what is the real disease of the deniers of the Hereafter

[salaam]

is it their intellect which is hindering them from believing in the Hereafter or their desires of the self.?
Or regard the resurrection and the hereafter as impossible?

What makes them deny the hereafter is not, in fact, their regarding the Resurrection and Hereafter as impossible BUT they deny it because acceptance of the Hereafter inevitably imposes certain moral restrictions on them, which they detest. They desire that they should continue roaming in the world at will as they have been roaming before. They should have full freedom to go on committing whatever injustice, dishonesty, sin and wickedness that they have been committing before, and there should be no deterrent to obstruct their freedom and to warn them that one day they will have to appear and render an account of their deeds before their God. Therefore, it is not their intellect which is hindering them from believing in the Hereafter but their desires of the self.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

I do not understand what you mean. In my experience and via my observation it does not seem to matter whether a person's belief system includes a hereafter or not; as a matter of fact, it does not seem to matter whether a person has any belief at all; people tend to act and behave pretty much the same. I have seen and observed persons that consider themselves devout committing atrocities; I have seen people that ascribe to no belief whatsoever do acts of kindness and compassion. In short, a belief in the hereafter seems to have absolutely no impact on a person's behaviour at all.

Regards,

[salaam]

Salam,

I do not understand what you mean. InRegards,

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7121740AAp0xeK

[The_Other_Admin]

Lack of taqwa?

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Thank you for the link. It did not give me any insights, nor did it in fact answer my question, but thank you nevertheless.

If I can assume the opening post is a work of your own, and not a copy-and-paste job of someone else's answer, there are number of peculiar issues I in your assertions that I would like to address. The first thing that strikes me is the fallacious leap from the demographic group "those that don't believe in a hereafter" to "those that do not like restrictions". A belief in a hereafter is obviously not necessary for a coherent moral code. If you feel so inclined, you could ask any buddhist about their morality and I believe you will recieve an answer that will not support the statement in your opening post. Even if I would for the sake of conversation agree with you, which I for the record do not, most countries have laws that prevent illegal acts and what you probably would describe as immoral behaviour.

Regards,

[The_Other_Admin]

A belief in a hereafter is obviously not necessary for a coherent moral code. If you feel so inclined, you could ask any buddhist about their morality and I believe you will recieve an answer that will not support the statement in your opening post.

Just a little point here, while buddhist don't have exactly the same view of hereafter as Muslims or other similar religions, but they do have concept of next life/plane which is based on the actions on this life.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Exactly my point.

To further emphasize the point; you may ask, say, an agnostic or an atheist about their views on morality. You might be surprised. To assert only those that believe in an afterlife are capable of sustaining a moral world view is not only false, but arrogant to boot.

Regards,

[salaam]

Salam,


If I can assume the opening post is a work of your own, and not a copy-and-paste job of someone else's answer,
Regards,

No, brother, it is not somebody elses's answer; let me give u a hint, my username here starts with S so see the one who asked the question starts with which letter?
this is the life, to go deep to the root of (where u think they ought tobe) where u feel brothers Humans needs a littlet 'jump start' not necesarily to for and "drink"
but wa Maa alayna illa Lba laagh.

thank you if really appreciate for all-while here i could get the stream to swim.

[salaam]

Salam,

Exactly my point.

To further emphasize the point; you may ask, say, an agnostic or an atheist about their views on morality. You might be surprised. To assert only those that believe in an afterlife are capable of sustaining a moral world view is not only false, but arrogant to boot.

Regards,

that is why i have put this thread as
" what is the real disease of the deniers of the Hereafter"
I straight went to state what the quran tells, and that means a challenge for the one i mean any of the above yu mentioned to shower his/hers;
so the community can by their own feelings be left with no other alternative but to come to facts of the point.

shukran.

[The_Other_Admin]

Exactly my point.

I don't see the exact point. If they didn't had any concept of next life than the point would have made more sense.

About the agnostics and atheists. Well, agnostics are gray area. Atheist morals are one's own morals, for the lack of better term. Morals based on a religion are different, they are much difficult because the person may not personally go with them but he/she imposes upon oneself.

But discussion is really going off topic, maybe not exactly, but I suppose OP is based on Quran which imo neither falls in this or that. Morals in the Quran in some cases are easier and in other cases difficult. In some cases, they flow naturally with person in other cases a person may not understand why they are there. Neither the nations who were punished were totally lacking morals (People of Lot, Ad, and Samuud), their society probably had their own morals that they understood which they might have claimed for having morals too; on the other, people who seemed to have excessive morals from the Quran's pov, they are not favored above either.

Perhaps it would be better if relevant passages are looked at in the Quran for better understanding.

[salaam]

Perhaps it would be better if relevant passages are looked at in the Quran for better understanding.

Maa shaa Allah, Yes, that is the BEST

and than here we are about to be faced with DONT COPY AND PASTE,
the question is How one can just copy a thing and paste is it because to be the best?
or because he/she studied (Not by Net) with hard work, and after gaining that what, the MErcifull has by His Fadhl blessed he/she
then it should be those she/he to invite brother humans, come to the real World...Beleiving In Allah, Wa Malaikatihi, wa kutubihi, wa rusulihi, wa bil yawm lakher.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

If [buddhists] didn't had any concept of next life [...]

The buddhistic paradigm does not, in fact, have a concept of an afterlife. The arising of citta-santāna does not constitute a continuum of anything that might even remotely resemble a soul or any post mortem existence. Hence, to treat the two in a similar fashion does not produce meaningful results. In short, the two are so utterly different, partly diametrically so, they are effectively dissimilar regarding almost all application.

