[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Is this not the most reassuring thing ever?
>>
>>4986468
Nope, I want to see my doggos again.
>>
Nope, I want to see my cats again.
>>
>>4986468
>buddhists call this "nothing" nirvana, which to reach takes all the will power, dedication and multiple reincarnations to reach
>some fat fedoras think they can just die and reach it easy
how sure are you?
>>
No, it's the most terrifying thought.
>>
>>4986468
Even in hell your memory of happiness is not destroyed, even trapped in a eternal living body, unable to percieve anything, the mind can flee into madness.
Death is destruction, a thief that takes us everything.
>>
>>4986577
Less terrifying than supposedly burning for eternity?
>>
>>4986468
Nope, I want to see my hamsters again.
>>
>>4986468
Who cares? If there is nothing after you die than it will be no different from the time before you were born.
>>
the only thing before death is the growth and expansion of an individuals consciousness through drug use
>>
>>4986577
This, I avoid thinking of it too much because it leads me to sleepless nights. I like being conscious and thinking; if there were an option to disable the need to sleep I would select that even.
>>
if full well done drug use is 1 ur lifes activities are multiplied by that and thats what you get out of it, its infinitely fleeting, life
>>
>>4986676
>>4986577
based underage virgin bros
>>
this >>4986659
fuck you, death's a bummer
>>
>>4986468
>Your consciousness ends

I am fucking scared of this. It is so fucking unfathomable, it is not even comparable to sleeping. No dreams, no thoughts, no senses, no nothing.

>Your consciousness goes on forever

Pretty sure it would be maddening after some time, especially if you are stuck in a single place/state forever. Extra bad if it is some form of active torment.

>cyclical time

The one I want to be true. Please be true.
>>
>>4986699
Imagine what it was like before you were born,that’s is what death is like.
This hell thing is fucking scary though while it is most likely bullshit I want 100 percent clarity on its bullshit.
>>
>>4986653
Not really, I would prefer to burn than to cease to be. In time your mind will accept the torture - your senses will be dulled and jaded for that pain. That's why hell hold no terror for me.
Granted I would prefer to life forever without pain and free - and I do think, if hell is truly the ultimate suffering, beyond human imagination, then I may prefer to cease to be. But it really has to be so in a metaphysicial sense.
>>
>>4986670
That's a fallacy, the time before born doesn't take anything away, when you die, YOU will ide.
I don't fear death, I fear the loss of my life.
>>
>>4986679
That's not how it works.
>>
>>4986468
Sounds fucking boring.
>>
File: 1509953908823.jpg (61 KB, 465x750)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>4986704
>Imagine what it was like before you were born,that’s is what death is like.
No, before you were born, you did not exist - but death destroys you. It takes something away. It's a false comparsion.
>>
>>4986727
>didnt exist a trillion years
>suddenly becomes conscious
>but THIS time when i die it will be different
cringe
>>
>>4986699
Here's an alternative:
If time is a dimension, and our perception of it passing in a linear fashion is a result of our physical existence, then when we die, we will no longer be perceiving it passing. But our chunk on the time line of the universe will always be there, our time will always exist.
>>
>>4986741
>>4986468

If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die.
There is conspicuous disagreement about the matter: some people think death is dreadful; others have no objection to death per se, though they hope their own will be neither premature nor painful. Those in the former category tend to think those in the latter are blind to the obvious, while the latter suppose the former to be prey to some sort of confusion. On the one hand it can be said that life is all we have and the loss of it is the greatest loss we can sustain. On the other hand it may be objected that death deprives this supposed loss of its subject, and that if we realize that death is not an unimaginable condition of the persisting person, but a mere blank, we will see that it can have no value whatever, positive or negative.
Since I want to leave aside the question whether we are, or might be, immortal in some form, I shall simply use the word 'death' and its cognates in this discussion to mean permanent death, unsupplemented by any form of conscious survival. I want to ask whether death is in itself an evil; and how great an evil, and of what kind, it might be. The question should be of interest even to those who believe in some form of immortality, for one's attitude towards immortality must depend in part on one's attitude toward death.

