"life" and "afterlife"?

[Jean-Baptiste]

I have some somewhat silly questions for the echatologists in the forum.

Do you think it’s strange that “this world and the next” are in chronological order in the human perspective?
Is it simply a matter of parallax?
Is there any reason behind the terminology of “life” and “afterlife”?
This does presuppose an assumption of afterlife, but does the term “afterlife” necessarily indicate a position in time relative to a living person?
Why not prelife and then life? I guess that that could be found in some form of metempsychosis.
Are there any religious texts that you can suggest that deal with such a topic? I'd be very interested in finding something along these lines, from whatever religious background.

Any suggestions or answers would be welcome. :)

[Virgil]

I have some somewhat silly questions for the echatologists in the forum.

Any suggestions or answers would be welcome. :)
You must mean eschatologists. For the benefit of others, from M-W:

eschatology
Main Entry: es·cha·tol·o·gy
Pronunciation: "es-k&-'tä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek eschatos last, farthest
1 : a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind
2 : a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humankind; specifically : any of various Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, or the Last Judgment


Do you think it’s strange that “this world and the next” are in chronological order in the human perspective?
Is it simply a matter of parallax?
Is there any reason behind the terminology of “life” and “afterlife”?
This does presuppose an assumption of afterlife, but does the term “afterlife” necessarily indicate a position in time relative to a living person?
Interesting questions. Don't you think it's because if there is a pre-life, we are unconscious of it, and so life followed by afterlife comes naturally and logically.


Why not prelife and then life? I guess that that could be found in some form of metempsychosis.
Are there any religious texts that you can suggest that deal with such a topic? I'd be very interested in finding something along these lines, from whatever religious background.
It has definietly been thought of before. I know William Wordsworth takes up this very idea in his "Ode: Intimations on Immortality". (I think that's the title; I'm going by memory.) I'm sure Wordsworth didn't think of it himself, so he must have gotten it somewhere. I am not a student of various religions, but I would think that Hindu must have a concept such as this. I don't think Christianity or Judiism.

[byquist]

Mary Baker Eddy touches on the idea of preexistence, or eternal existence. "Being possesses its qualities before they are perceived humanly." Also in describing existence, she uses the phrase: "never born and never dying." Also says of life that there is neither a lapse from nor a return to harmony, ie. that existence is in permanent harmony.

She had no difficulty in thinking in terms of pre-human birth. Existence, separate from divinity, she states to be an impossibility. She experienced human life within three marriages and one child, but she tended to totally defer to Spirit as the universal creator of everything in the universe, and unrelated to time: "God is the sum total of the universe." ... "Eternity, not time, expresses the thought of Life, and time is no part of eternity."

She comes under much debate, since she did not shy away from revolutionary thinking and making some sweeping statements. I think she also says something like, "We own no past, only now." St. Paul emphasized the now: "Behold, now are we the sons of God ... "

Irrespective of her opponents, all she wrote sprang from her reflections as to Jesus' way of thinking, reasoning and feeling. For instance, she says "Jesus beheld ... the perfect man ... and this correct view of man healed the sick." To think likewise (man as perfect) one would have to grasp life as not contingent on time, ie. not fixed in a birth/death lifespan process.

[Dontknow]

I have some somewhat silly questions for the echatologists in the forum.

Is there any reason behind the terminology of “life” and “afterlife”?
This does presuppose an assumption of afterlife, but does the term “afterlife” necessarily indicate a position in time relative to a living person?
Why not prelife and then life?
Any suggestions or answers would be welcome. :)


I remember a sentence from Tolstoy's diary: "I don’t believe in after-death life because eternity can't be one-sided".

I don't believe either in one-sided eternity, so I am more willing to believe in pre-life as well.
But I think that those terminologies – “after” or “pre” life are just our forth-dimensional system’s logic (yeah, I suppose we’re living not in 3-dimensional but in 4-dimensional system where the forth dimension is TIME).
But definitely there is another system beyond our worldly life, a system without TIME, and though it’s hard to imagine such a system, but when you do that somehow, everything comes together.
By the way, some evidences of that other (no Time-related) facts we encounter in some forms, e.g. the feeling of ‘déjà vu”, or some repeating dreams about some places or situations which do not exist in reality as far as we know, but we continue to be there again and again.

