"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?

[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?

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.

[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.