“Time of death: 8:45pm”.

A sentence similar to this one spells the end of your existence. Your thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams and desires all cease to be. Everything that you once were has gone – leaving but a bag of bones and flesh that shall soon decay and rot, while all manner of insects nourish themselves on the bits that still remain. It is the tragic, but at least consistent, end of the line for every living thing on the planet.

Until…

You wake up. You feel fresh, healthy, at peace. You look around and find yourself in a new realm, a land of beauty and calm, vibrant and lively. It takes a while to notice that the woman next to you is your grandmother. Oh it has been so long since you have seen her, and she is no longer the saggy breasted, senile old bag you remember her being. Instead she is in the prime of her youth, mid twenties, her hair long and flowing, coloured like a field of buttercups in the height of summer. Her body is pert and tight and she flitters around like a butterfly looking for nectar. You see your mother with her, no longer ravaged by age, the cancer that worked its way through her like a plague absent, her health restored.

It doesn’t take long before you are surrounded by loved ones. Your father and brothers, your cousins and aunts – all with you now, happy and smiling. They welcome you with open arms, as ecstatic to see you as you are to see them. For an instant you are the happiest dead-alive man in ‘after-existence’.

“Where’s my daughter?” You ask, looking through the crowd of loved ones in front of you, searching frantically for the person you love more than anyone else, the one person you could never live without. It takes a while before you find out that your daughter isn’t actually in the same place as you, instead she resides in a pit of never ending fire – a fire so intense it would make the sun look about as hot as a snowball.

You grab those around you, asking if there’s anything you can do, if there’s a way of making an official complaint, if there is a way you can rescue the person you love the most from a place created for the sole purpose of burning humans for eternity. You find out that there’s nothing you can do, that your daughter ‘chose’ her fate. Naturally you argue against this, and ask to know what evil action she committed that resulted in her ultimate never ending punishment in a pit of fire and brimstone where there is wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

“She believed in the wrong God”, you are told. “She never accepted Jesus as her saviour, and thus chose to burn”.

You look around you, absolutely gob smacked that these people can’t see a serious issue with what they have just said.
“Imperfect creations can’t make imperfect choices?” You ask dumbfounded.
“Imperfect choices have consequences,” they respond coldly.

It is at this moment you realise that ultimately, whether in heaven or hell, you are destined to an eternity of suffering. For ever and ever and ever you will know that the person you love the very most out of everyone you’ve ever known is burning. That fact will sit in your mind festering with each and every passing day of a never ending existence – and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. By day you worship and bow to this God, the image of your daughter in indescribable agony fresh on your mind. By night you worship and bow to this God, the image of your daughter in indescribable agony fresh on your mind – and that is all you do.

Forever.

As luck would have it however, God eventually comes to visit you with a unique offer.
“I give you a choice: Would you like to swap places with your daughter?”


1) “Yes!” You say without hesitation, knowing that such a sacrifice is worth it if it saves your daughter.

This is invariably where the whole story falls apart. By saying “yes”, you are putting a human before God – which goes against the very reason you were made by him. If you would choose to be away from this God, you would never get to be near him in the first place. So while a “yes” answer is certainly more humane, more moral and more loving – it is not in keeping with the reason for your existence.


2) “No!” You exclaim, knowing that this God demands worship and servitude, that love belongs to him and him alone. Your daughter burns but you get over it, it’s her own fault anyway. The old words of Jesus resound in your ear; “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple.” You realise that you were made not to love other humans, not to even love yourself, but to simply love and worship God. That is the entire point and purpose of your existence and ‘after existence’, nothing else matters.


While not everyone has this particular view of heaven, they will generally assert that the afterlife involves some people being there and some people not being there, (good/bad – although exactly what that entails is debateable). As a result the same problem remains – unless of course they simply do not care about their loved ones once they’re in this realm. If so they’re not themselves anymore, in which case I would argue as to its value and indeed the value of ever having lived a mortal existence in the first place.

A couple of things need to be clarified:

1) Will we or wont we give a damn about our mortal loved ones once dead. If the answer is yes, how exactly do we engage in an eternal life with the knowledge that they’re burning, and even more so how can we even consider worshipping and serving a being that is ultimately responsible for their predicament? If the answer is no, I would indeed ask what the value is in having any feelings for others while living a mortal existence when that is going to be the overall outcome in the heavenly realm.

2) Although some clearly don’t have the problem that I do, I cannot establish how there is any remote value or worth in worshipping one entity for all eternity. I am currently writing another version of this story, (for a short story competition), and at this moment have the line:

“So, what have you been up to since I last saw you 300,000 years ago?”
“Worshipping God, you?”
“Same.” Long pause. “So anyway, do you remember that girl that flashed her boobs at us when we were fifteen?”
“Yeah, that was great that was.” Both men stared into their non-existent pint glasses.

While this is an attempt at a witty look at heaven, I find it quite pertinent to express my distaste at the notion of worshipping one entity, (that does not need worship), for eternity and can only wonder how anyone could keep that up for such a length of time. Does the very idea not seem astoundingly boring? Ok, I am sure this space entity will love and revel in the fact that billions of souls are bowing to it’s every move and serving it’s every whim, but what about the souls? In short: What is the point other than to feed a god’s omni-ego?

Any decent answers welcome.

P.S I know I have touched on this before, but there was no satisfactory post made in response to it. As such I have rewritten the idea and will try again.

Regards,

Nice post. Lots of food(ammo) for thought, thanks!

Reflects my ideas of the "heaven" conundrum:

Just why do I want to be in any place forever? Certainly not a place that holds any religious zealot I have ever met(think Sandy and her ilk).

Jesus spent most of his time on Earth showing Humans how to behave on Earth. Referring mostly to Heaven as a result of this behavior, Being with the "Father". Maybe heaven will be boring for you, maybe you will be bored being in the presence of the creator of babies, sex, love and the universe and of free will to boot, but I give Heaven more credit than that. Maybe you will be able to save your daughter and maybe it will involve sacrifice. Sounds like fun to me!
Can you describe to a fish what running is like? I am being literal. When the fish understands, let me know what he/she says. A silly proposistion, no doubt, but think about it.

I guess that begs the question, how can we going from being "fish" to "running" in heaven in the "Blink of an eye"(how long I was once told - it takes to get to heaven when you die).

i belived that god dosent care about how much you worship him as long as you are a good person and belive he is there he will alow you into his kindom i hope so anyway or i am fuked waite i already am i blaphemed to many times.

there is no God, when one dies he ceases to exist in physical state. Consciousness however remains. You will feel yourself as yourself, you will feel the "I" and that is all. There will be nothing else but the "I", nothing at all. Eternity will pass but you will not know it and eternity will be as no time has passed at all. Than consciousness will awake in the new baby in a new world and life anew will start.

there is no God, when one dies he ceases to exist in physical state. Consciousness however remains. You will feel yourself as yourself, you will feel the "I" and that is all. There will be nothing else but the "I", nothing at all. Eternity will pass but you will not know it and eternity will be as no time has passed at all. Than consciousness will awake in the new baby in a new world and life anew will start.

Dragon, I have every gravity you do to this attractive theory, but I can't help but notice how conceited it is. What owes us eternal life?

Dragon, I have every gravity you do to this attractive theory, but I can't help but notice how conceited it is. What owes us eternal life?

we ourselves do. Everything in universe is recycled and we are no strangers to this.

we ourselves do. Everything in universe is recycled and we are no strangers to this.

Just because the materials that make us up were once part of a star does not mean that we will be recycled as ourselves.

Just because the materials that make us up were once part of a star does not mean that we will be recycled as ourselves.

True, there is no special ingredient injected into our basic materials that allows room for an independent consciousness to drift within after our bodies have been decomposed.

there is no God, when one dies he ceases to exist in physical state. Consciousness however remains. You will feel yourself as yourself, you will feel the "I" and that is all. There will be nothing else but the "I", nothing at all. Eternity will pass but you will not know it and eternity will be as no time has passed at all. Than consciousness will awake in the new baby in a new world and life anew will start.

I've always thought that. I like how it sounds.

I don't fear death. I'm comfortable knowing I won't go to any heaven. I was dead billions of years before I was ever born, and I'll be dead billions more when I die. I don't remember anything before I was born, so what's the big deal, I'm dead.