[mono]

I cannot give a fully-confident, precise answer to all of your questions, but will take the challenge . . .

Do you think it’s strange that “this world and the next” are in chronological order in the human perspective?
Is it simply a matter of parallax?
Is there any reason behind the terminology of “life” and “afterlife”?
This does presuppose an assumption of afterlife, but does the term “afterlife” necessarily indicate a position in time relative to a living person?
Why not prelife and then life? I guess that that could be found in some form of metempsychosis.
As DontKnow quoted the line from Leo Tolstoy, I could not possibly agree more, and thought something similar when reading your questions, Jean-Baptiste. Life, as we know it, exists as the gathering of all consciousness, knowledge, wisdom, and emotion; with this consciousness, we cannot imagine what proceeds from it (or preceded it, for those believing in reincarnation or Pythagoras' transmigration of souls). Though debatable where a life began, according to one's individual consciousness, it began at birth, but it seems much like saying I will circumvent the earth - where I would start would either depend relatively on my origin or a decided starting point, for in circumventing the earth, there seems no set starting point (like a start line on a race track), but only as long as one begins and ends at the same point.
Indeed, however, I have noticed, too, that individuals of diverse backgrounds refer to 'afterlife,' but a very selective few individuals of less common backgrounds additionally refer to a before-life, often in alluding to reincarnation.

Are there any religious texts that you can suggest that deal with such a topic? I'd be very interested in finding something along these lines, from whatever religious background.
Ugh, I have no idea, but I may recommend, perhaps, some of the metaphysical poetry of Pythagoras - just an idea.
Good luck! ;)

[Nightshade]

I have a question
maybe you couuld answer this virgil

You must mean eschatologists. For the benefit of others, from M-W:

Quote:
eschatology
Main Entry: es·cha·tol·o·gy
Pronunciation: "es-k&-'tä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek eschatos last, farthest
1 : a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind
2 : a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humankind; specifically : any of various Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, or the Last Judgment


IM not sure I understand that defintion can you explain more please?
:D

[subterranean]

Are there any religious texts that you can suggest that deal with such a topic? I'd be very interested in finding something along these lines, from whatever religious background.

Any suggestions or answers would be welcome. :)


I think the concept of pre-existance (pre-mortal existance) is one of the fundamental teachings in Mormonism. But since I have a limited knowledge in Mormonism, hence I'm not sure whether it's what you were referring to ;)

[Virgil]

I have a question
maybe you couuld answer this virgil


IM not sure I understand that defintion can you explain more please?
:D

Sure Night, and if someone feels I'm wrong please feel free to correct me. Eschotology is a sort of philosophizing (usually within the context of religion) of the end, either the end of the world (usually an apocolyptic end that God has planned) or the end of our lives, meaning death, and of course what comes after it. Does Islam have any conception of the end of the world?

[Nightshade]

sure it one of the main beliefs,The day of Judgment or end of the World it has 99 differant names.
Actually I thougt most religons had that concept of an afterlife.

[Jean-Baptiste]

I am impressed with these replies. I knew I could count on you folks. Yes, Virgil, thank you for the correction and further instruction; sorry about the misspelling. Let's see, there are some fine suggestions here, and all seem very relevant to my query. I don't have time now to provide a proper reply, but it looks like I've got some research to do first anyway. Thanks so much.

[bhekti]

I prefer the idea of prelife-life to life-afterlife. But, i'm not going to call it prelife. I'd rather say, "we are going to, not an end, but a beginning." Why? Because I think right now we are all, not living, but dying (aren't we going to death?). We commonly say that now we are living, but arent we living in a procession to death? which is then the same as dying? (We say that we are now living because , perhaps, dying has become so common for us).

I may be asked "a beginning of what?" Well, of course, I don't know. But I really know that nothingness is not later, nothingness is now.

[mono]

I prefer the idea of prelife-life to life-afterlife. But, i'm not going to call it prelife. I'd rather say, "we are going to, not an end, but a beginning." Why? Because I think right now we are all, not living, but dying (aren't we going to death?). We commonly say that now we are living, but arent we living in a procession to death? which is then the same as dying? (We say that we are now living because , perhaps, dying has become so common for us).