If death is an evil at all, it cannot be because of its positive features, but only because of what it deprives us of. I shall try to deal with the difficulties surrounding the natural view that death is an evil because it brings to an end all the goods that life contains. We need not give an account of these goods here, except to observe that some of them, like perception, desire, activity, and thought, are so general as to be constitutive of human life.
>>
>>4986765
They are widely regarded as formidable benefits in themselves, despite the fact that they are conditions of misery as well as of happiness, and that a sufficient quantity of more particular evils can perhaps outweigh them. That is what is meant, I think by the allegation that it is good simply to be alive, even if one is undergoing terrible experiences. The situation is roughly this: There are elements which, it added to one's experience, make life better; there are other elements which if added to one's experience, make life worse. But what remains when these are set aside is not merely neutral: it is emphatically positive. Therefore life is worth living even when the bad elements of experience are plentiful, and the good ones too meager to outweigh the bad ones on their own. The additional positive weight is supplied by experience itself, rather than by any of its consequences.
I shall not discuss the value that one person's life or death may have for others, or its objective value, but only the value that it has for the person who is its subject. That seems to me the primary case, and the case which presents the greatest difficulties. Let me add only two observations. First, the value of life and its contents does not attach to mere organic survival; almost everyone would be indifferent (other things equal) between immediate death and immediate coma followed by death twenty years later without reawakening. And second, like most goods, this can be multiplied by time: more is better than less. The added quantities need not be temporally continuous (though continuity has its social advantages). People are attracted to the possibility of long-term suspended animation or freezing, followed by the resumption of conscious life, because they can regard it from within simply as a continuation of their present life.
>>
>>4986768
If these techniques are ever perfected, what from outside appeared as a dormant interval of three hundred years could be experienced by the subject as nothing more than a sharp discontinuity in the character of his experiences. I do not deny, or course, that this has its own disadvantages. Family and friends may have died in the meantime; the language may have changed; the comforts of social, geographical, and cultural familiarity would be lacking. Nevertheless those inconveniences would not obliterate the basic advantage of continued, thought discontinuous, existence. If we turn from what is good about life to what is bad about death, the case is completely different. Essentially, though there may be problems about their specification, what we find desirable in life are certain states, conditions, or types of activity. It is being alive, doing certain things, having certain experiences, that we consider good. But if death is an evil, it is the loss of life, rather than the state of being dead, or nonexistent, or unconscious, that is objectionable.[1] This asymmetry is important. If it is good to be alive, that advantage can be attributed to a person at each point of his life. It is good of which Bach had more than Schubert, simply because he lived longer. Death, however, is not an evil of which Shakespeare has so far received a larger portion than Proust. If death is a disadvantage, it is not easy to say when a man suffers it. There are two other indications that we do not object to death merely because it involves long periods on nonexistence. First, as has been mentioned, most of us would not regard the temporary suspension of life, even for substantial intervals, as in itself a misfortune. If it ever happens that people can be frozen without reduction of the conscious lifespan, it will be inappropriate to pity those who are temporarily out of circulation.
>>
>>4986774
Second, none of us existed before we were born (or conceived), but few regard that as a misfortune. I shall have more to say about this later. The point that death is not regarded as an unfortunate state enables us to refute a curious but very common suggestion about the origin of the fear of death. It is often said that those who object to death have made the mistake of trying to imagine what it is like to be dead. It is alleged that the failure to realize that this task is logically impossible (for the banal reason that there is nothing to imagine) leads to the conviction that death is mysterious and therefore a terrifying prospective state. But this diagnosis is evidently false, for it is just as impossible to imagine being totally unconscious as to imagine being dead (though it is easy enough to imagine oneself, from the outside, in either of those conditions). Yet people who are averse to death are not usually averse to unconsciousness (so long as it does not entail a substantial cut in the total duration of waking life).
If we are to make sense of the view that to die is bad, it must be on the ground that life is a good and death is the corresponding deprivation or loss, bad not because of any positive features but because of the desirability of what it removes. We must now turn to the serious difficulties which this hypothesis raises, difficulties about loss and privation in general, and about death in particular. Essentially, there are three types of problem. First, doubt may be raised whether anything can be bad for a man without being positively unpleasant to him: specifically, it may be doubted that there are any evils which consist merely in the deprivation or absence of possible goods, and which do not depend on someone's minding that deprivation.
>>
>>4986779
Second, there are special difficulties, in the case of death, about how the supposed misfortune is to be assigned to a subject at all. there is doubt both to who its subject is, and as to when he undergoes it. So long as a person exists, he has not yet died, and once he has died, he no longer exists; so there seems to be no time when death, if it is a misfortune, can be ascribed to its unfortunate subject. the third type or difficulty concerns the asymmetry, mentioned above, between out attitudes to posthumous and prenatal nonexistence. How can the former be bad if the latter is not? It should be recognized that if these are valid objections to counting death as an evil, they will apply to many other supposed evils as well. The first type of objection is expressed in general form by the common remark that what you don't know can't hurt you. It means that even if a man is betrayed by his friends, ridiculed behind his back, and despised by people who tread him politely to his face, none of it can be counted as a misfortune for him so long as he does not suffer as a result. It means that a man is not injured if his wishes are ignored by the executor of his will, or if, after his death, the belief becomes current that all the literary works on which his fame rest were really written by his brother, who died in Mexico at the age of 28. It seems to me worth asking what assumptions about good and evil lead to these drastic restrictions.
All the questions have something to do with time. There certainly are goods and evils of a simple kind (including some pleasures and pains) which a person possesses at a given time simply in virtue of his condition at that time. But this is not true of all the things we regard as good or bad for a man
>>
>>4986780
Often we need to know his history to tell whether something is a misfortune or not; this applies to ills like deterioration, deprivation, and damage. Sometimes his experiential state is relatively unimportant -- as in the case of a man who wastes his life in the cheerful pursuit of a method of communicating with asparagus plants. Someone who holds that all goods and evils must be temporally assignable states of the person may of course try to bring difficult cases into line by pointing to the pleasure or pain that more complicated goods and evils cause. Loss, betrayal, deception, and ridicule are on this view bad because people suffer when they learn of them. But it should be asked how our ideas of human value would have to be constituted to accommodate these cases directly instead. One advantage of such an account might be that it would enable us to explain why the discovery of these misfortunes causes suffering -- in a way that makes it reasonable. For the natural view is that the discovery of betrayal makes us unhappy because it is bad to be betrayed -- not that betrayal is bad because its discovery makes us unhappy.
It therefore seems to me worth exploring the position that most good and ill fortune has as its subject a person identified by his history and his possibilities, rather than merely by his categorical state of the moment -- and that while this subject can be exactly located in a sequence of places and times, the same is not necessarily true of the goods and ills that befall him.
>>
>>4986783