I do agree with draqon though.

Can you describe to a fish what running is like? I am being literal. When the fish understands, let me know what he/she says. A silly proposistion, no doubt, but think about it.

No, I can't. Unfortunately however this doesn't really ring true as an analogy. Let's add some essential parts:

There is a book written in fish language by me that explains what running is like. Some of the fish sit down and debate about the issues that appear in that book - and come to inevitable and logical conclusions based upon the words written in that book.

1) You have a heaven - some people go there

2) You have a hell - some, (most?), people go there

3) How are you going to feel when you find out the most important person in your life is in 2 while you're in 1?

I think the question is essential for people to come to conclusion on before promoting heaven as a great place to be. From a personal perspective I would say that an eternity in heaven without my daughters would be hell to me. The following is of course a quite common assertion regarding heaven:

"i belived that god dosent care about how much you worship him as long as you are a good person and belive he is there he will alow you into his kindom"


If this is the case, every atheist ever to have existed is destined to go to hell and burn simply because they couldn't 'just believe' in the existence of a grand space daddy. For this they supposedly burn forever.. Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that?

No, pull a salmon out of a river and explain running to it, right now. Or a trout - your choice.
My only suggestion is the exact nature of "eternity with the creator" is subject to an existence we know little about, so to question that existence using the human experience as a base is confusing for me. Beer and Boobies? They will be missed, no doubt.

No, pull a salmon out of a river and explain running to it, right now. Or a trout - your choice.

Unfortunately, once again, this analogy is faulty. It would be more in line if these fish had 'running' explained to them in fish language detailing what running was about. This fish book explains that they have to run for eternity or get smoked - so sayeth the all powerful entity 'the running god'. These fish would be inclined to discuss the issues in fish language:

"blobba blib blob blab", which when translated means: "what if my son Nemo (c) doesn't believe in the running god and is therefore going to be smoked for eternity?"

Now ultimately the fish book might not have been written by the running god, indeed the running god could be the invention of fishkind - that is a largely separate issue, but the fish will undoubtedly work with what they have: a book saying this specific outcome is true which, if we accept that it is, raises many further questions.

We must also assume at this moment in time that the running god is quite a clever old chap and thus could easily explain it in such a way where there simply was no confusion - unless of course, like human gods, he thinks the way to get loyal puppies is to write the most contradictory guidebook in the universe.

My only suggestion is the exact nature of "eternity with the creator" is subject to an existence we know little about, so to question that existence using the human experience as a base is confusing for me.

So ultimately you're saying we just shouldn't question anything related to religious beliefs/god beliefs? I mean c'mon, we have nothing other than a base of human experience to work with. Of course this has never stopped anyone in the history of humanity, indeed people have discussed and debated the 'good book', (along with the other million good books), since they were written.

Why is it specifically an issue when I do it or do you say the same thing to everyone?

And lo, the Son of Fish sayeth to his Labroides dimidiatus followers, "Give a fish a fish, and he'll eat for a day. But teach a fish to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime."

Hey. Big fish eat the little ones.

Loved it :)

Of course most Theists don't think too much about this little conundrum. That's no fun. I suppose that the "heaven"/after-life idea used to be a place where pretty much everyone went and it wasn't touted as the "ideal" place but simply a place really not that much different than Earth.

That said, don't the Jehovah's witnesses believe almost everyone goes to Earth 2.0 and a select few monks with no Earthly connections go to heaven and there is no hell?

It seems as humanity matures Hell is no longer relevant. I think it's really only still believed in by simpleminded peoples, like those living in the South of the USA or KSA :p

Snakelord, well done ! :)
Heaven either lets one retain their conscienceness/memories or not. In the first case heaven will be dissatifying (to say the least) sooner or later. In the second case there is just no point to heaven as you are not the person your were back on earth (or you could make the point the other way around which doesnt make much of a difference), in which case there no point to existence other than to glorify God like the please-bots we are.
In short, either God is cruel and in essence unworthy of worship or there is no point to heaven other than to satisfy Gods ego. Which also would make him unworthy of worship.

Snakelord


1) Will we or wont we give a damn about our mortal loved ones once dead.
if you are dreaming about your relationship as Cleopatra with Julius Ceasur, when you wake up, does that seriously affect the relationship you have with your existing family members?

If the answer is yes, how exactly do we engage in an eternal life with the knowledge that they’re burning, and even more so how can we even consider worshipping and serving a being that is ultimately responsible for their predicament?
its all a dream - of course I would contend that hell is not eternal - although a little time there feels like a long long time
- as for persons spending some memorable moments in hell, they are there due to the results of their own activities

If the answer is no, I would indeed ask what the value is in having any feelings for others while living a mortal existence when that is going to be the overall outcome in the heavenly realm.
the more one develops attachment to god, the more one sees how everyone is inevitably connected to him - in material life one's circle of concern is quite meager (one's own family, or if one is a bit more generous, one's own country .. or if one is a bit less generous one's own body), but in spiritual life one's concern expands out to all living entities

BG 12.15 He by whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety, is very dear to Me.

2) Although some clearly don’t have the problem that I do, I cannot establish how there is any remote value or worth in worshipping one entity for all eternity. I am currently writing another version of this story, (for a short story competition), and at this moment have the line:

“So, what have you been up to since I last saw you 300,000 years ago?”
“Worshipping God, you?”
“Same.” Long pause. “So anyway, do you remember that girl that flashed her boobs at us when we were fifteen?”
“Yeah, that was great that was.” Both men stared into their non-existent pint glasses.

While this is an attempt at a witty look at heaven, I find it quite pertinent to express my distaste at the notion of worshipping one entity, (that does not need worship), for eternity and can only wonder how anyone could keep that up for such a length of time.

one could also question what's with the infatuation of pornography considering there is very little variety in people's bodies from the neck down - still you find that there are some people who can download the stuff for hours - I guess beauty must lie in the eye of the beholder or something ....

Does the very idea not seem astoundingly boring?

Ok, I am sure this space entity will love and revel in the fact that billions of souls are bowing to it’s every move and serving it’s every whim, but what about the souls? In short: What is the point other than to feed a god’s omni-ego?
if the living entity has no ultimate scope for enjoyment it remains in their best interest to serve the foundation of their existence - just like the enjoyment/sustainance/increase in vigor of the hand lies in placing food in the mouth as opposed to squishing food in between its fingers

Snakelord


if you are dreaming about your relationship as Cleopatra with Julius Ceasur, when you wake up, does that seriously affect the relationship you have with your existing family members?


its all a dream - of course I would contend that hell is not eternal - although a little time there feels like a long long time
- as for persons spending some memorable moments in hell, they are there due to the results of their own activities

the more one develops attachment to god, the more one sees how everyone is inevitably connected to him - in material life one's circle of concern is quite meager (one's own family, or if one is a bit more generous, one's own country .. or if one is a bit less generous one's own body), but in spiritual life one's concern expands out to all living entities

BG 12.15 He by whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety, is very dear to Me.


one could also question what's with the infatuation of pornography considering there is very little variety in people's bodies from the neck down - still you find that there are some people who can download the stuff for hours - I guess beauty must lie in the eye of the beholder or something ....


if the living entity has no ultimate scope for enjoyment it remains in their best interest to serve the foundation of their existence - just like the enjoyment/sustainance/increase in vigor of the hand lies in placing food in the mouth as opposed to squishing food in between its fingers

Werent you the one that said God is outside time ? If that is so, is heaven also outside time according to you ? And if THAT is so doesnt everything last forever in heaven ? :bugeye:

Werent you the one that said God is outside time ?
yes

If that is so, is heaven also outside time according to you ?
yes

And if THAT is so doesnt everything last forever in heaven ? :bugeye:
yes

yes


yes


yes

Just checking. Thanks.

Just checking. Thanks.


no problem

feel free to drop in again anytime
;)

no problem

feel free to drop in again anytime
;)

Just wanted to be sure you followed through your own logic.
I will use you answers when appropriate ;)

Just wanted to be sure you followed through your own logic.
I will use you answers when appropriate ;)

fine

any time you need a clarification, just let me know

;)

I will.. Oh great Master of Knowledge. :worship:

actually the worship is optional

;)

if you are dreaming about your relationship as Cleopatra....