I may be asked "a beginning of what?" Well, of course, I don't know. But I really know that nothingness is not later, nothingness is now.
Precisely - 'the beginning of what!'
As humans, we seem far too reliant on linear, logical thinking to understand or theorize the concept of pre-life or after-life. We may only comprehend the present-time consciousness, and the actual beginning start only with birth; what comes before or after, I think, reflects more an individual's faith-based beliefs, considering we may have no empirical evidence of pre-life or after-life. Whether one may comprehend mere segments in proceeding from life to life, time to time, consciousness to consciousness, I cannot tell for sure, questioning even the theory of pre-life and after-life, but it really bends my thoughts. :lol:

[Nightshade]

Well why not both pre-life and after life? Why cant the dirt to dirt ( as in if you belive in creation we were created from dirt/dust and when we decay we return to dirt/dust) thing work for the metaphysical part of the human being? Why does life have to be the beginning or the end? Why cant it be just the middle state between 2 other states of being and you are just unable to remember the other.

[Whifflingpin]

"Well why not both pre-life and after life?"

Why not indeed? This would slot "spirit" into the same rules as matter and energy. We accept the ideas of conservation of matter and conservation of energy, i.e. that neither is created or lost, but merely transformed.

A body that has been killed instantly, say by a blow to the head, has not changed greatly, if at all, in matter, but it has clearly lost something very significant - call it spirit for convenience. The idea of conservation of spirit would tally with our other experience - so it is not unreasonable to believe that the spirit existed in some form before becoming associated with the body, and continues to exist, in some form, after the death of the body.

.

[bhekti]

.... what comes before or after, I think, reflects more an individual's faith-based beliefs, considering we may have no empirical evidence of pre-life or after-life. ..

Yes that is the fact: we have no empirical evidence of pre-life or after-life.

But, mono, do you think empiricism applies here, I mean, in this area of thought?

Because, on the basis of empiricism we can neither prove or disprove the existence of pre-life or after-life, which means, there's no discussion. Of course evidence is important. But, I think, in the present discourse the nature (and perhaps also the function) of evidence is different from the one required by empiricism. We humans have minds greater than is required for empiricism, I believe.

The fact is, eventhough none of us have any empirical evidence concerning pre-life or after-life, we think about it. We are capable of thinking or imagining things beyond evidence. Why?

Because, I think, we can sense its presence, a pre-life or after-life, a something like life but not the one we are living in now. Death, for example, is obvious. We don't know what it is, you and I have no empirical evidence of its coming, yet we know that it is true, Death is true, we must someday die.

Now, I think, this pre-life or after-life has the same character as Death, except that one is the anti-thesis of the other one.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Well, this does seem to have taken on a somewhat Kantian formula for looking at the world beyond experience. Would it be out of line to assume that Kant would think it alright to make a judgement based not on empirical evidence? I have not made a thorough study of the "Critique of Pure Reason," but that is my limited understanding so far.

Dontknow, that is a very good quote by Tolstoy. Do you know if his writings contain any similar implications?

byquist, I have not been acquainted with Mary Baker Eddy, but the things that you mention place her ideology nicely in line with my own. Thank you for the introduction.

bhekti, one of my favorite bits for T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" is
"He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience"
This seems to relate to your first post.

I would like to add a seemingly more relevant question, which will perhaps take this discussion out of the realm of religion, not that that's my intention: Can we depend on the human perspective of time and assume it to be a universal phenomenon when related to any idea of the spiritual world? There is definitely a difference between time as perceived and actually tracked. Could this imply that there may be a more proper way to think about time and sequential phenomena than comes naturally to our perceptions?

please continue the discussion; it is looking very interesting. Thank you all.

[Virgil]

bhekti, one of my favorite bits for T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" is
"He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience"
This seems to relate to your first post.

I would like to add a seemingly more relevant question, which will perhaps take this discussion out of the realm of religion, not that that's my intention: Can we depend on the human perspective of time and assume it to be a universal phenomenon when related to any idea of the spiritual world? There is definitely a difference between time as perceived and actually tracked. Could this imply that there may be a more proper way to think about time and sequential phenomena than comes naturally to our perceptions?

please continue the discussion; it is looking very interesting. Thank you all.

Funny you should mention T.S. Eliot. I've been studying his Four Quartets and I think he takes up this question of time that you ask. But he links it with religion. Have you read it?

[mono]

Yes that is the fact: we have no empirical evidence of pre-life or after-life.

