This story got me thinking about life after death

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"It just is". That's the possibility that seems most likely to me whenever the question of the universe is asked. Are people with this philosopy less moral than those who put their faith in God? I don't think believers are more moral, they simply attribute that morality to a higher source. It occurs to me that people who truly believe that death is indeed the end have more cause to make the most out of life. The ones who are the least moral are the ones who don't care about it at all. Other people aren't real to them, so why should they?

Reminds me of a discussion I had with a Canadian man. In a nutshell: who is truly the "moral" person - the man who does good because he fears God's wrath, or the man who does good because he desires God's love, or the atheist who does good simply because it is good?

(he was saying that without fear of God one has no reason to behave morally... which I found rather disturbing)

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

My biggest regret is that I didn't discover these concepts forty years ago. I might have achieved much more if I had actually considered these things. Or not; it's impossible to know and useless to worry about, but always entertaining to consider.

I would say that depends on how you measure achievement, but that's just me.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

(he was saying that without fear of God one has no reason to behave morally... which I found rather disturbing)

Yikes. As far as morals go, I live by the Golden Rule.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Yikes. As far as morals go, I live by the Golden Rule.

You could do worse.
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Yikes. As far as morals go, I live by the Golden Rule.

One interesting thing about the Golden Rule is that, in saying "do unto others what you would have done unto you," it raises the question of what, exactly, you would have done unto you.

And there's the rub. For it always seems to be the people who, deep down, do not believe they themselves are worthy of compassion or love who cannot offer it to others. We tend to believe of others exactly what we believe of ourselves. The miser thinks everyone else is a greedy SOB who wants to take his precious money. The liar and the cheat trusts no one and suspects everyone. The "true believer" who thinks himself deserving of damnation in the next life for breaking some commandment will usually have no qualms about subjecting someone else to misery in this life for doing the same. And so it goes.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

One interesting thing about the Golden Rule is that, in saying "do unto others what you would have done unto you," it raises the question of what, exactly, you would have done unto you.

And there's the rub. For it always seems to be the people who, deep down, do not believe they themselves are worthy of compassion or love who cannot offer it to others. We tend to believe of others exactly what we believe of ourselves. The miser thinks everyone else is a greedy SOB who wants to take his precious money. The liar and the cheat trusts no one and suspects everyone. The "true believer" who thinks himself deserving of damnation in the next life for breaking some commandment will usually have no qualms about subjecting someone else to misery in this life for doing the same. And so it goes.

I must be in it for the right reasons, then.

I think the more we stop and think about death the more life we're missing out on. And what a shame it would be if all you can do in death is beg for more life - a life you will never get the chance of ever having again! So why waste your one and only opportunity while you've currently got it wondering about what happens when you die? It's going to happen when it happens! There's no stopping it! Your only real choice in life is to get busy living or get busy dying!

This country song says it best.... I hope you dance!

Check out Ian McCormack, I heard him speak about this here in the UK. You can find plenty on him on you tube.

[krashkart]

My mind has been set into motion on the Golden Rule and what it means to me. What it did for me was to help ease my transition into good social practices and, among other things, helped shape me into a very kind and (mostly) honest person. It has been one of my main guiding principles in life.

Of course, when I really start to think about it my concept of "Do unto others..." has been mixed together with everything else that keeps me stable. It's difficult to distinguish. But, it helped grow up a proper guy nonetheless.

Now if I can just get through this self-destructive phase in time to really grab life and enjoy it... *scream* It's a scary thought. Life can be enjoyed?? I never knew that.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Reminds me of a discussion I had with a Canadian man. In a nutshell: who is truly the "moral" person - the man who does good because he fears God's wrath, or the man who does good because he desires God's love, or the atheist who does good simply because it is good?

(he was saying that without fear of God one has no reason to behave morally... which I found rather disturbing)

Other than the reason that behaving morally makes you feel good. One of lifes greatest pleasures for me is to bring pleasure to others. Taking your kids somewhere wonderous, let's say The Grand Canyon or the top of the Eifel Tower, for the first time, is a perfect example of "doing good" for no other reason than it makes you feel good to see them feeling good.

The same goes for work and I find most things in life. I do a good job because I feel proud of the achivement when I do good work and really love the feeling I get when someone compliments me on it.

The Golden Rule is really are about making you feel good as much as making the world a better place, because the better you feel the better your world becomes.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by TarJak

The Golden Rule is really are about making you feel good as much as making the world a better place, because the better you feel the better your world becomes.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Reminds me of a discussion I had with a Canadian man. In a nutshell: who is truly the "moral" person - the man who does good because he fears God's wrath, or the man who does good because he desires God's love, or the atheist who does good simply because it is good?

In the Eastern traditions, fear of punishment and/or desire for reward would be considered "lower" forms of motivation, based in attachment to one's own individual ego. It's the "I" of the ego that desires the reward and fears the punishment, and the status accorded oneself either here or in some presumed afterlife or next life that is primarily at stake.

It's only when the next stage of awareness is achieved - the opening of the heart, and the "second birth" into a truly compassionate existence - that those motivations become secondary or nonexistent. To do what is right and just and kind without thought of reward or punishment - that is where selflessness begins.

I'm not saying those so-called "lower" motivations are necessarily bad - for instance, if a particular person is unable or unwilling to refrain from stealing, raping and killing without them, then I'm thankful they exist at all. The question is, what happens when "the rules" that must be followed in order to insure the reward or avoid the punishment actually come into conflict with what should be one's compassion for the wellbeing of others? When the rules say you'll go to heaven if you burn the heretic at the stake, stone the "fallen woman" to death, force the unbeliever to repent or else - if there is no higher motivation to act out of compassion for another instead, no sense of "there but for the grace of God go I," no identification of oneself with the supposed "other" and no empathy whatsoever for the suffering that will be caused by acting only out of attachment to one's own status in this life or the next?

Well, I think we all know what happens. The history books are full of it.

The interesting thing here is that the "selflessness" of the compassionate motivation is, in a way, no less selfish. You do right by another person because doing them wrong means you have also wronged yourself. You don't cause them to suffer, because their suffering is yours as well. You understand that to do harm to another is NOT beneficial to oneself. The difference is that the "self" at stake is no longer the "I" of the personal ego, but the bigger Self that includes the other and can identify with it.