These ideas can be illustrated by an example of deprivation whose severity approaches that of death. Suppose an intelligent person receives a brain injury that reduces him to the mental condition of a contented infant, and that such desires as remain to him can be satisfied by a custodian, so that he is free from care. Such a development would be widely regarded as a severe misfortune, not only for his friends and relations, or for society, but also and primarily, for the person himself. This does not mean that a contented infant is unfortunate. The intelligent adult who has been reduced to this condition is the subject of the misfortune. He is the one we pity, though of course he does not mind his condition. It is in fact the same condition he was in at the age of three months, except that he is bigger. If we did not pity him then, why pity him now; in any case, who is there to pity? The intelligent adult has disappeared, and for a creature like the one before us, happiness consists in a full stomach and a dry diaper.
If these objections are invalid, it must be because they rest on a mistaken assumption about the temporal reelation between the subject of a misfortune and the circumstances which constitute it. If, instead of concentrating exclusively on the oversized baby before us, we consider the person he was, and the person he could be now, then his reduction to this state and the cancellation of his natural adult development constitute a perfectly intelligible catastrophe.
This case should convince us that it is arbitrary to restrict the goods and evils that can befall a man to nonrelational properties ascribable to him at particular times.
>>
>>4986786
As it stands, that restriction excludes not only such cases of gross degeneration, but also a good deal of what is important about success and failure, and other features of a life that have the character of processes. I believe we can go further, however. There are goods and evils which are irreducibly relational; they are features of the relations between a person, with spatial and temporal boundaries of the usual sort, and circumstances which may not coincide with him either in space or in time. A man's life includes much that does not take place within the boundaries of his life. These boundaries are commonly crossed by the misfortunes of being deceived, or despised, or betrayed. (If this is correct, there is a simple account of what is wrong with breaking a deathbed promise. It is an injury to the dead man. For certain purposes it is possible to regard time as just another type of distance.). The case of mental degeneration shows us an evil that depends on a contrast between the reality and the possible alternatives. A man is the subject of good and evil as much becomes he has hopes which may or may not be fulfilled, or possibilities which may or may not be realized, as because of his capacity to suffer and enjoy. If death is an evil, it must be accounted for in these terms, and the impossibility of locating it within life should not trouble us.
When a man dies we are left with his corpse, and while a corpse can suffer the kind of mishap that may occur to an article of furniture, it is not a suitable object for pity. The man, however, is. He has lost his life, and if he had not died, he would have continued to live it, and to possess whatever good there is in living.
>>
>>4986790
If we apply to death the account suggested for the case of dementia, we shall say that although the spatial and temporal locations of the individual who suffered the loss are clear enough, the misfortune itself cannot be so easily located. One must be content just to state that his life is over and there will never be anymore of it. That fact, rather than his past or present condition, constitutes his misfortune, if it is one. Nevertheless if there is a loss, someone must suffer it, and he must have existence and specific spatial and temporal location even if the loss itself does not. The fact that Beethoven had no children may have been a cause of regret to him, or a sad thing for the world, but it cannot be described as a misfortune for the children that he never had. All of us, I believe, are fortunate to have been born. But unless good and ill can be assigned to an embryo, or even to an unconnected pair of gametes, it cannot be said that not to be born is a misfortune. (That is a factor to be considered in deciding whether abortion and contraception are akin to murder.)
This approach also provides a solution to the problem of temporal asymmetry, pointed out by Lucretius. He observed that no one finds it disturbing to contemplate the eternity preceding his own birth, and he took this to show that it must be irrational to fear death, since death is simply the mirror image of the prior abyss. That is not true, however, and the difference between the two explains why it is reasonable to regard them differently. It is true that both the time before a man's birth and the time after his death is time of which his death deprives him. It is time in which, had he not died then, he would be alive. Therefore any death entails the loss of some life that its victim would have led had he not died at that or any earlier point. We know perfectly well what it would be for him to have had it instead of losing it, and there is no difficulty in identifying the loser.
>>
>>4986794
But we cannot say that the time prior to a man's birth is time in which he would have lived had he been born not then but earlier. For aside from the brief margin permitted by premature labor, he could not have been born earlier: anyone born substantially earlier than he would have been someone else. Therefore the time prior to his birth prevents him from living. His birth, when it occurs, does not entail the loss to him of any life whatever.
The direction of time is crucial in assigning possibilities to people or other individuals. Distinct possible lives of a single person can diverge from a common beginning, but they cannot converge to a common conclusion from diverse beginnings. (The latter would represent not a set of different possible lives of one individual, but a set of distinct possible individuals, whose lives have identical conclusions.) Given an identifiable individual, countless possibilities for his continued existence are imaginable, and we can clearly conceive of what it would be for him to go on existing indefinitely. However inevitable it is that this will not come about, its possibility is still that of the continuation of a good for him, if life is the good, we take it to be.
>>
>>4986796
We are left, therefore with the question whether the nonrealization of this possibility is in every case a misfortune, or whether it depends on what can naturally be hoped for. This seems to me the most serious difficulty with the view that death is always an evil. Even if we can dispose of the objections against admitting misfortune that is not experienced, or cannot be assigned to a definite time in the person's life, we still have to set some limits on how possible a possibility must be for its nonrealization to be a misfortune (or good fortune, should the possibility be a bad one). The death of Keats at 24 is generally regarded as tragic; that of Tolstoy at 82 is not. Although they will be both be dead for ever, Keats' death deprived him of many years of life which were allowed to Tolstoy; so in a clear sense Keats' loss was greater (though not in the sense standardly employed in mathematical comparison between infinite quantities). However, this does not prove that Tolstoy's loss was insignificant. Perhaps we record an objection only to evils which are gratuitously added to the inevitable; the fact that it is worse to die at 24 than at 82 does not imply that it is not a terrible thing to die at 82, or even at 806. the question is whether we can regard as a misfortune any limitations, like mortality, that is normal to the species. Blindness or near-blindness is not a misfortune for a mole, nor would it be for a man, if that were the natural condition of the human race.
The trouble is that life familiarizes us with the goods of which death deprives us. We are already able to appreciate them, as a mole is not able to appreciate vision. If we put aside doubts about their status as goods and grant that their quantity is in part a function of their duration, the question remains whether death, no matter when it occurs, can be said to deprive its victim of what is in the relevant sense a possible continuation of life.
>>
>>4986699
If time is cyclical you still have a finite amount of life though. There's no practical difference between it and option 1.
>>
>>4986798
The situation is an ambiguous one. Observed from without, human beings obviously have a natural lifespan and cannot live much longer than a hundred years. A man's sense of his own experience, on the other hand, does not embody this idea of a natural limit. His existence defines for him an essentially open-ended possible future, containing the usual mixture of goods and evils that he has found so tolerable in the past. Having been gratuitously introduced to the world by a collection of natural, historical, and social accidents, he finds himself the subject of a life, with an indeterminate and not essentially limited future. Viewed in this way, death, no matter how inevitable, is an abrupt cancellation of indefinitely extensive possible goods. Normality seems to have nothing to do with it, for the fact that we will all inevitably die in a few score years cannot by itself imply that it would be good to live longer. Suppose that we were all inevitably going to die in agony -- physical agony lasting six months. Would inevitability make that prospect any less unpleasant? And why should it be different for a deprivation? If the normal lifespan were a thousand years, death at 80 would be a tragedy. As things are, it may just be a more widespread tragedy. If there is no limit to the amount of life that it would be good to have, then it may be that a bad end is in store for us all.
Also it is incorrect to say one did exist for trillion of years as time only began, as far as we know it, 14 billion yers ago. Can non-existence be measured?