Maybe you walked in to the wrong thread but we're not talking about Cleopatra or dreaming and needless to say your statement doesn't answer the question posed: will you or wont you give a damn about your human loved ones when you're dead? It's really just a yes or no.

Of course you believe that we get reincarnated and that when we do we don't have the same loved ones - our daughters could be born to someone else.. this is what you've told me. As such the only thing you needed to say was "no". Seriously, I'll just answer for you next time which will save you bogging down my thread with your irrelevancies.

its all a dream

What's all a dream? Heaven/hell? Eternal life? So none of what is espoused in scripture is real, that's what you're telling me?

of course I would contend that hell is not eternal

The NT disagrees, but you're entitled to your belief.

as for persons spending some memorable moments in hell, they are there due to the results of their own activities

For the sake of discussion that's acceptable but not really what my post was about.

in material life one's circle of concern is quite meager (one's own family, or if one is a bit more generous, one's own country .. or if one is a bit less generous one's own body), but in spiritual life one's concern expands out to all living entities

Let me clarify: you use "spiritual life" in regard to an afterlife/heavenly existence?

one could also question what's with the infatuation of pornography considering there is very little variety in people's bodies from the neck down

Interesting but not really relevant to what I was trying to get at. Of course I would tend to disagree - there is great variety. I would even proceed to ask how you can make claim to this considering you're an admitted celibate.

Some sects of Christianity have done away with the whole Hell concept? Also, what is Purgatory and do Catholics still believe in a Hell?

Snakelord
“
if you are dreaming about your relationship as Cleopatra....
”
Maybe you walked in to the wrong thread but we're not talking about Cleopatra or dreaming and needless to say your statement doesn't answer the question posed: will you or wont you give a damn about your human loved ones when you're dead? It's really just a yes or no.
hey, if you were dreaming you were cleopatra and had something serious going on with julius, you certainly would give a damn - until of course you woke up .....

Of course you believe that we get reincarnated and that when we do we don't have the same loved ones - our daughters could be born to someone else.. this is what you've told me. As such the only thing you needed to say was "no". Seriously, I'll just answer for you next time which will save you bogging down my thread with your irrelevancies.
actually my answer had nothing to do with reincarnation

“
its all a dream
”
What's all a dream? Heaven/hell? Eternal life? So none of what is espoused in scripture is real, that's what you're telling me?
okay here's a succinct answer for you then

no



“
of course I would contend that hell is not eternal
”
The NT disagrees, but you're entitled to your belief.
even conditioned life is sometimes defined as eternal in the vedas - but you're entitled to your belief ......


“
in material life one's circle of concern is quite meager (one's own family, or if one is a bit more generous, one's own country .. or if one is a bit less generous one's own body), but in spiritual life one's concern expands out to all living entities
”
Let me clarify: you use "spiritual life" in regard to an afterlife/heavenly existence?
no

everyone, as indicated

“
one could also question what's with the infatuation of pornography considering there is very little variety in people's bodies from the neck down
”
Interesting but not really relevant to what I was trying to get at.
quite simply

the details which a person accepts as granting something the status of extremely fascinating are fascinating in themselves

god is boring

or vice versa - lol

Of course I would tend to disagree - there is great variety.
hence my statement

I guess beauty must lie in the eye of the beholder or something ....

SnakeLord,

The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons

or daughters.

What would heaven be like without the most important person in your life there?


This, THIS is truly a conundrum.

hey, if you were dreaming you were cleopatra

"Hey" nothing. My thread is not concerned with Cleopatra or dreaming.

actually my answer had nothing to do with reincarnation


My thread had nothing to do with dreaming or Cleopatra. Didn't stop you.

Furthermore, my response to your "answer" (very loosely defined) wasn't about reincarnation either. It was merely to provide a real answer for you based upon certain things you have told me in other threads because you can't provide an answer by yourself.

okay here's a succinct answer for you then

no

Just a shame you got it in the wrong place. If you open your eyes you'll see the first part of my question was: "What's all a dream?"

When you use the word 'what' at the beginning of a question you must understand that the answer cannot come in yes or no format. When you use "will" at the beginning of a question the answer should come in a yes or no format, (at least start with a yes or no and then provide details).

So, what's all a dream, (take into account that you said to me "it's all a dream"). This requires explanation - because the question started with 'what'. I know you're new to all this, but you'll get the hang of it eventually.

even conditioned life is sometimes defined as eternal in the vedas

I apologise if it appears to be discrimination but the article concentrates on a specific heaven/hell outlook only - I could not cater for every single persons views on the matter.

no

everyone, as indicated

Well that's quite strange because the "everyone" wasn't a part of the claimed "spiritual life" but where the concerns of those in a spiritual life are focused. You should know this, you wrote it.

I was trying to clarify whether you meant material beings living a spiritual life or an actual spiritual life as in an afterlife. If you meant the former I would have to disagree unless all spiritual people are vegetarians and animal rights activists. If they're not you really can't argue that they're "concerned about all living entities".

quite simply

... not relevant to anything in my thread.

“ god is boring ”

or vice versa - lol

Where did this come from? I even used control+f on both pages and don't see one place where I actually said this. Is this the new improved lg tactic? Make up quotes? :shrug:

I guess beauty must lie in the eye of the beholder or something ....

Given that you're an "unbeholder", of what value is your opinion?

-----

or daughters.

What would heaven be like without the most important person in your life there?


This, THIS is truly a conundrum.

If you are asserting that it's all the fathers fault, (or perhaps the grandfather, or great grandfather, or great great grandather as also shown in the bible), then fair enough - it actually changes nothing as to whose fault it is. It is concerned more with how a person missing the love of their life would cope in an eternal setting without them. If they care like they would as a human then ultimately heaven is no better a place than hell - one is merely physical torture the other is mental torture. Which is worse? I'll let you decide.

No.

You say to be in a better place you need certain things, this is understandable. In order for it to be this better place you would get what you want- your daughter, at least there is the possibility of this happening- ultimately it is up to her. Too many variables, but i think this makes your original post obsolete.

“Where’s my daughter?” You ask, looking through the crowd of loved ones in front of you, searching frantically for the person you love more than anyone else, the one person you could never live without. It takes a while before you find out that your daughter isn’t actually in the same place as you, instead she resides in a pit of never ending fire – a fire so intense it would make the sun look about as hot as a snowball.

In order for it to be this better place you would get what you want- your daughter, at least there is the possibility of this happening- ultimately it is up to her. Too many variables, but i think this makes your original post obsolete.

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. So because there is a possiblity that my daughter will be there my original post is obsolete??

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. So because there is a possiblity that my daughter will be there my original post is obsolete??

be where? you said she goes to hell and the father goes to heaven. heaven for him is with his daughter...specifically his daughter will come to him- that is the benefit. people can change...forgiveness. dont you know where we learned to forgive?:yawn:

heaven for him is with his daughter...specifically his daughter will come to him- that is the benefit.

How if she's in hell?

people can change...forgiveness. dont you know where we learned to forgive?

???

How if she's in hell?



???

what is there not to understand, why does she have to stay in hell? seems to me that to be in heaven the father would need what he wants most.

what is there not to understand, why does she have to stay in hell?

The reason is highlighted in the bible and in the story. What happens, you die and a message comes up asking where you want to go next?

seems to me that to be in heaven the father would need what he wants most.

?

Snakelord
“
hey, if you were dreaming you were cleopatra
”
"Hey" nothing. My thread is not concerned with Cleopatra or dreaming.
It is about the sentiments that we have for persons, and let me tell you, if you had a dream that you were Cleopatra and had something serious going on with Julius, you certainly would give a damn ... until you woke up of course
:D

“
actually my answer had nothing to do with reincarnation
”
My thread had nothing to do with dreaming or Cleopatra.
you realize that you are offending all people who have had dreams that they were cleopatra and a thing going with Julius ... until they woke up that is

Furthermore, my response to your "answer" (very loosely defined) wasn't about reincarnation either. It was merely to provide a real answer for you based upon certain things you have told me in other threads because you can't provide an answer by yourself.
Oh I see

well suppose after having the dream that I had serious thing going with Julius ceaser as cleopatra, I begin another dream that I am a Norwegian tomato farmer who is always in anxiety about how he is going to accrue enough wealth to support his 5 young daughters

(in other words reincarnation doesn't ultimately solve any issue of real relationship, since the basis of such relationship is the body - which is quite predictable)

BG 2.16: Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

“
okay here's a succinct answer for you then

no
”
Just a shame you got it in the wrong place. If you open your eyes you'll see the first part of my question was: "What's all a dream?"

