[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

And yes, those terms (that describe our physical universe) would have no meaning at all. Yet, I believe that does not deprive my existence in the afterlife of meaning. Abstract - yes absolutely, in terms of us humans and what our 5 meager senses can fumble about with. Meaningless - absolutely not. Human in any recogizable sense - possibly, but human in terms of 2nd cousin of a chimpanzee, or human in terms of Athens, Tchaikovsky, Bhudda, the Pyramids of Giza, et al? What I am driving at is that my spirit that is housed in my human body is both what defines me as human, yet cannot be defined by humans.

This focus on 'spirit' as opposed to matter makes me a bit uncomfortable. Christianity has always tended to reject the 'flesh' in favour of the 'spirit', yet ironically it is the unique emphasis that Christianity placed on redemption of the flesh & the resurrection of the body that makes it unique. Christianity actually seems to offer an afterlife very close to this one, rather than an eternity as a bodiless 'spirit'. It is this raising up of matter (symbolised by the ascension of Christ & Mary in bodily form into Heaven) that is its uniqueness. Both the Gnostics & the Cathars were considered heretics precisely because they denied the flesh & considered it to be evil, a prison holding the 'pure' spirit.

However, the church seems always to have opposed this idea, mortifying the flesh with fasting, hair shirts, flagelation & the like.

Williams taught the 'Affirmation of the Images' - seeing the creation as a means to God, rather than as an obstacle. The creation reveals God, rather than hiding Him. However, the Church has never been truly comfortable with this approach.

Lewis makes an interesting comment in his introduction to The Great Divorce:

I think earth, of chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region of Hell: & earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.

But this still puts Earth second, sees it as a separate thing, because one is required to reject it in order to possess it in the end. For Williams the Creation was divine, a revelation of God.

The problem for Christianity is that it essentially fears the Creation as something which will seduce humanity away from God, & as something which must be held at arm's length.

My own feeling is that 'this' is me, this limited, confused, struggling, insignificant human being. If some aspect of my being continues after physical death it will not be me, therefore 'I' will not continue after my body dies. This is all 'I' get, though there may be some 'being' which has my existence as part of its memories. From that perspective it is irreleevant whether that being/consciousness is a separate entity from God, or merely a collection of images/memories in the mind of God - it won't be 'me'. Even if I did experience bodily resurrection that being would not be 'me' either - it may be 'me'+' but it will not be me as I am, as I recognise myself to be.

Of course, it could be argued that the Frog is the tadpole, the Butterfly is the caterpillar, the Oak tree is the acorn, so maybe in a sense that 'me'+' will still be 'me' but at a different stage of growth. Then again it may not. All I can actually know is what I am now, because this is me - the only me I can conceive or know. & this me ends when I die.