Death by Thomas Nail
>>
>>4986765
Could someone summarize this for brainlet-me?
>>
>>4986832
didnt read
>>
>>4986468
Obviously this is wrong, it violates the injunction of Parmenides. Congratulations, we all live forever.
>>
>>4986488
this
freedom is pricey, atheists will be in hell forever
>>
>>4986967
Citation needed
>>
>>4986488
Who cares what Buddhists think?
>>
File: Wk54498R_400x400.jpg (17 KB, 251x251)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>4986808
>thomas nail
nigga looks like owl city
>>
>>4986808
Good post. I think we need to distinguish between death and mortality as such. I find it easy to admit that dying is a bad thing, but there are also people with concerns about mortality as such, e.g. people who say that if you will inevitably cease to exist, life is meaningless. That goes beyond regarding death as a bad thing because you miss out on further life.
>>
>>4987521
And you failed the test, in truth Thomas Nagel wrote this text.
>>
File: 1530332947831.jpg (165 KB, 640x480)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>4986670
a buddy of mine claims to remember the time before he was born as an astral being surrounded by other similar beings, contemplating the creation and being in awe at all the creation things, he saw something he liked (theorically life on earth) and chose to go there and to be born, the astral beings were warning him that if went there he would no longer "remember" but he told them don't worry, I'll remember.