When you use the word 'what' at the beginning of a question you must understand that the answer cannot come in yes or no format.

it was an answer to your last question of the three

When you use "will" at the beginning of a question the answer should come in a yes or no format, (at least start with a yes or no and then provide details).

how about this one?
So none of what is espoused in scripture is real, that's what you're telling me?

So, what's all a dream, (take into account that you said to me "it's all a dream").
the bodily relationships you have in this world

“
even conditioned life is sometimes defined as eternal in the vedas
”
I apologise if it appears to be discrimination but the article concentrates on a specific heaven/hell outlook only - I could not cater for every single persons views on the matter.
conditioned life is hell

“
no

everyone, as indicated
”
Well that's quite strange because the "everyone" wasn't a part of the claimed "spiritual life" but where the concerns of those in a spiritual life are focused. You should know this, you wrote it.

I was trying to clarify whether you meant material beings living a spiritual life or an actual spiritual life as in an afterlife. If you meant the former I would have to disagree unless all spiritual people are vegetarians and animal rights activists. If they're not you really can't argue that they're "concerned about all living entities".
even vegetarians eat other living entities, albeit the ones that are not likely to writhe around on the floor in agony drowning in their own blood and also who's production and consumption is likely to result in damage to the environment of the landscape or one's digestive tract.

Hence spiritual persons est according to scriptural injunctions

BG 3.13 The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin.

possessed of unlimited intelligence, god recommends

BG 9.26: If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.

BG 9.27: Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me.

BG 9.28: In this way you will be freed from bondage to work and its auspicious and inauspicious results. With your mind fixed on Me in this principle of renunciation, you will be liberated and come to Me.

“
quite simply
”
... not relevant to anything in my thread.
thats right your thread has absolutely nothing to do with value judgments and deals exclusively with the nature of (cough cough) objective reality

“
“ god is boring ”

or vice versa - lol
”
Where did this come from? I even used control+f on both pages and don't see one place where I actually said this. Is this the new improved lg tactic? Make up quotes?

2) Although some clearly don’t have the problem that I do, I cannot establish how there is any remote value or worth in worshipping one entity for all eternity.

sounds like boredom to me ....

“
I guess beauty must lie in the eye of the beholder or something ....
”
Given that you're an "unbeholder", of what value is your opinion?
herein lies the problem
what you anoint as marvelous is incredibly mundane - there is nothing exclusive about it and it is the direct perception of practically everyone, if not all species of life

as regards theistic claims, it is you who is an unbeholder

-

if you had a dream that you were Cleopatra

Cleaopatra heh, Norwegian tomato farmers heh..

Get out of my thread.

the bodily relationships you have in this world

How are they a dream?

conditioned life is hell

Your personal opinion is wonderful. However it needs to be said once again that this thread was concentrating on a specific view of heaven and hell - ergo the places where people go when they're dead, 'good' people to heaven/'bad' to hell and how one would cope with the knowledge that a loved one was in the other place. Perhaps you would be better off in a different thread.

BG 9.26: If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.

Aww, how sweet.

thats right your thread has absolutely nothing to do with value judgments..

If you claim to be aware of what my thread is or is not about.. Why bother interrupting it with stuff that this thread is not about? Your time will be better spent elsewhere. Shoo.

2) Although some clearly don’t have the problem that I do, I cannot establish how there is any remote value or worth in worshipping one entity for all eternity.

sounds like boredom to me ....

Although boredom might very well become an aspect of eternal servitude, the problem indicated is more as to 'why' - where is the value in such a notion? What makes a being feel it should be served for eternity merely on the basis that it created these other beings? It seems a tad too self centered for my liking, thus I question it's value and worth. Next time do the decent thing and quote what is actually said, and then question it.

what you anoint as marvelous is incredibly mundane

Once again: as an unbeholder, of what value is your opinion?

there is nothing exclusive about it and it is the direct perception of practically everyone

What does exclusivity have to do with anything?

Snakelord
“
if you had a dream that you were Cleopatra
”
Cleaopatra heh, Norwegian tomato farmers heh..

Get out of my thread.

“
the bodily relationships you have in this world
”
How are they a dream?
they appear for some time and then disappear - much like one's session as cleopatra or a norweigian tomato farmer

“
conditioned life is hell
”
Your personal opinion is wonderful. However it needs to be said once again that this thread was concentrating on a specific view of heaven and hell - ergo the places where people go when they're dead, 'good' people to heaven/'bad' to hell and how one would cope with the knowledge that a loved one was in the other place. Perhaps you would be better off in a different thread.
so you want to pass on the subject of eternal hell?

“
BG 9.26: If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.
”
Aww, how sweet.
with the added advantage of lessening one's chances of developing cancer of the colon and efficiency in food production too

“
thats right your thread has absolutely nothing to do with value judgments..
”
If you claim to be aware of what my thread is or is not about.. Why bother interrupting it with stuff that this thread is not about? Your time will be better spent elsewhere. Shoo.
maybe you would be better off writing all your ideas on bits of paper you could store in a drawer rather than posting them on debate forums .... particularly if you insist on using words as indicated below

“
2) Although some clearly don’t have the problem that I do, I cannot establish how there is any remote value or worth in worshipping one entity for all eternity.

sounds like boredom to me ....
”
Although boredom might very well become an aspect of eternal servitude, the problem indicated is more as to 'why' - where is the value in such a notion?
I guess they don't find it boring for a start

What makes a being feel it should be served for eternity merely on the basis that it created these other beings?
probably because it is a better experience than any of the run of the mill things one can encounter in practically any species of life

It seems a tad too self centered for my liking, thus I question it's value and worth.
absorption in the activities of one's body and things related to one's body is the munificent alternative?


“
what you anoint as marvelous is incredibly mundane
”
Once again: as an unbeholder, of what value is your opinion?
as already indicated, what you are in delight of is boldly apparent to even hogs, dogs and camels

“
there is nothing exclusive about it and it is the direct perception of practically everyone
”
What does exclusivity have to do with anything?
with your claim that I am an unbeholder

they appear for some time and then disappear

So uhh, anything that exists for some time and then ceases to exist is a dream? Lol..

so you want to pass on the subject of eternal hell?

Eh?

with the added advantage of lessening one's chances of developing cancer of the colon

Offering a leaf to god lessens ones chances of getting colon cancer? K then.

maybe you would be better off writing all your ideas on bits of paper you could store in a drawer rather than posting them on debate forums

I do that too. However, I like to post these things for people to discuss them. Many have done so but it seems only you couldn't figure out what it was related to and so decided to regale me with stories of tomato farmers and the gods desires for bananas and grapefruit instead.

sounds like boredom to me ....

Then your brain is clearly wired differently. Perhaps your time would be better spent in a different thread. Thanks.

probably because it is a better experience than any of the run of the mill things one can encounter in practically any species of life

How do you know that? What validates your claim?

absorption in the activities of one's body and things related to one's body is the munificent alternative?

Hmm.. worship a talking cloud or enjoy the life that I have.. Let me think for a moment..

what you are in delight of is boldly apparent to even hogs, dogs and camels

O....k, and that's an issue.. how/why?

with your claim that I am an unbeholder

Eh? How does that follow on from what was being said lol? How does an activity not being exclusive and done by pretty much all species of life make that activity mundane?

And.. if you don't engage in such activity, how can your claim that it is mundane be taken seriously?

(My two cents.)

