Why did you bring up Revelation?
That’s a different culture than Paul; related and consequent from his making things more familiar, but it isn’t really Paul’s philosophies.
Are you taking the Roman Orthodox, then converted to Protestant, canon Bible as a whole to approach the context of the philosophies Felix is bringing up in a compare/contrast against Paul and Epicurius?
It’s Epicurus and Christ … and the finality of death. Rev 9 talks about actually seeking death … as a relief.
But yes, Felix did quote Paul. Let’s let Felix decide if it applies. I’m sure he has more to say.
If he sees it as applicable, then I would disagree, as it would no longer be a comparison between Paul and Epicurus, and then it becomes very difficult to have a philosophical comparison as “The Bible” is beyond vague, as there have been many agents representing various positions regarding that tome, not to mention that the tome itself is still not one single object, but several differing objects; thereby making “The Bible” actually a requirement of identifying which tradition is being compared, and then we’re talking about comparing Epicurus against a given traditional dogma, and not a specific individual’s philosophy.
I meant Christ as understood through the testimony of the New Testament. Revelation is relevant since it is an authoritative text for most Christians and it makes eschatological claims. The Old Testament is included in the New by reference.
The NT portrayal of death may be anxiety provoking rather than comforting. Symbolic reference to an eternal abyss or or lake of fire are not comforting. They may intend to incite fear as much as to relieve it.
Jesus says very little about an afterlife in the gospels. What he mostly does say is in parables that seem to have ethical implications rather than literal representations. We are summoned to decision; we are confronted with an imperative. Human beings are independent persons who can win or lose themselves by their own decisions. Faith implies uncertainty. Ironically, there is more certainty with Epicurus. You can see reality the way it is or not, but you can’t change it.
Yeah, then I would say that I find the conversation incredibly difficult to tangibly compare; unless you can outline which Christian sect is being considered for comparison, as “Christian” and “New Testament” doesn’t help me very much as those two titles are incredibly vague.
I can work with Paul because he has a finite view and dogmatic interpretation expressed that can be compared.
I find it a bit hard, though, even with a sect being specified, as with Epicurus, we’re not talking about a schools understanding of Epicurus and comparing that against a sect of Christianity’s understanding of the New Testament.
We would then be, instead, taking Epicurus and comparing him against a sect’s understanding of the New Testament (whichever form of the NT that sect has; since there are different NT’s out there).
I thought the Paul to Epicurus made sense, though, as it is the initiator of the philosophy that was being compared and not a subsequent group’s views of those philosophies which were being compared; I think there’s a marked difference between those two things.
Jesus compared to Epicurus, Paul compared to Epicurus, hell, harder, but even James compared to Epicurus, and yet a bit harder, but still better than sect is something like “The Book of _____ compared to Epicurus” would even be helpful.
I don’t see the sect comparison though; that seems to be begging for strawman summaries that are easy to accidentally make since the Bible contains hundreds of potential conflicting ideas within it that can be interpreted to mean many things ideologically, and is, depending on which sect we look at, or whether we are looking for the culture or individual that produced the text.
To me you seem to be complicating the issue. This is not an academic exercise. It’s an existential question. I quoted Epicurus and Paul. We should stick to their propositions. Any other material can be considered in terms of how it lines up with their statements. In the end what matters is what their propositions mean to us.
If it’s just Epicurus and Paul, tgen Revelation doesn’t apply and my concerns over abstraction are dismissed.
We can then continue focusing on Paul and Epicurus and their philosophies; perhaps their is another subject to compaee between them?
Comparing more than one subject could increase the accuracy of the principle comparison.
This thread was inspired by the contrast between Epicurus’ and Christianity’s teachings on death. Anything pertinent to those teachings is relevant. Comparing Pauline and Epicureanism generally isn’t. I don’t think one has to take on board Epicureanism or Christianity carte blanche to appreciate the value of these propositions.