Sickest story ever, the same guy now gets raped by demons in his drowsy. But I have schizophrenia and I got raped by a snake on a hallucination once, I can't blame him.
>>
>>4986676
there is a method to sleep 4 hours a day, you have to sleep every 4 hours for 20 minutes, it takes practice but it works
>>
There is a docummentary of a banker that got too high rank on wall's street and was responsible for handeling a lot of international transactions, this guy was blackmailed in order to try to give him a raise, they would take him to satanic rituals and ask him to join or to watch how they killed babies. Long story short, he claims that he was tortured and that the torture made him feel like he was dead and abandoned his body and saw his body from out of his body and saw how the dudes were torturing him. That makes you think you go somewhere after this life.
>>
>>4987620
Such near-death experience can be expalined on how the brain tries to give the happening a structure. Memory is a hazy thing. People also already made brain scans of those people and were able to show how the brain was changed. We still need a proof of a afterlife.
>>
>>4987664
but what about seeing your body from outside and everything surrounding it even if it is happening in real time?
>>
>>4987620
big if true
>>
>>4987681
The guy told the doctors what he saw after they brought him back and his mind was trying to make sense what happened to him - also he can unconsiously be aware of what happened. Atleast that happened to another person that had an accident and was brought back to life.

And of course every story that includes satanic rituals is to be doubted.
>>
File: please wake up.png (1.44 MB, 610x610)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB PNG
>>4986468
Jokes on you asshole, you're actually a Boltzmann brain and none of this is real.
>>
>>4986988
>implying CTMU is wrong
Math proves Atheism is a farce, and they will be perpetually reincarnated as virgincucks while based Chads reach Nirvana
>>
>>4986708
The point of hell is that your spirit is trapped in eternal despair out of separation from God. It is never about physical pain.
>>
>>4986468