I can't decide if I would like to see lg out of this thread; it certainly would get things back on topic and rid it of any more nonsense...but at the same time, it's so entertaining to read SnakeLord's responses! They'ze great! :D

“ Snakelord


they appear for some time and then disappear ”
So uhh, anything that exists for some time and then ceases to exist is a dream? Lol..
yes
particularly when such transitory things come before something more substantial – like say the recollection of one’s relationship with Julius ceaser while waking from a dream

“
so you want to pass on the subject of eternal hell? ”
Eh?
forget it
(looks like you already have)
:rolleyes:
“
with the added advantage of lessening one's chances of developing cancer of the colon ”
Offering a leaf to god lessens ones chances of getting colon cancer? K then.
if one exclusively eats such vegetarian offerings, yes
“
maybe you would be better off writing all your ideas on bits of paper you could store in a drawer rather than posting them on debate forums ”
I do that too. However, I like to post these things for people to discuss them. Many have done so but it seems only you couldn't figure out what it was related to and so decided to regale me with stories of tomato farmers and the gods desires for bananas and grapefruit instead.
well it was related – of course it was not related in a way you anticipated but hey, that’s the nature of discussions – if that makes you throw a hissy fit I guess you should just leave things like this in that voluminous drawer of yours ....
“
sounds like boredom to me .... ”
Then your brain is clearly wired differently. Perhaps your time would be better spent in a different thread. Thanks.
yup

you definitely should have left this in that drawer of yours ....
“
probably because it is a better experience than any of the run of the mill things one can encounter in practically any species of life ”
How do you know that?
ISO 11. Only one who can learn the process of nescience and that of transcendental knowledge side by side can transcend the influence of repeated birth and death and enjoy the full blessings of immortality.
once again – there’s nothing exclusive about what you are advocating as the summum bonum of life


What validates your claim?
direct perception
“
absorption in the activities of one's body and things related to one's body is the munificent alternative? ”
Hmm.. worship a talking cloud or enjoy the life that I have.. Let me think for a moment..
if that’s the extent of your theistic understanding, small wonder you’re an atheist ....
“
what you are in delight of is boldly apparent to even hogs, dogs and camels ”
O....k, and that's an issue.. how/why?
“ with your claim that I am an unbeholder ”
Eh? How does that follow on from what was being said lol? How does an activity not being exclusive and done by pretty much all species of life make that activity mundane?
wake up

you stated that I was an unbeholder to the object of your cherished object
I stated that such an object is beheld by practically every animal in existence

:rolleyes:


And.. if you don't engage in such activity, how can your claim that it is mundane be taken seriously?

mundane things are very easy to participate in - that’s why they are labeled as such

(My two cents.)

I can't decide if I would like to see lg out of this thread; it certainly would get things back on topic and rid it of any more nonsense...but at the same time, it's so entertaining to read SnakeLord's responses! They'ze great! :D
Hmmmm

I guess we would have to see the cost price of ad homs to determine if this actually has the value of two cents

P.S I know I have touched on this before, but there was no satisfactory post made in response to it. As such I have rewritten the idea and will try again.


You should try again, i added a logical response to the first post. This would render the scenario obsolete.

Your random stipulations- As luck would have it however, God eventually comes to visit you with a unique offer.
“I give you a choice: Would you like to swap places with your daughter?”


1) “Yes!” You say without hesitation, knowing that such a sacrifice is worth it if it saves your daughter.

are where this scenario falls apart. Lack of mercy and forgiveness is illogical, as it was pointed out to us and should be considered. AND if you ask me the father is NOT in Heaven at all according to you description.

Blablabla.. this that God and stuff dream is reality blablabla i live in my own little world that i made up in my mind blablabla


Just wondering.. what is your universe like ? Sounds like a confusing place to me. :scratchin:

if one exclusively eats such vegetarian offerings, yes

Wait.

Have any scientific studies been conducted that show that if one offers a leaf or flower to the gods that their risk of getting colon cancer is lower?

if that makes you throw a hissy fit..

Hissy fit heh? K.

you definitely should have left this in that drawer of yours ....

I don't think so, and seemingly many other people don't either. What they probably will agree on is that it would have been better if you weren't here. You have nothing of any value to add, especially when you can't even comprehend the purpose and point of the post - and this is clearly not the only one.

once again – there’s nothing exclusive about what you are advocating as the summum bonum of life

O..k, and once again what does exclusivity have to do with anything?

you stated that I was an unbeholder to the object of your cherished object
I stated that such an object is beheld by practically every animal in existence

O..k, and I asked: What does "most living things do it" have to do with anything? It's something that is obviously universally enjoyable - where is the problem with that?

------

You should try again, i added a logical response to the first post. This would render the scenario obsolete

All due respect John, but I couldn't seem to find anything pertinent in your 'logical' response. You quoted "the sins of the father shall be visited on sons" then wrote 'or daughters' and then said "What would heaven be like without the most important person in your life there?"

Which was the basic idea of my post to begin with. So what have you answered or stated?

are where this scenario falls apart.

Oh, you mean right at the part where I said: "This is invariably where the whole story falls apart." ?

Thanks for the input but I had gathered that, which is exactly why I wrote it in my original post. You see, if you were to choose a human over god then you wouldn't be in heaven in the first place. This problem still exists in my story version that I am working on - but what i'm leaning towards is that this man still gets a 'taste' of heaven - because as every human well knows, god likes man to think he is making his own choices. As a result, this man appears in heaven and is given the option of going to hell or staying with god. Ultimately the man 'doesn't have a choice', not that theists would understand that.

Lack of mercy and forgiveness is illogical, as it was pointed out to us and should be considered.

It is also the main tenet of christianity - that unbelievers are already condemned to eternal hellfire and must save themselves before they die. Even a mass rapist can be forgiven as long as he recognises jesus as his saviour before death. If not, burn baby burn.

Snakelord
“
if one exclusively eats such vegetarian offerings, yes
”
Wait.

Have any scientific studies been conducted that show that if one offers a leaf or flower to the gods that their risk of getting colon cancer is lower?
wake up

what I actually said was

even vegetarians eat other living entities, albeit the ones that are not likely to writhe around on the floor in agony drowning in their own blood and also who's production and consumption is likely to result in damage to the environment of the landscape or one's digestive tract.

Hence spiritual persons eat according to scriptural injunctions

BG 3.13 The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin.

possessed of unlimited intelligence, god recommends

BG 9.26: If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.

BG 9.27: Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me.

BG 9.28: In this way you will be freed from bondage to work and its auspicious and inauspicious results. With your mind fixed on Me in this principle of renunciation, you will be liberated and come to Me.

“
if that makes you throw a hissy fit..
”
Hissy fit heh? K.
whining? grumbling? etc etc

“
you definitely should have left this in that drawer of yours ....
”
I don't think so, and seemingly many other people don't either.
many atheists right?

What they probably will agree on is that it would have been better if you weren't here.
given that they are atheists, it sa healthy sign

You have nothing of any value to add,
if its revealed that the slant of your thread (ie "what is the value of eternally existence in a temporary material context?") has no value (except perhaps in the books of atheists looking for means to bolster their value systems), what would one expect?

especially when you can't even comprehend the purpose and point of the post - and this is clearly not the only one.
its crystal clear

you are suggesting that eternal life in view of temporary (aka dream like) relationships is not pleasant

that is why it is suggested in theism that eternal life exists in the context of eternal relationships

“
once again – there’s nothing exclusive about what you are advocating as the summum bonum of life
”
O..k, and once again what does exclusivity have to do with anything?
once again

you stating that I am an unbeholder

“
you stated that I was an unbeholder to the object of your cherished object
I stated that such an object is beheld by practically every animal in existence
”
O..k, and I asked: What does "most living things do it" have to do with anything? It's something that is obviously universally enjoyable - where is the problem with that?
for a start its not clear how you could label me as an unbeholder

Just wondering.. what is your universe like ? Sounds like a confusing place to me. :scratchin:

I guess if you are curious about my world view the first step would be to posit inquiries that at least quote what I say

:shrug:

wake up

No... you wake up.

I directly quoted the bg statement: BG 9.26: If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.

I said that was sweet to which you said, and I quote: "with the added advantage of lessening one's chances of developing cancer of the colon"

To which I must now ask again if you have anything to support your claim that offering flowers to gods has the advantage of lessening ones chances of getting cancer.

you are suggesting that eternal life in view of temporary (aka dream like) relationships is not pleasant

See, told you you didn't understand. Kindly only respond when you have figured it out. Thanks.

you stating that I am an unbeholder

I fail to see how the two are related. To my statement, (taken from your statements), that you're an unbeholder you could say "yes I am, but.." or "no I'm not".

I don't quite see where "but it's not exclusive and is thus mundane" fits in to any of that.