Just repeat my basic problem with Epicurus. He is not thinking in a way that tends to work with humans. That one cannot demonstrate he is saying something not in accordance with reality - Felix’s challenge to me earlier - has nothing to do with the problem. Logical arguments, like his, do not reach the full human. They miss the way humans think and feel and this kind of approach often ends up simply shaming the person who is seen as not living up to a logical mindset. We want to continue. We want, generally of course, not to not exist. Right or wrong, logical or not logical, his approach is not really directed at the human heart. We are not programmable computers, we are much more.
If epicureanism is purely philosophy without associated practices (wouldn’t know), then I completely agree with you. But then again, Christianity doesn’t necessarily involve much practice, especially in the more extreme forms of Protestantism. So the talk of immortality might just involve telling yourself that you have nothing to be afraid of, because you don’t actually die when you apparently die. So I don’t think your problem is rightfully only with Epicurus.
It’s practice, especially in a meditative context in my own opinion, that leads a person to internalize and really make use of teachings, of whatever sort. Also, I think the Epicurean view and the Christian view both have their strong and weak points.
I like the Christian emphasis on immortality, especially that bit, “When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable”. I like the wording there. But for me, this can only meaningfully refer to qualities such as love, compassion, etc. The ego is fragile and needs constant maintenance, but maintaining an attitude of wanting to benefit others - not dwelling so much on our own narrow needs - allows us to transcend petty concerns, and even to be less concerned about death. It usually takes a well-trained person to accomplish such a life, but some people are naturals, I guess. Many people who claim to not fear death though, whether for Epicurean or Christian reasons… like Moreno, I don’t believe them usually.
Moreno, I appreciate your POV, but I disagree. People want to go on being conscious, and as long as they are alive they do. There is no evidence that one’s own death is an experience. Clinical death experiences are conscious life experiences. Trying to look behind afterlife symbols like heaven or the resurrection is a futile exercise.
I will be happy to lose this argument if losing means a well substantiated afterlife is made tenable. But, meanwhile, I think Epicurus proposition, rightly understood, can represent and actual consolation to those who fear eternal death. As far as we know biological life is the sine qua non of consciousness. Consciousness is the sine qua non of experience. There is no reason to fear death itself even in the face of the logical inference that our own life will end.
Now I deny that I have shamed anyone here. The anxiety of nonbeing does not magically disappear with Epicurus’ realization. But, there is the understanding that such anxiety will always only appear in the context of consciousness and where consciousness there is always the possibility of choosing life in the present moment.
Then I have to duck out as I can’t get a bead on what exactly is being compared.
I can compare two finite things, but not one finite thing and one abstract thing; just leaving it open at “Christianity” is to beg for a throw-in pot where I can introduce all sorts of ideas that aren’t unified.
For example of why I can’t wrap my head around that comparison, a Calvinist take on death is extremely different than a Mormon take on death, yet both are Christian, and again, both of these are a rather strong departure from the Catholic take on death.
These three Christian groups don’t even use the same Bible.
When you wrote, “the Christ”, and started off with a citation from Paul and bounced that against Epicurus, I took you to be comparing Paul’s, “the Christ”, which he notably started that concept in the form presented.
That seemed well within reach for comparison.
This other variation of just comparing against Christianity as a whole is too intangible for me to grasp a reasonable comparison that isn’t all-together just too generalized.
It would be somewhat, for me, as if I tried to compare Confucius’ philosophies against Buddhist philosophies.
The comparison is intangible as there lacks a unified representation of all Buddhism due to the different variations of Buddhism containing rather different philosophies that can’t be sweepingly drafted in finite form.
I would have to pick a representative figure out of Buddhism and position that against Confucious; say, for example, Asanga’s teachings.
I suppose another way of explaining how I see this as too intangible; it would be akin to comparing Aristotle against Existentialism, rather than Aristotle against Sartre.
I cited Paul’s proposition concerning the resurrection as the basis of the comparison. You seemed to understand that until V cited Revelation. Christianity generally posits an afterlife of some sort either a resurrection or heaven or a 1000 year earthly kingdom or the New Jerusalem. Calvinists and Joseph Smith posited afterlife. Paul is an indispensable authority on the Christ as far as Christianity is concerned. We could compare Confucius with buddhism on the question of an afterlife. I don’t see what your problem with this is. I thought complexity was your bread and meat. Maybe this issue isn’t complex enough for you. No one is demanding that you consider more than Paul’s Christ in order to participate in the discussion. But neither am insisting that people stick strictly to paul’s Christ. It wouldn’t be that difficult to compare Aristotle with existentialism on a single issue say the existence of God. Others don’t seem to have a problem with flexibility on this point.