It's both relieving and disturbing to me.
>>
>>4987735
I believe him though, the guy seems legit.
>>
File: hellraiser i am in hell.jpg (265 KB, 1934x1088)
265 KB
265 KB JPG
>>4987757
The pain is an attempt to escape and forget about the spiritual ennui.
>>
>>4987782
I don't believe him, his words seem dubious.
>>
>>4987743
No reason to think it’s real
>>
>>4987757
Then hell holds no terror for me.
>>
>>4987782
There is no logical reason to believe him.
>>
>>4987782
They intentionally write notes and leave them on the top of lights and shelves in OR's specifically to test weather or not these OBE's have any validity and no one ever mentions seeing them.
Your body dumps a shitload of DMT in traumatic situations.
I got in a really bad car accident when I was younger that I walked away from, and I very specifically remember time slowing down, and stopping, and seeing that I was about to die and jumping into a parallel time line where I survived (I was really into Robert Anton Wilson and his whole tim leary on quantum mechanics trip).
I don't *honestly* believe it happened, but it was still a very weird quasi religious experience made possible because the survival instinct goes apeshit in a psyche that is suddenly unable to tell what is real and what is imagined.
>>
>>4987757
Spirits don’t exist.
>>
>>4986468
It's a lie.

It's a lie coined by a being who knows that eternal hell is very real.
>>
>>4987620
It was a dutch banker, Ronald Bernard. What he saw and was asked to participate in was horrific, and evil.
>>
>>4987828
Says the spirit wearing a meat sack.

Credibility: Shot.
>>
>>4987807
He's wrong. It is about pain. Your new body will endure pain without end, trapped in a lake of fire, with nothing you take for granted now. Nothing of God. No light, no peace, no joy. Nothing but darkness, and fire, and things that scream.

That's the place where people who want to be separated from God go, for an eternity. While they deserve it, fully, it is also avoidable thanks to the grace and mercy of the Almighty.
>>
>>4987841
What’s a spirit and what’s your proof of their existence?
>>4987846
god sounds like a terrorist
>>
File: 1501817358548.png (94 KB, 195x189)
94 KB
94 KB PNG
>>4986468
Yes, it is nothing. That is what heaven is. No need to sustain yourself, no pain, no suffering, not even joy. Just quiet, unknowing bliss. At one with the rest of the universe as the molecules that made you up as a person are spread throughout the world. We are at one with the universe now, but it is very hard to realize it because of our needs for survival and emotions getting in the way
>>
>>4987846
God seems to be an asshole if he burns people simply because they don't want to do what he wants. Fuck that guy, earth has enough psychos.
>>
File: sweaty frog.jpg (32 KB, 480x454)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>4987846
>That's the place where people who want to be separated from God go
Now imagine you believe in predestination and you're fucked before you had any choice in the matter.
>>
>>4987866
God isn't a person or a being though. He is existence itself
>>
>>4987854
Your spirit is what keeps your body going; your soul is you. Your current body is a temporary host for your soul and for your spirit.

If by believing God is a terrorist leads you to fear being in the hands of the Almighty God, so be it. Be in fear, and act accordingly. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
>>
>>4987864
Nonsense.

Imagine the best possible heaven you can, and know that the real heaven is better.

Conversely, imagine the worst possible hell you can, and know that the real hell is worse.
>>
>>4987866
And why should you not do what God wants you to do, again?
>>
>>4987898
Aye, which is why Calvin was wrong, and his philosophy dead.
>>
>>4987915
Autistic people have difficulty in realizing that God is a person, with a body, and a Spirit, and emotions, and goals, and everything.

Try to overcome that autism so that you can meet God, personally, while you can, and not when you must.
>>
>>4987917
Citation needed.
>>
>>4987943
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Hebr. 4:12-13)

Some people view the soul and body interchangeably, while others think the soul and spirit are the same. But it’s more accurate to think of them as separate components. Our soul is the conscious part of us, composed of mind (intellect), will, and emotions. It makes choices and controls our behavior by giving orders to the body. Our spirit is the subconscious part, an internal adviser to the conscious soul. It’s our conscience.

The body is simply the earthly dwelling place of the soul and spirit. The soul is sometimes called the mind, will, and emotions, and the spirit is sometimes called the conscience. In believers the Holy Spirit is linked to our spirit. Although the body is subject to death and decay, the soul and spirit are not. Both soul and spirit are eternal and therefore exist forever, whether in Heaven or Hell.
>>
>>4987955
I meant a real citation.
>>
>>4987959
Hebrews 4:12-13

If you're looking for something more "real" than the inspired Word of God, expect disappointment.
>>
>>4987969
How is your book inspired but something like the Quran isint?
>>
>>4987969
How is it inspired?
>>
>>4987996
the last part of a trilogy always sucks
>>
>>4987996
It tells the story of the world from beginning to end, precisely, accurately, and most importantly, preceding the events.

