Without death can there be life?

It is the devil’s world and that is why the world has gone crazy ! the devil offered the kingdoms of the world to Christ when he was fasting for 30 days. the devil couldn’t have offered the kingdoms to Him if he didn’t rule them? this world will continue to get worse until Christ returns and saves His children.

I’ve never thought sz was demonic, but just created my own,

nothing powerful, nothing altering, I in turn had to stop the flood,
a child’s crying, a man screaming, a woman comforting,

nothing once I knew where I came from, had a base, had a center.
I said don’t f-k me up with this s-t, and I got the meds that did it

There is a time you remember when you weren’t this way,
and that is what you want. Free.

without life can there be death? :slight_smile:

yar animals (inc humans) have to live by killing and eating other animals or plants

as humans though we have a choice unlike other animals
we can live on nuts/fruits/quorn/berries/etc without killing a plant or animal, if we want to

1 Like

why is it heaven or hell, baby?

are you saying combination of both?

I’ve been a provider so long, I don’t even know.

we are all suppose to go to a better place when we die, wouldn’t you like to go to a better place when your time comes, there are a few stipulations of course but thats ok, we can work it out,

1 Like

I wonder about this a lot.
Were we dead before we were born ? Or do we have to live before we are “dead”?
If we didn’t exist before we were born, and now we’re here.Will it happen again or does it just happen once ?
Some things we may never know.

Chocolate milk goes down better.

I read about - life is stretched from birth to death. maintaining the tension that keeps us alive and active.

I view death as the surprise at the bottom of the Crackerjack Box. Doesn’t phase me one bit.

I wouldn’t take the following too seriously, but it can be fun to tinker around with some logic.

I think that for it to makes sense to say that something is dead, it must have died at some point. If, in turn, it must have died at some point, it must have lived as well once, in order to be able to die. If so, it is not possible for something to always be, and always have been dead. This, in turn, is equivalent with saying that necessarily, at some point, any thing is/will be/has been not-dead. (that is not straightforwardly the same as saying anything will be alive at some point) In other words, eternal death cannot be attributed to anything.

Similarly, I suppose for something to be alive it must have been born at some point. Accordingly, if one was never born, one cannot be said to be alive. In other words, it is necessary that as long as things haven’t been born it follows that they are not-alive. Nor are they dead, for that in turn would presuppose them having lived, which is at odds with them not having been born. Thus, it is also not possible for something to be/have been alive at all times. It follows that life and death are both bounded in time, and that anything eternal is neither alive nor dead.

I find that to be more of a language problem, the necessity of mutually exclusive opposites, to communicate changes. Reminds me of Wittgenstein all this discussion. I find Lavoisier’s “nothing is lost nothing is created everything is transformed” much more in acordance with all. Of course this can seem as an amoral stance but it’s just realizing that everything is changing, always. @Genbu already mentioned something which I also found in a book regarding this matters called kybalion. I think it can be an interesting read altough it can also be a confusing and triggering effort.