I’m not condemning the conversation, so if that is how I’m coming off I apologize.
What I’m trying to convey is that I can’t fathom how to compare; and I mean that honestly.
I do enjoy complexity, absolutely, but the way I make my way through very complex analysis is by being incredibly specific in the context and demographic.
So, for example, I could compare Christian theology of death against Epicurus if I were to take each type of Christianity and compare that directly and dogmatically against Epicurus one at a time; this is how I make my way through the myriad of Hebraic theologies over time and compare them against articles in the New Testament or Apocrypha.
What I have a very hard time with is comparing a finite against an abstract; for my brain, I need to drill that abstract down until it becomes a finite representation that is equally as specific as the first item that is finite.
If others can make the comparison, then that’s great and the issue is just that I lack the ability to assist on the gross comparison.
If, on the other hand, I were to be asked to dismiss Paul for a moment and focus on Revelation, and ignore any tradition or current theology regarding Revelation, then I would take Revelation and determine what this authorship’s demographic held as the case based on what’s in Revelation, and compare that belief set (which should be noted as differing from Paul) against Epicurus.
Is that what’s wanted?
I suppose what I’m getting at here is that I can’t consider, say, Mark and then in the same consideration toss in Revelation as if Revelation is by the same theological demographic as Mark and of the same tangent; they are radically different from each other and it is only specific traditions that weave a unity between these texts, and in that unification, each sect of Christianity is unique.
So if you ask me about Mark, I’ll stick to Mark.
If you throw in Titus in response to something I note about Mark, then I’m going to ask which Christian sect we approach the inquiry from so that the unifying theology between the two is understood and not assumed or left vague.
If the matter is, instead, just about some kind of afterlife compared against Epicurus’ no afterlife concern stance, then I have a harder time as then we don’t need any kind of Christian uniqueness as most religions have after life assertions somewhere found in them and the idea becomes a general abstract comparison, not of Epicurus, but of “no afterlife” vs. “afterlife” perception.
And if that were to be the case, then I would have even less to offer as I can’t make a general position for either absent of a representative actualization socially of the concepts which can actualize in very differing ways and produce a different conclusion regarding benefit or harm: the ancient Hebraic concepts of resurrection and afterlife (the differing variations) resulted in a very different social conduct compared against the Puritan concepts of resurrection and afterlife.
Jayson-
I used Paul’s conception of the resurrected Christ as an example of a posited afterlife. The proposition is, “Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.” The statement is quite powerful. I dare say that neither Paul, nor any Christian conception of an afterlife, nor any conception of an afterlife at all that I am aware of can defeat it. So, why narrow the field of the opposition except to obscure the power of the proposition? Can you show that the proposition is less than self evident? It relegates all assertions of an afterlife to the sphere of an unknown supernatural which can be accepted only on faith.
Oh, you were comparing for contest?
I didn’t gather that; I was working from purely the explorative position.
OK, well…I don’t have much input on that.
I find after death oblivion a consolation. No more consciousness; no more pain. What happens here stays here.
No. It’s not a personal contest. The contest as I see it is an existential one. The basic propositions have been posited. Which ones prevail in our consciousnesses really? From what you have stated you agree with Epicurus any way. Explore away. We just disagree on the necessity of limiting exploration of proponents of an afterlife to Paul. If you wish to focus on Paul’s conception of an afterlife, there’s plenty of material there. I appreciate our paraphrase of I Corinthians 15 which opened up a more naturalistic, existential way of looking at the passage. But, if V wants to bring the the Christ of Revelation I don’t want to limit that. Revelation has certainly influenced the conception of an afterlife of many and continues to do so.
Revelation–“No more tears.” Oblivion–no more tears. Win/win.