But, mono, do you think empiricism applies here, I mean, in this area of thought?
No, not necessarily. I entirely agree with you that the basis of pre-life and/or after-life have no place in empiricism, nor does empiricism belong in the subject, for the subject seems vastly faith-based. For many individuals, faith seems enough 'proof' to believe in pre-life and/or after-life, which I would never discriminate; and, though I do not consider myself an empiricist, I think I would require slightly more proof to feel more confident in the subject. Que sera, sera most would say at my proposition, yet, just as George Berkeley wrote (in a very, very summarized form), perception cannot exist without both the perceiver and the perceived; this, I feel, includes any belief and attempted empiricism regarding the understanding of pre-life and after-life.
Just as you very wisely said:

Because, on the basis of empiricism we can neither prove or disprove the existence of pre-life or after-life, which means, there's no discussion.
I agree. :D

[bhekti]

bhekti, one of my favorite bits for T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" is
"He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience"
This seems to relate to your first post.

Ah, that's it! Now I'm going to read "Wasteland". Thank you for the information Jean.



...Can we depend on the human perspective of time and assume it to be a universal phenomenon when related to any idea of the spiritual world? There is definitely a difference between time as perceived and actually tracked. Could this imply that there may be a more proper way to think about time and sequential phenomena than comes naturally to our perceptions?

In Greek (if I'm not mistaken) time can be recognized as "kronos" and "kairos". Time as "kronos" is that which is measured by seconds, minutes, hours, days, and so on. Time as "kairos" is what we call the moment; it is not conceived in numerical measurement, but in something which is more spiritual in nature. Now, all of us, I believe, have "kairos" in the span of our "kronos". The content of "kairos" may differ according to individuality of every person, but the nature of that content, I believe, is universal (means: everybody can know and understand... there is an english word for this, but agh I forgot!)

So I think human perspective on time (as kairos) is a universal phenomenon, and it can be taken as the ground to relate whatever happens in the 'kronos' to the spiritual world.

[Jean-Baptiste]

from "Burnt Norton"
in "Four Quartets
by T.S. Eliot
"Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind."

Yes, Virgil, I love this book. Thank you for bringing it up. It does seem to treat this subject very directly.

[byquist]

J-B,

Regarding your follow-up inquiry, while surfing the boob-tube today I stopped at a John McLaughlin interview with husband-wife, clearly perfect soul-mates, Joel Primack and Nancy Abrahms who co-wrote "The View from the Center of the Universe." They were somewhat interesting songbirds talking with ultra seriousness as to the nature of the universe - beginning to end. According to Nancy, "we're made of star dust." We were cooked inside a star before it exploded. And McL asking Joel, "Do you believe this?" Joel replies, "Absolutely." Also Joel is asked, Are there "no invisible human beings out there?" Joel replies with certitude, "No."

I'm somewhat (but only somewhat) amazed at the stark ultra-confidence of these types of authors as to their easy possession of assumed infinite wisdom. Personally, I like to see more humility, which neither of these showed much of in the interview, although they were very amiable and humanitarian. Anyways, they and their natural science venue, including the Swiss/French border supercollider that's presumably going to indicate for us the final answers to everything, is worth looking up through googling.

Personally, I tend to trust folks that also have a tad of frivolity and, for instance, might not take the Big Bang theory as absolutely astute and undeniable fact. Some, perhaps many, advanced physicists, so I've gathered, see things in ways that they are finding words insufficient to explain. Don't know to what extent the above-mentioned book pushes the envelope and goes into new territory, or if it just retreads the same old hash. But it certainly is contemporary, 2006, and presumes to be on to something regarding the subj. you bring up, -- time, creation, meaning, etc.

[Jean-Baptiste]

That's very interesting, byquist. Yes, I agree that overmuch self-assuredness is quite disconcerting.

I was watching a program the other night: a presentation by a Jesuit physicist on the connection between science and religion. His views were quite startling, coming from a Priest. His name was George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. He was advocating the Big Bang theory, and outlining the evolutionary progress of the Universe. Nothing in his presentation seemed contradictory with the Creation theory, a thing which I've heard of happening, but had never had the connection explained in such depth. Though I'm not Catholic, I was heartily in agreement with his views.

"Some, perhaps many, advanced physicists, so I've gathered, see things in ways that they are finding words insufficient to explain."
Yes, there is apparently much left to explain about what's going on here in the Universe. And yes, it is nice when a serious authority is direct about our limited knowledge.