???


for a start its not clear how you could label me as an unbeholder

You mentioned it on some other thread. :shrug:

Snakelord
“
wake up
”
No... you wake up.

I directly quoted the bg statement: BG 9.26: If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.

I said that was sweet to which you said, and I quote: "with the added advantage of lessening one's chances of developing cancer of the colon"

To which I must now ask again if you have anything to support your claim that offering flowers to gods has the advantage of lessening ones chances of getting cancer.

wake up

“
you are suggesting that eternal life in view of temporary (aka dream like) relationships is not pleasant
”
See, told you you didn't understand. Kindly only respond when you have figured it out. Thanks.
you did type this didn't you?

A couple of things need to be clarified:

1) Will we or wont we give a damn about our mortal loved ones once dead. If the answer is yes, how exactly do we engage in an eternal life with the knowledge that they’re burning, and even more so how can we even consider worshipping and serving a being that is ultimately responsible for their predicament? If the answer is no, I would indeed ask what the value is in having any feelings for others while living a mortal existence when that is going to be the overall outcome in the heavenly realm.

:rolleyes:

“
you stating that I am an unbeholder
”
I fail to see how the two are related. To my statement, (taken from your statements), that you're an unbeholder you could say "yes I am, but.." or "no I'm not".

I don't quite see where "but it's not exclusive and is thus mundane" fits in to any of that.
I said everyone is a beholder of such things

:rolleyes:

wake up

Bravo. A well thought out, worthwhile confirmation of your statement. :bugeye: Get out of my thread.

you did type this didn't you?

Yes I did.

The problem comes in your statement that it's a "temporary relationship", given that one of the arguments premises was that most view the 'soul' if nothing else as eternal, (that means not temporary lg), and thus the question posed is whether we'll give a damn about our loved ones, (whose souls - i.e "them", is as eternal as the rest of us), once we leave mortal existence.

Wake up.

I said everyone is a beholder of such things

Yesssssss, and I then asked why everyone being a beholder of it or not makes it an issue. What does it matter?

“
wake up
”
Bravo. A well thought out, worthwhile confirmation of your statement. Get out of my thread.
in your ecstasy to ad hom I guess you missed the bit in bold

“
you did type this didn't you?
”
Yes I did.

The problem comes in your statement that it's a "temporary relationship", given that one of the arguments premises was that most view the 'soul' if nothing else as eternal, (that means not temporary lg),
most also view the soul and the body as the duality of our existence too

and thus the question posed is whether we'll give a damn about our loved ones, (whose souls - i.e "them", is as eternal as the rest of us), once we leave mortal existence.
you mean what will become of our bodily relationships when the body dies, particularly in light of the soul being reunited in its spiritual medium (aka heaven)?



“
I said everyone is a beholder of such things
”
Yesssssss, and I then asked why everyone being a beholder of it or not makes it an issue. What does it matter?
I guess it depends whether you think making the statement "you are not a beholder" contradicts the notion that "everyone is a beholder"
:m:

LG,

You are quick to dismiss criticisms as ad homs. But if they are indeed accurate criticisms, then how does tagging them as "ad homs" make them any less true?

in your ecstasy to ad hom I guess you missed the bit in bold

Not an ad hom but hey.. if you makes you happy.

Anyway, I did see the bit in bold. What's the point?

In English it would still equate to me saying that offering flowers is sweet and you following on with: "with the added advantage of.." with regards to saying that offering flowers to gods also prevents colon cancer. Let's put it down to language barrier - fine, offering food to the gods doesn't do anything - I get you.

most also view the soul and the body as the duality of our existence too

That's wonderful, was there something you disagreed with or wanted to state with concerns to your statement about temporary relationships even though my questioning was with regards to how one would feel about what are ultimately eternal relationships if they are away from that loved one?

you mean what will become of our bodily relationships when the body dies, particularly in light of the soul being reunited in its spiritual medium (aka heaven)?

Sheesh kebabs. Come back later, I can't be bothered right now writing out the whole thing again for the sake of one person that will probably still not understand.

I guess it depends whether you think making the statement "you are not a beholder" contradicts the notion that "everyone is a beholder

That's entirely irrelevant to what's being said. Let's go through it again.. *pfft*

1) My post stated a question asking what the value or worth was in worshipping one entity for eternity.

2) You countered with some irrelevant garbage about pornography and made the statement that "people are the same from the neck down".

3) I then asked how you could make the statement given that you're an admitted celibate and clearly have a serious dislike to looking at the human form, (established from many discussions with you).

4) You then stated that beauty was in the eye of the beholder.

5) I said, given that you're an unbeholder, of what value is your opinion.

6) You then said "what you anoint as marvelous is incredibly mundane - there is nothing exclusive about it and it is the direct perception of practically everyone, if not all species of life "

Which clearly is not an answer to the question that I asked you. Also note your usage of the word "practically", although for some reason you have now changed that to "everyone". So...

A) Is it "everyone" or "practically everyone"? Make up your mind.

B) Kindly explain how your statement has anything to do with the question asked

C) Then, tenth time lucky perhaps, explain to me why something being done by 'practically' everyone makes it an issue. What does it matter if it's done by everyone?

D) Finally.. kindly explain to me what the fuck any of this has to do with my original post.

LG,

You are quick to dismiss criticisms as ad homs. But if they are indeed accurate criticisms, then how does tagging them as "ad homs" make them any less true?

uuhhh - a criticism of the person (as opposed to the ideas presented by the person) is an ad hom
eg


(My two cents.)

I can't decide if I would like to see lg out of this thread; it certainly would get things back on topic and rid it of any more nonsense...but at the same time, it's so entertaining to read SnakeLord's responses! They'ze great!

Snakelord
“
in your ecstasy to ad hom I guess you missed the bit in bold
”
Not an ad hom but hey.. if you makes you happy.
:rolleyes:

Anyway, I did see the bit in bold. What's the point?

In English it would still equate to me saying that offering flowers is sweet and you following on with: "with the added advantage of.." with regards to saying that offering flowers to gods also prevents colon cancer. Let's put it down to language barrier - fine, offering food to the gods doesn't do anything - I get you.
I guess you have lost track of the whole issue of vegetarianism - anyway it wouldn't be the first time ...

If you meant the former I would have to disagree unless all spiritual people are vegetarians and animal rights activists. If they're not you really can't argue that they're "concerned about all living entities".
“
most also view the soul and the body as the duality of our existence too
”
That's wonderful, was there something you disagreed with or wanted to state with concerns to your statement about temporary relationships even though my questioning was with regards to how one would feel about what are ultimately eternal relationships if they are away from that loved one?
I guess you don't understand the concept of duality (which is the principle that theistic notions of eternal existence operate on)- and further more you have no inclination to understand such a concept .....


“
you mean what will become of our bodily relationships when the body dies, particularly in light of the soul being reunited in its spiritual medium (aka heaven)?
”
Sheesh kebabs. Come back later, I can't be bothered right now writing out the whole thing again for the sake of one person that will probably still not understand.
its quite simple - bodily relationships are the medium of material existence - in an existence that transcends material existence, all aspects of the body (including its relationship with other bodies) is transcended.


“
I guess it depends whether you think making the statement "you are not a beholder" contradicts the notion that "everyone is a beholder
”
That's entirely irrelevant to what's being said
uhh - you said it

Given that you're an "unbeholder", of what value is your opinion?

. Let's go through it again.. *pfft*

1) My post stated a question asking what the value or worth was in worshipping one entity for eternity.

2) You countered with some irrelevant garbage about pornography and made the statement that "people are the same from the neck down".
which culminated in my statement

I guess beauty must lie in the eye of the beholder or something ....



3) I then asked how you could make the statement given that you're an admitted celibate and clearly have a serious dislike to looking at the human form, (established from many discussions with you).
all I said (in previous threads) was that masturbation does not make one a more advanced or elevated person - on the contrary it tends to indicate that one has a few unresolved issues - I hesitate to fathom how you arrived at the whole admitted celibate thing ....

4) You then stated that beauty was in the eye of the beholder.
I suggest you work out the correct order in which the statements fell

your 4) actually fell before your 3)


5) I said, given that you're an unbeholder, of what value is your opinion.
(this even fell in the same paragraph about the pornography - strange how you have divided the two, but hey, whatever makes it easier for you to dismantle an argument ...)

