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)