[Virgil]

That's very interesting, byquist. Yes, I agree that overmuch self-assuredness is quite disconcerting.

I was watching a program the other night: a presentation by a Jesuit physicist on the connection between science and religion. His views were quite startling, coming from a Priest. His name was George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. He was advocating the Big Bang theory, and outlining the evolutionary progress of the Universe. Nothing in his presentation seemed contradictory with the Creation theory, a thing which I've heard of happening, but had never had the connection explained in such depth. Though I'm not Catholic, I was heartily in agreement with his views.

"Some, perhaps many, advanced physicists, so I've gathered, see things in ways that they are finding words insufficient to explain."
Yes, there is apparently much left to explain about what's going on here in the Universe. And yes, it is nice when a serious authority is direct about our limited knowledge.

Why is that surprising? The Roman Catholic Church has supported modern physics and evolution for years. The difference as i see it between the Church and say atheist sacientists is that the Church believes that God is the hand of science and atheists believe that science just is.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Oh yes, quite right, Virgil. Sorry that I was no more forthcoming in coverage of the man's statements. I'll try to clarify my reason for surprise. Many of my friends are Catholic, and I've never heard from them any such notion of evolution as an evil heresy. The thing that struck me about this man's view was that he asked the question, whether God knew that the Human brain was the inevitable outcome of the chance/opportunity/necessity of the universal evolution at the 2 billion year point after the Big Bang (on a 13 billion year scale) and the answer that he gave was No. This seems to be a definite divergence from the God-knows-all-and-has-always-known position that seems rampant in modern Christendom. Of course, I could be wrong, and this could be a definite point of doctrine with the Church; if so, please straighten me out.

"The difference as i see it...the Church believes that God is the hand of science and atheists believe that science just is."

I very much like your statement of comparison. I'm going to quote you on that. As always, Virgil, thanks for your contribution.

[Virgil]

"The difference as i see it...the Church believes that God is the hand of science and atheists believe that science just is."

I very much like your statement of comparison. I'm going to quote you on that. As always, Virgil, thanks for your contribution.

Your welcome. And feel free to use it.

[subterranean]

I have some somewhat silly questions for the echatologists in the forum.

Do you think it’s strange that “this world and the next” are in chronological order in the human perspective?
Is it simply a matter of parallax?
Is there any reason behind the terminology of “life” and “afterlife”?
This does presuppose an assumption of afterlife, but does the term “afterlife” necessarily indicate a position in time relative to a living person?
Why not prelife and then life? I guess that that could be found in some form of metempsychosis.
Are there any religious texts that you can suggest that deal with such a topic? I'd be very interested in finding something along these lines, from whatever religious background.

Any suggestions or answers would be welcome. :)

Hi J.B., suppose you want to check this page

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Life_after_death/id/9725

There's a writing by Sri Swami_Sivananda in title of Life after death: What Becomes Of The Soul After Death. I have only briefly checked out some of the chapters, and I think his writing covers some fundamental aspects related to life/death/after life.

[Shield&Sword]

Hello all.
Long time i didnt post any thing and didnt disturb you with my bad spelling, i was in my country spending summer with family, now study is back, i wish good school/univ. for all.

I will talk as always from islamic point of view.
In arabic this life we are living now is called Alhaya Addonia, this word mean the lower life (in value). The life after death is called Alhaya Ala'khera this mean "the last life". I think calling this life we are living now "Pre-life" or calling it "life" depend on pearson. When i read in Holy Quran about the other life and what God sw prepaired for people who believe in him and do as He want, i dont consider this life here a life, it seems to me so cheap, and the real life will be after death, where eternity will begin, and every one will meet his deeds. Its all matter of believing in God sw, believing in life after death mean believing in soul, because most of the material body will vanish and remain the soul, so death is a "between life" between this life and other life. If you want the truth i dont explain this matter in philosofic terms, i prefair to look at things throght a window without glass, directly to the point, there is no need to say what Smeth and Mat and Hillary and so on names said. I am in the 1st life now, and i am sure i will be in the 2nd life and will be 2 m underground and then in the 3rd and last life. No matter how i explain things, it wont change facts, 2 more to pass.