6) You then said "what you anoint as marvelous is incredibly mundane - there is nothing exclusive about it and it is the direct perception of practically everyone, if not all species of life "

Which clearly is not an answer to the question that I asked you.
when a person uses the word "everybody" it tends to include first, second and third persons


Also note your usage of the word "practically", although for some reason you have now changed that to "everyone". So...

A) Is it "everyone" or "practically everyone"? Make up your mind.
I guess anyone who dies before puberty has no notion of sex life (or at best a cloudy one)
probably the same could be argued for assexual organisms

B) Kindly explain how your statement has anything to do with the question asked
if you can't understand how the word "you" is encapsulated by the word "everyone" I guess we are at loggerheads again

C) Then, tenth time lucky perhaps, explain to me why something being done by 'practically' everyone makes it an issue. What does it matter if it's done by everyone?
for the tenth time, if something is done by practically everyone then that means it is not done by practically no one - all this means that there is not much scope for statements such as "You are an unbeholder"
savvy?

uuhhh - a criticism of the person (as opposed to the ideas presented by the person) is an ad hom
Not quite true.

Just attacking the person is an insult.

An Ad Hom is attacking the person in order to discredit the arguments made.


E.g. Providing a reasonable counter-argument and then adding the word NUMBNUTS at the end is merely an insult.

Saying: "But your arguments are invalid because you're a numbnut" is an Ad Hom.

Understand the difference?

You need to separate a true Ad Hom from mere insults.

:rolleyes:

Fine, do tell me how telling you to get out of my thread is an ad hom or for that matter how: "Bravo. A well thought out, worthwhile confirmation of your statement" is a personal attack as opposed to a statement concerning your post, (the post not the person)?

I guess you have lost track of the whole issue of vegetarianism - anyway it wouldn't be the first time ...

Lost track? I'm still trying to figure out what vegetarianism has got to do with my thread.

I guess you don't understand..

Yes, yes, yes.. Was there something specific you disagreed with/wanted to comment on with regards to my original post?

I hesitate to fathom how you arrived at the whole admitted celibate thing ....

Because you said it :bugeye: Of course you've probably done some 500 posts since then so I don't intend to go back and quote you. But whatever, I still don't see how my post is in any way related to pornography or sex.

(this even fell in the same paragraph about the pornography - strange how you have divided the two, but hey, whatever makes it easier for you to dismantle an argument ...)

Uhh no, but nevermind. I refer to post 30, which quoted your statement from post 28. But hey, I still fail to see it's relevance.

when a person uses the word "everybody" it tends to include first, second and third persons

Probably, just a shame then that you said "practically everyone", which does not specifically include the first, second or third person.

if you can't understand how the word "you" is encapsulated by the word "everyone" I guess we are at loggerheads again

Here you go again wiggling out of a statement that you made - which you have also done on other threads, (i.e your statement concerning pigeons). We'll try again: Is there a specific problem with everyone, or practically everyone, engaging in something?

for the tenth time, if something is done by practically everyone then that means it is not done by practically no one - all this means that there is not much scope for statements such as "You are an unbeholder

What are you talking about lol? Ok, although. (as with the rest of your post), it is entirely irrelevant to anything I will just point out that "practically" certainly does leave scope for saying you are an unbeholder - even more so when you're an admitted unbeholder.

Now.. please.. with a cherry on top. Get out of my thread.

Snakelord
“

”
Fine, do tell me how telling you to get out of my thread is an ad hom or for that matter how: "Bravo. A well thought out, worthwhile confirmation of your statement" is a personal attack as opposed to a statement concerning your post, (the post not the person)?
if a person glorifies someone in a way that they are not, is it not an insult?
For instance if I said "snakelord you truly are a brilliant scientist. The whole world will truly benefit from reading your posts. I think you deserve a round of applause from your wife and children every morning" is that not an insult?

“
I guess you have lost track of the whole issue of vegetarianism - anyway it wouldn't be the first time ...
”
Lost track? I'm still trying to figure out what vegetarianism has got to do with my thread.
You brought it up

“
I guess you don't understand..
”
Yes, yes, yes.. Was there something specific you disagreed with/wanted to comment on with regards to my original post?
yep

I guess not only do you not understand but you have no inclination to understand the concept of duality .... pity, because it would give you the opportunity to raise your arguments to the level of "substantial" if you did ....

“
I hesitate to fathom how you arrived at the whole admitted celibate thing ....
”
Because you said it Of course you've probably done some 500 posts since then so I don't intend to go back and quote you.
In the mean time I guess its okay for you to say anything and say that i said it, huh?

But whatever, I still don't see how my post is in any way related to pornography or sex.


“So, what have you been up to since I last saw you 300,000 years ago?”
“Worshipping God, you?”
“Same.” Long pause. “So anyway, do you remember that girl that flashed her boobs at us when we were fifteen?”
“Yeah, that was great that was.”

I guess it must have been your original value judgments


“
when a person uses the word "everybody" it tends to include first, second and third persons
”
Probably, just a shame then that you said "practically everyone", which does not specifically include the first, second or third person.
as already indicated, persons who have not approached puberty and asexual organisms are probably exempt ....

“
if you can't understand how the word "you" is encapsulated by the word "everyone" I guess we are at loggerheads again
”
Here you go again wiggling out of a statement that you made - which you have also done on other threads, (i.e your statement concerning pigeons). We'll try again: Is there a specific problem with everyone, or practically everyone, engaging in something?
only if you want to tag "you have not beheld such engagements" to such statements

“
for the tenth time, if something is done by practically everyone then that means it is not done by practically no one - all this means that there is not much scope for statements such as "You are an unbeholder
”
What are you talking about lol? Ok, although. (as with the rest of your post), it is entirely irrelevant to anything
all you have to do is retract your statement "you are an unbeholder"

I will just point out that "practically" certainly does leave scope for saying you are an unbeholder
how

- even more so when you're an admitted unbeholder.
where did I admit this?
:confused:

Now.. please.. with a cherry on top. Get out of my thread.
if you only want to discuss topics in the company of people who agree with you, this is not the place ....

if a person glorifies someone in a way that they are not, is it not an insult?

Glorifies someone or a post that someone made? There is a key difference. Still, I am at least glad that even you realised the inherent worthlessness of your 'response', if I dare call it that.

For instance if I said "snakelord you truly are a brilliant scientist. The whole world will truly benefit from reading your posts. I think you deserve a round of applause from your wife and children every morning" is that not an insult?

Actually no, that's a compliment - and a highly accurate statement to boot. If on the off chance you were being sarcastic, it's apparent that the difference needs to be highlighted. In your example you started with "Snakelord you.." and then continued purely about me, while also including my family.

Where did any such thing occur in my statement regarding your post, (as opposed to you)?

You brought it up

I see. At least this has brought to light another key issue that needs to be resolved before we can move on.

You stated that in spiritual life ones concerns stretch out to all life. I responded that this couldn't be true unless these people were vegetarians, (yes this in itself is not even perfect but is sufficient to make the point), and must surely all be animal rights activists.

Now.. you then waffle on about an irrelevant matter, (vegetarianism), when that's not what the post or my response to your statement was about. My response was with regards to your claim of 'concern for all life'. Your response to that should therefore be also concerned about that claim and my dispute of it - not details regarding vegetarianism and that even plants are alive and offering plants to god helps stop colon cancer. Can you understand this? To provide an example, your response could be something along the lines of:

"Well, they are concerned, just not concerned enough to not eat them".

That is a response to the refutation of your claim. Waffling on about colon cancer is not. I hope I have made that clear to you.

I guess not only do you not understand...

Were you actually going to say something of substance, (i.e point out specific errors contained in the post etc), or just keep up with the personal attacks? I notice while you have the ability to constantly tell people they don't understand, you never display the decency to point out where the error is etc.

However, I'm not the fussy type. Next time just say "you don't understand anything" and then leave my thread. I'm good with that.

In the mean time I guess its okay for you to say anything and say that i said it, huh?