The opening post states in no uncertain terms "acceptance of the Hereafter inevitably imposes certain moral restrictions on them, which they detest". Manifestly the two are disparate concepts. To lump the two together is false. Further, to imply a person denies the Hereafter due to detesting moral restrictions is not only false, it is an untenable position to maintain.

Regards,

[The_Other_Admin]

Salam,The buddhistic paradigm does not, in fact, have a concept of an afterlife. The arising of citta-santāna does not constitute a continuum of anything that might even remotely resemble a soul or any post mortem existence. Hence, to treat the two in a similar fashion does not produce meaningful results. In short, the two are so utterly different, partly diametrically so, they are effectively dissimilar regarding almost all application.

The opening post states in no uncertain terms "acceptance of the Hereafter inevitably imposes certain moral restrictions on them, which they detest". Manifestly the two are disparate concepts. To lump the two together is false. Further, to imply a person denies the Hereafter due to detesting moral restrictions is not only false, it is an untenable position to maintain.

Regards,

Whatever, semantic nitty-gritty is there, nonetheless, they have concept of succession of life-times. Read on "cycle of saṃsāra". If that is not next life than I don't know what it is. You call it rebirth, afterlife, nextlife -- semantic arguments aside it is next life.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Whatever, semantic nitty-gritty is there, nonetheless, they have concept of succession of life-times.

The being which you would refer to as the abrahamic "you" does not exist within the buddhistic paradigm. I will assume you are aware of the difference. This "you" will not continue in any shape or form; it is terminated when the being enters sahasra or ultimately nirvana. It is not merely a semantic distinction. Karma, or perhaps more precisely karma-phala, are dependent upon the non-personal karmic mechanism; karma are all actions by a being (including thoughts), karma-phala is the resulting effect. The concept is somewhat muddled by the fact the last Buddha stated both that he will inherit his karma, and that he will be extinguished. Never the less, I am sure you are aware the difference between the buddhistic paradigm and the abrahamic paradigm is more than "semantic nitty-gritty". In the discussed regard they are genuinely disparate; buddhists have no concept of life successions even comparable to the abrahamic concept of an undying soul. All abrahamic faith systems emphasize the "use once and destroy" nature of our existence; we are here only once and will reap the consequences forever.

Read on "cycle of saṃsāra".

I am aware of it.

If that is not next life than I don't know what it is.

It is a cycle of rebirth only broken by the extinguishing awakening, it is not reincarnation.

You call it rebirth, afterlife, nextlife -- semantic arguments aside it is next life.

As it is, you might have to expound on your assertion a tad; I am not entirely sure what you mean. However, I am aware it is not a matter of mere semantics.

I am sure there are details I have missed and concepts I have misunderstood. If those can be pointed out I would be grateful. Be that as it may, the thread is not about the finer aspects of buddhism, a faith system I only have the most cursory knowledge of. The thread is about the categorical lack of morals in people that do not ascribe to a belief in the Hereafter, an assertion I maintain is nonsensical. A single observation would render the assertion untenable, and I have observed innumerable instances of people with a transcendent moral code while not believing in a Hereafter. Ergo, I must argue the assertion in the opening post is manifestly false. You might disagree.

Regards,

[The_Other_Admin]

Salam,The being which you would refer to as the abrahamic "you" does not exist within the buddhistic paradigm. I will assume you are aware of the difference. This "you" will not continue in any shape or form; it is terminated when the being enters sahasra or ultimately nirvana. It is not merely a semantic distinction. Karma, or perhaps more precisely karma-phala, are dependent upon the non-personal karmic mechanism; karma are all actions by a being (including thoughts), karma-phala is the resulting effect. The concept is somewhat muddled by the fact the last Buddha stated both that he will inherit his karma, and that he will be extinguished. Never the less, I am sure you are aware the difference between the buddhistic paradigm and the abrahamic paradigm is more than "semantic nitty-gritty". In the discussed regard they are genuinely disparate; buddhists have no concept of life successions even comparable to the abrahamic concept of an undying soul. All abrahamic faith systems emphasize the "use once and destroy" nature of our existence; we are here only once and will reap the consequences forever.
I am aware of it.
It is a cycle of rebirth only broken by the extinguishing awakening, it is not reincarnation.
As it is, you might have to expound on your assertion a tad; I am not entirely sure what you mean. However, I am aware it is not a matter of mere semantics.

I am sure there are details I have missed and concepts I have misunderstood. If those can be pointed out I would be grateful. Be that as it may, the thread is not about the finer aspects of buddhism, a faith system I only have the most cursory knowledge of. The thread is about the categorical lack of morals in people that do not ascribe to a belief in the Hereafter, an assertion I maintain is nonsensical. A single observation would render the assertion untenable, and I have observed innumerable instances of people with a transcendent moral code while not believing in a Hereafter. Ergo, I must argue the assertion in the opening post is manifestly false. You might disagree.

Regards,

Your point is not clear. I already said that there system is different than Abrahamic faith. They don't have deity judging, just one this life for actions, or beings in hell that lasts forever. None of these I'm arguing. Nonetheless, they have system that has next life which is based on the action on this life. They also have hell concept -- Naraka. Now you gonna say deity doesn't judge and being doesn't stay in hell forever. But that not I'm arguing. What I'm saying that they do have reward/punishment system with next life. Karma/rebirth, if they didn't had those than your argument would have made more sense. It is not same for people who don't believe in any kind of next life at all. And thus, example of Buddhism doesn't really constitutes of morals without any next life considerations.