[Jean-Baptiste]

That's very interesting, Shield&Sword. Can you tell us anything about the origin of the soul, according to the Holy Quran? Is there perhaps a glimmer of a prior existence in the Islamic faith? I don't think that there is much of such a thing in the JudeoChristian view, but I could be mistaken. I too look forward to another form of existence, but I like to take a more Existential point of view, and attach importance to my present form of life. I cannot go along with the Gnostic sentiment that physical being is evil or lowly. I think it's necessary, and its goodness is dependent on the individual. Not to draw a connection between Islam and Gnosticism, of course.

Thank you, Subterranean, for the link. It looks very interesting. And, by the way, I love your new Avatar. I have Radiohead's similar blinking smiling thing as a tiled wallpaper on my computer. It's very mesmerizing.

[subterranean]

Thank you, Subterranean, for the link. It looks very interesting. And, by the way, I love your new Avatar. I have Radiohead's similar blinking smiling thing as a tiled wallpaper on my computer. It's very mesmerizing.


No problem, J.B. And likewise, thank you for the compliment on my avy. Not many people appriciate this cute blinking bear :D

I forgot to post this before, but some nights ago I read something in Psalm, which I think related to prelife condition of man:



Psalm 139:
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

[Shield&Sword]

In islam soul is something that was created by God, and its connected in the body in every part of it, when the person die this soul begin to disconnect from the body begining as i remember from the lower part of the body untle it reach the throat, that why we hear the person who is deing try to breath inside, because he is trying to get his soul back when it reach the throat, especially people who didnt behaive as God wanted or didnt believe in him. At this point its finished, death period began and the person will meet what made in his life before death, did he admit God created all? did he do as God wanted or he prefaired to live as he want saying there is no god and bad?. Some islamic scholars described the connection of soul with body like water that enter in a stick in a nice way.
I forget to say that Angel of death is the one wh get the soul go, he sit near the head of the one who is deing and call the soul of the good person "good soul" and there are angels that come with him and they begin to take it of from the different part of the body, thats why people who are deing look at one point and alot of them dont care about people who sit near them because they can see angels. I remember my grandfather when he died he began to sweat alot and didnt scream he knew it was the moment and said to my grandmother hold my hand, and its all over in few mintues without pain, he was pure and strong believer, even in the moment he was deing from the last words he said: "i thank Allah i didnt make adultery in my whole life" ,because the person begin to remember what good and bad he did in life. If the person is good his soul will be taken like a hair from dough, if the person is bad his soul will be taken like taking thistle from cotton thats why some people who are deing begin to shout. When the soul leave the body the eyes of the person are opened and concentrated in one point above, they are concentrated on the soul and follow it, prophet Muhammed pbuh ordered us to close the eyes of the died person.
Exactly what is soul no one know only God know, what it's nature and so on questions. Not knowing the soul i think its another test for people, who believe and who doesnt.
Death give more meaning to life, thats why prophet Muhammed pbuh encoureged us to visit cemetery so we will always remember our last home and believe in God and do good deeds as we can. all are sure that they will taste it, no one will excape it, what did people prepaire for it?

[Virgil]

In islam soul is something that was created by God, and its connected in the body in every part of it, when the person die this soul begin to disconnect from the body begining as i remember from the lower part of the body untle it reach the throat, that why we hear the person who is deing try to breath inside, because he is trying to get his soul back when it reach the throat, especially people who didnt behaive as God wanted or didnt believe in him. At the point its finished death period began and the person will meet what made in his life before death, did he admit God created all? did he do as God wanted or he prefaired to live as he want saying there is no god and bad?. Some islamic scholars described the connection of soul with body like water that enter in a stick in a nice way.
Exactly what is soul no one know only God know, what it's nature and so oon questions. Not knowing the soul i think its another test for people, who believe and who doesnt.
Death give more meaning to life, thats why prophet Muhammed pbuh encoureged us to visit cemetery so we will always remember our last home and believe in God and do good deeds as we can. all are sure that they will taste it, no one will excape it, what did people prepaire for it?

Very interesting Sword&Shield.

[mansoor3]

I firmly believe in after-life.Without this concept this life is meaningless.

[miss tenderness]

with you Mansoor:thumbs_up

[subterranean]

I firmly believe in after-life.Without this concept this life is meaningless.


And why is that? You're not saying that the Atheists have meaningless life just because they don't believe in the afterlife, are you?

