted my last response to you. Anyway, in light of this clarification, I think we are on the same page. I agree that meaningful, coherent undestandings of ultimate reality (I put it this way because many eastern thinkers would not describe their views as theistic) do not require belief in subjective immortality. I also agree that our current language and comprehension is inadequate to describe the afterlife and the trinity. And I also agree that this stuff is intriguing. Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

quote:

---

When a mother, for example, cries because death has robbed her of her child, or because great suffering inflicts itself on, or is inflicted upon, the child, this is proof that something is unaligned with the way things are supposed to be. When this infliction is a result of what we call injustice, it presupposes a standard by which to measure. And no culture in the world is without some cognizance of this ubiquitous standard, to whatever degree it could be said to exist.

---

Starkman mentioned Justice without making it the be-all and end-all of an abstraction that it often ends up being. (The worst is when God is held up to be judged against an abstraction.) Starkman first established Being as a standard (linked inexorably to the Personal Creator).

Way to go Starkey.