The quran is a collaboration between a psychotic pedophile and the devil.

If you can't tell them apart, it's a sad day for you.
>>
>>4988014
The Holy Spirit of God dwelled in the 40 or so men who wrote the 66 books of the bible over about 1500 years, and about 30% of the bible is prophecy, and 100% of bible prophecy comes exactly and precisely and accurately true, even thousands of years later. Or 38 years later. Or hours later. Depending.

God knows the beginning from the end, and nobody else does. Hence there are no other prophetic books on the planet, outside the bible, and there are no holy texts, outside the bible.
>>
>>4988062
You seem to be a bit biased I’m a Christian now!
>>4988072
Oh that’s a really good reason.
>>
>>4986577
>>4986676
Tbh, I think Dying is far more terrifying than Death. I at least have had the experience of not being alive before.
>>
>>4988114
based twain
>>
>>4988114
This doesn't take into consideration the fact that we know that we will die and lose everything we have.

We didn't have anything to lose before we were born, we do now.
>>
>>4988174
You lose everything every night when you go to sleep anon.
You lose the entire universe, all of it, to the territory known as "yesterday".
Everything that you are will soon literally be only a memory.

Out of, if you are lucky, 80 years of life you will only ever experience a few seconds of "now".

All the rest of that, those 79 years, 11 months, 29 days, and 23 hours will simply be "the past" and "the future".

You might be afraid now, perhaps, but I assure you will not be afraid when you have died.
>>
>>4988220
I don't lose everything every-night. Those things are simply postponed to me.

Your definition of experiencing "now" is silly.
>>
>>4988228
Postponed implies you'll get them back again.

Tell me, how many days have you ever seen again?
>>
>>4988241
I will see my body again tomorrow. If I die, I will not see it ever again. (Hypothetically)
>>
>>4988263
Actually you won't. Just like you'll never see your childhood body again.

You'll see a body that is 1 day older than the one you have now.

Not too long from now, you'll see a very old body.
>>
>>4988272
But it will still by my body. In death, there is a complete absence of the body.
>>
>>4988286
Just like before you were born.

And to be honest, not so very different from the first few years of your birth either.
>>
>>4988306
Right, but we've come back to the central point. Before I was born and when I was an infant, I was not aware of what I had to lose. I am now.
>>
>>4988313
>I am now.
Don't worry, it'll pass. I promise
>>
>>4987757
>The point of hell is that your spirit is trapped in eternal despair out of separation from God. It is never about physical pain.
the point of such shameful backpedaling from literal fire and brimstone amply depicted in medieval literature and church paintings, and going all the way to swarms of christians believing the hoax about russians accidentally drilling into hell and hearing the screams of the tortured, is to whitewash the retardedness of the very idea.
>>
>>4988072
>prophecy
>coming true
like jesus riding into jerusalem on two donkeys?
>>
ITT : Bunch of underage summerfags crying about death
>>
File: 1464847833951.jpg (13 KB, 361x330)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>4988062
this is the most unintelligent counter argument I've read all day and we all know 4chan users chronically call each other faggots.
>>
I know what happens after death, I've seen it.
>>
>>4989642
do tell
>>
>>4989692
There's a blue sphere which is for those who are saved and a huge fire.
>>
>>4989696
classic
>>
>>4988220
>You lose everything every night when you go to sleep anon.
When you sleep you still experience unconsciously, you can dream, the working of the mind does not stop.
I think you misunderstand the problem, I fear the loss of my life, not death.
Death is the ultimate destruction.
>>
>>4989703
Yes, but jesus sends you to the fire.

It's a dream I had actually, after having an experience with god after meditation, many visions, dreams and such in trances.