[ShoutGrace]

“Whether you live several hours, or several years, matters not, once you have lost eternity.” - Jean Paul Sartre


This thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18162) has a few interesting ideas relating to this topic.

[Shield&Sword]

Interesting what life mean to ahteist, because once a person said to me you die and thats it, when i look which material life we got before we die i see it only drinking and sleeping and working and perhaps with evolution thought to fight so we survive. Interesting really the meaning of life for atheist. Because they believe all came by chance and so we did, so how something came by chance can have a meaning, because the action that happen "BY CHANCE" is already without meaning. Things that happen for a purpose got meaning, and the meaning of that thing is the same puropse for which the action accured.
My point is that no matter what meaning you got for this life it will be material and limited (for atheist), perhaps you live to get something and you consider it meaning, so when you get this thing will life have meaning? The question that it's answer will be "the meaning" is only "WHY?", why i eat? so i can live that is the meaning of eating, why i work? so i can by food and live thats the meaning of working, as you notice all these meanings you didnt create but you found them since you were born and you are going according them by force, Why i exist? answer this and you will get the answer, by the way the right answer will be a meaning that you didnt create but the meaning that you were for, in other words not by your choice. Perhaps i am wrong, but thats how i look at things.

[subterranean]

Interesting what life mean to ahteist, because once a person said to me you die and thats it, when i look which material life we got before we die i see it only drinking and sleeping and working and perhaps with evolution thought to fight so we survive. Interesting really the meaning of life for atheist. Because they believe all came by chance and so we did, so how something came by chance can have a meaning, because the action that happen "BY CHANCE" is already without meaning. Things that happen for a purpose got meaning, and the meaning of that thing is the same puropse for which the action accured. Perhaps i am wrong.


From the Atheist himself and I consider him as one of my good friends in this forum (Hope you're doing okey, AP :wave:)


The question of life's purpose, has always been a favourite question for the religious. This is because there is no real answer to the question, and therefore the questioner can play upon the desires of his or her audience for meaning.

We are creatures that require meaning, purpose, justification. We thrive on the idea of life beyond life, because it gives a purpose to our deeds and our beliefs. But we have absolutely no reason to believe in a universal purpose to life. There are plenty of should's and ought's about it, and we can help our fellow creatures, both human and non-human, and this may make us feel a whole lot better about life, but purpose? I'm afraid there is no PURPOSE in big important letters. It is good to help others. It is good to live healthily, both physically and mentally. It may even be good to leave something that represents us behind when we expire. Life is for living. And maybe we should just live life as best we can. What is best will always be an individual, personal decision.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=67444&postcount=21

[Shield&Sword]

I added something to my previuos post.
So as i thought, no meaning you got for this life, "FOR YOUR EXISTENCE" do you got meaning or not that is the meaning of this life, then why you asked the user above you if he is saying that atheists got no meaning to life. Here you admit you dont have. If helping others make you feel good, then those who cant help will be useless in this world and thier life for sure got no meaning. For you helping others is good, for others killing others is good and raping, they think its the meaning of this life are they right or wrong? and why?

[subterranean]

I'm not here to agree or disagree with your post. I just posted AP's comment to give input from both point of views (theist and atheist).

[Shield&Sword]

I thought you are an atheist and was so interesting for me to understand things, because always i see users write sayings of philosofers as they are absolutely right, or to talk in philosofic way or sweet talk, and this i dont like, i like directely to the point without using other's words.

[Madhuri]

Shield, your views about life and after life are interesting. I did not know that there is something called 'pre-life' and there are more than one after lives. I have not come across this view point that some people consider this life as a preparation for after life.

[blazeofglory]

After life is something we have yet to know. Both scientific theories and spiritual ones are not convincing in point of fact.

[xlxlauraxlx]

Without afterlife there would never be justice for the injustices of life. The only way i can bare the pain of being unable to help all those who suffer, is knowing that when finally peace is upon them, there will be justice.

[Whifflingpin]

"Without afterlife there would never be justice for the injustices of life. The only way i can bare the pain of being unable to help all those who suffer, is knowing that when finally peace is upon them, there will be justice."

If everyone who professed a belief in the afterlife remedied such injustices as they could, there would be no injustice.

[blazeofglory]

An afterlife is something that is in very interesting, and that takes roots in humans' domains,that is in a different world