Asked in Religion & SpiritualityPhilosophy and PhilosophersGeneticsNew Testament
Which is better to have eternal life or eternal death?
March 01, 2011 9:48AM
Interesting question. They're certainly both valid means of existence (or lack there of) so one would suppose it all comes down to preference. unfortunately non-existence cannot be experienced since life is a perquisite, so only one-side of the coin can be examined. eternal life, or consciousness, would consist of happiness, misery, boredom, excitement, etc. for quite some time until one reached a level of stagnation I would assume. But maybe not.
It all really depends on what this eternal consciousness consisted of. If it was the conventional depiction of heaven, I would think that suffering as caused by "sin" would be inescapable. If Satan fell from a perfect heaven, then so can anyone else. However, if it were the heaven that I've fabricated then maybe suffering wouldn't be eminent. This eternal state would consist of one consciousness, a collection of every consciousness that has ever existed. Physical, objects would not exist, only objects that you imagine, like a dream.
All it takes is 2 differentiating perspectives to cause conflict, therefore heaven as depicted by Christian fundamentalists is blatantly false. unfortunately, happiness doesn't seem to follow suit in my interpretation either. but who knows. in the end neither seems better than the other, so nonexistence or "hell" would also be a reasonably valid choice as well.
but maybe it's all in my head. maybe nobody lives beyond death. and maybe i need to cease my off-topic religious rambling.