Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: re: Souls
Message-ID: <1281@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 09:03:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1281
Posted: Sat Aug 17 09:03:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Aug-85 07:26:04 EDT
References: <2451@mit-hermes.ARPA>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 18

In article <2451@mit-hermes.ARPA> Christopher Roberson writes:

>> Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  How about NOTHING survives????  How
>> about we die completely?  Why is there this need for continuity?
>> That's precisely the point!  It's YOUR assumption that life after
>> death implies survival of death.  On what metaphysical basis do
>> you intend to prove this?

>I don't have any problem with 'nothing survives'; I don't even have a problem
>with a Christian proclaiming that 'nothing survives' (see Charles Hartshorne
>for a Christian view of mortality -- incidentally, are you a Unitarian,
>Charley?  Just curious); but I do wonder what 'life after death' means if it
>doesn't mean that we survive death.  Could you please explain further?

It means just "life after death".  It doesn't mean that we survive death, it
means that we get resurrected.

Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe   (member of the Episcopal Mafia)