Nothing of it seemed christian, but the notion of heaven and hell was very classic, everything else seemed pagan and pretty particular.
>>
>>4989734
So you saw Zeus or something?
>>
>>4989741
No, let me try and recapitulate.
I was meditating, and saw an inner mental image of a white girl with brown hair in a moonlit night forest surrounded by white wolves. That night I felt as if god stepped inside me in spirit through my chest (you feel as if it is god, as in your being recognizing this pressence as "god"), my consciousness and mind expanded and felt very sharp and profound, my body became very light and agile, there was a sensation of timelessness, all very carzy and hard to describe.
Then I dreamt about the blue sphere and the fire surrounded by an inmense blackness.
Then some days later I felt like embracing myself and loving my whole being, I did and fell into a trance and saw myself having sex with a shilouette of a girl inside some geometrical shapes, I was touching some "chakras" in her abdomen with my fingers, woke up feeling as if I really had had sex, very crazy.

Then I went on to explore religions, nothing quite matched it, and bad stuff happened to me if I believed and tried them.
>>
>>4989741
Don't bother, he is a schizo.
>>4989749
Go back to /x/
>>
>>4989756
I'm staying here, and I'm sane, faggot.
>I don't belief so you must be schizo
KYS
I'm not going to /x/ because that's LARP central
>>
>>4989763
Nigga still it's better to get tested, to be on the safe side
>>
>>4989803
I'm sane, I already told you, my experience is legit

>No, I'm triggered, you must be insane because i tip hats
>>
>>4986670
>>4986468
Cringe and redditpilled
>>
>>4986653
pain is never eternal, but after the pain pleasure will always be the greatest.
>>
>>4986468
I think it's the exact opposite

>>4986473
good post
>>4986486
bad post
>>
>>4986653
i'd prefer eternal suffering rathzr than the end of my existence
>>
>>4989895
bro, I have schizophrenia and I've had similar experiences to what you descrive, tell me that at least you were meditating and don't have that shit happening to you all of a sudden
>>
File: 1530575737365.jpg (101 KB, 736x547)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>4986584
no man alive knows what happens after death, and the evidence sugges that you will cease to be, like before you were born and your consience created by cells and atoms and shit.
this thread is so cringy
>>
>>4986468
Yes. I accept that life is just life, it's not some amazing thing filled with answers and cosmological significance. Universalist religions are very narcissistic, believing that just because you have thinking you must have been ordained by the universe to play a part in the battle between good and evil. Life is just the sum of the parts, and while fun at many times it is a dangerous and painful process and I look forward to its end.
>>
>>4986704
The christian notion of hell is ridiculous, poorly written, largely rejected by theologians, and can be basically thrown out if you take into account a few basic principles of existence (pain quickly loses its effect). However, I have some small worries about the Eastern notion of life going on forever until I get born as a monk who ends up reaching Nirvana, life is suffering.
>>
>>4986468
You came from nothing once, the chances you'll come from nothing again skyrocketed
>>
>>4990162
oh fuck
>>
>>4990141
>it's not some amazing thing filled with answers and cosmological significance
It's literally the only thing filled with those
>>
>>4990152
see the trick is that you don't realize it's suffering until the end and you just enjoy the ride
>>
>>4986808
Dude, shut the fuck up
>>
>>4990179
Then why did they have to tell us reeeeeeeeeeeee
>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
Enjoy your immortality
>>
>>4986468
What type of mental gymnastics did you do to come to that conclusion? Im sure you brag about "overcoming your fear of death" to your friends too right?
>>
>>4986994
No one, not even Buddhists. To them If you dont believe them then ok thats fine.

Maybe you should at least consider the people not trying to force they're religoon on you.

Rly maeks you think huh.
>>
>>4986468
It won't matter. You will be reborn and forget everything. It's almost the same thing. You will forget this life and start a new one over and over and over again. It's the perfect system because you will get to stay conscious without the fear of knowing that "you" will be alive forever.

The details of it I do not know.
>>
>>4991328
As long as there's in intermediate waiting room where we can meet our dogs, cats, hamsters, family and friends and laugh about our latest adventures before setting off for the next one, sounds comfy.
>>
>>4986468

To all of you who end up in hell.

It didn't have to be this way.
>>
>>4991362
I dont negotiate with terrorists (xhrist) so there really was no other way.
>>
>>4991371
To you who end up in hell.

This was your choice.
>>
>>4991373
Not sure Jesus would be too keen on you chucking stones around like this, let alone speaking on behalf of God's will. He also never converted others by threatening them.
>>
>>4991373
>choice
Free will does not exist
>>
>>4990034
>bro, I have schizophrenia
Yes I was meditating, it was a legitimate mystical experience.
>>
>>4991389

Jesus doesn't like yotsuba boards. He's a IRC boy.
>>




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.