Not really, but then I didn't realise I would be engaged in conversation with the specific type of character that you now display. You think that you can just change everything you are from one thread to another, and that speaks volumes. It speaks highly of you as a person and perhaps even shows a serious lack of self esteem that you can't even remain consistent in what you have or have not done/seen etc. You're even up to this very same trick on the god and music thread we're also conversing in and I find it distasteful at best. Make an ultimate decision on these things and then stick by them and we wont run into this problem. To be nice I shall actually spend a great deal of time tomorrow tracking down the statement you made. However, I shall also give you the chance to now state your position. In doing so everyone will be able to see whether you indeed have the courage to speak the truth.

So, are you celibate?

(Btw, in this instance a failure to answer suggest guilt. I would advise you try your hardest to answer. Also note that there is no judgement upon you - frankly I don't care in the slightest what you do or don't do with your pinky).

I guess it must have been your original value judgments

Once again the same problem as mentioned earlier appears. That quote from me wasn't about sex.

That should in fact be entirely evident given the text that surrounded that quote. Namely the: "Although some clearly don’t have the problem that I do, I cannot establish how there is any remote value or worth in worshipping one entity for all eternity." before it and the: "While this is an attempt at a witty look at heaven, I find it quite pertinent to express my distaste at the notion of worshipping one entity" directly after it.

That is exactly the problem we need to rectify. Either you're not paying attention, or - from what it seems like to me - you have an 'apologetics guidebook' that has a list of phrases such as "normative descriptions", "bereft of qualification", "electrons", "pornography" and "it's not quite clear" and yet you're unsure when to use them and so just spurt them out whenever you see certain key words, (sex, boobs, vagina etc).

But let me ask you; if you can't work out the context of a statement completely surrounded by the point in a simple 1,000 word story then why would you be a good person to listen to with regards to interpreting scripture?

To point it out the story was concerned with two men that were trying to find something of interest to tell each other. It's like the man and wife that work at the exact same place doing the exact same thing. When they get home they've got nothing to say. Basically these two men have been doing the exact same thing for 30,000 years, (worshipping god), and thus had to go back to something from a mortal existence to be able to relate to each other something of interest and value. No lg, it wasn't about boobs or sex or pornography. The ultimate question then comes in the form of where is the value in such a thing where everyone is doing the exact same thing for all time? To this one can assert that you'll just be happy - but then the counter is that you're no longer 'you' and thus where is the worth?

No lg, this wasn't about sex, or pornography, or cleopatra, or vegetarianism or norwegian tomato farmers.

as already indicated, persons who have not approached puberty and asexual organisms are probably exempt ....

Certainly, along with celibate people and 40 year old virgins.

all you have to do is retract your statement "you are an unbeholder"

This will come tomorrow after you have answered the earlier question and I have pasted your former comment.

if you only want to discuss topics in the company of people who agree with you, this is not the place ....

A misunderstanding on your part i'm afraid. I didn't agree with rjr6 on page 1, but I didn't ask him to leave the thread. I am asking you to leave the thread because I don't feel there's anything of substance you can actually contribute - which is evidenced by your inability to stay on topic, your inability to recognise the point of a point, and your seeming inability to be honest. Now, please leave my thread. You can do so with any impression in your mind that you like - yes I only want atheists, or those that agree, or those with blonde hair.. I really couldn't give a shit.

uuhhh - a criticism of the person (as opposed to the ideas presented by the person) is an ad hom
eg

Yes this is a device honestly inquisitive people should try and avoid. But what of the case that sometimes the criticism of the person and the criticism of the idea are the same thing? If I respond to every question you ask me with a completely irrelevant answer that not only does not contemplate your question where it matters but ever-jumps away in wild tangents, you would be doing a very insightful and beneficial thing to criticize me and my way of answering questions. Your commentary on my "points" would be meaningless and missing the target; the problem would lie in what is behind my points and the deficiency that gives rise to them in the first place.

This is basically what I see you doing, and you respond with an appeal to "ad hom! ad hom!" which is supposed to somehow alleviate any criticism of the above kind, which (in my two cents :p) is what is necessary before engaging in a productive debate with you could be thought of as possible.

Snakelord
“
if a person glorifies someone in a way that they are not, is it not an insult?
”
Glorifies someone or a post that someone made? There is a key difference.
so there is something about
"snakelord, that was a brilliant post - the entire world should read it and applaud your genius"


that makes in less or more of an insult in comparison to

"snakelord you are brilliant - all people of the world benefit from your association"
:confused:


“
For instance if I said "snakelord you truly are a brilliant scientist. The whole world will truly benefit from reading your posts. I think you deserve a round of applause from your wife and children every morning" is that not an insult?
”
Actually no, that's a compliment - and a highly accurate statement to boot.
playing dumb is one way to neutralize sarcastic statements


Where did any such thing occur in my statement regarding your post, (as opposed to you)?
the first half

“
You brought it up
”
I see. At least this has brought to light another key issue that needs to be resolved before we can move on.

You stated that in spiritual life ones concerns stretch out to all life. I responded that this couldn't be true unless these people were vegetarians, (yes this in itself is not even perfect but is sufficient to make the point), and must surely all be animal rights activists.

Now.. you then waffle on about an irrelevant matter, (vegetarianism), when that's not what the post or my response to your statement was about. My response was with regards to your claim of 'concern for all life'. Your response to that should therefore be also concerned about that claim and my dispute of it - not details regarding vegetarianism and that even plants are alive and offering plants to god helps stop colon cancer. Can you understand this? To provide an example, your response could be something along the lines of:

"Well, they are concerned, just not concerned enough to not eat them".

That is a response to the refutation of your claim. Waffling on about colon cancer is not. I hope I have made that clear to you.
the colon cancer was an additional point you decided to focus on


“
I guess not only do you not understand...
”
Were you actually going to say something of substance, (i.e point out specific errors contained in the post etc),
I did
you assume that the eternity of spiritual existence is the body
this is because you don't understand and refuse to understand the concept of duality

BG 2.16 Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

in the absence of understanding this point, your argument, no matter how brilliant it may be, is noting more than a strawman since it aims at defeating an idea not advocated by scripture

or just keep up with the personal attacks? I notice while you have the ability to constantly tell people they don't understand, you never display the decency to point out where the error is etc.
i have noticed that you rarely request a clarification and respond poorly to such presentations


“
In the mean time I guess its okay for you to say anything and say that i said it, huh?
”
Not really, but then I didn't realise I would be engaged in conversation with the specific type of character that you now display. You think that you can just change everything you are from one thread to another, and that speaks volumes.
quote me
:D

It speaks highly of you as a person and perhaps even shows a serious lack of self esteem that you can't even remain consistent in what you have or have not done/seen etc.
rather than constructing yet another argument that has a dubious foundation, quote me

You're even up to this very same trick on the god and music thread we're also conversing in and I find it distasteful at best. Make an ultimate decision on these things and then stick by them and we wont run into this problem. To be nice I shall actually spend a great deal of time tomorrow tracking down the statement you made. However, I shall also give you the chance to now state your position. In doing so everyone will be able to see whether you indeed have the courage to speak the truth.

So, are you celibate?
here I will save you the trouble (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Deco4tJUkMsJ:www.sciforums.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D65105%26page%3D5+celibacy+Lig htgigantic+site:sciforums.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=au)

by this definition I am celibate




“
I guess it must have been your original value judgments
”
Once again the same problem as mentioned earlier appears. That quote from me wasn't about sex.
what was the boob flashing about then?
memories of lactation as an infant?

That should in fact be entirely evident given the text that surrounded that quote. Namely the: "Although some clearly don’t have the problem that I do, I cannot establish how there is any remote value or worth in worshipping one entity for all eternity." before it and the: "While this is an attempt at a witty look at heaven, I find it quite pertinent to express my distaste at the notion of worshipping one entity" directly after it.
and you did that by contrasting sexual imagery with the worship of god

That is exactly the problem we need to rectify. Either you're not paying attention, or - from what it seems like to me - you have an 'apologetics guidebook' that has a list of phrases such as "normative descriptions", "bereft of qualification", "electrons", "pornography" and "it's not quite clear" and yet you're unsure when to use them and so just spurt them out whenever you see certain key words, (sex, boobs, vagina etc).
google "flash boobs" and see what the majority indicates

But let me ask you; if you can't work out the context of a statement completely surrounded by the point in a simple 1,000 word story then why would you be a good person to listen to with regards to interpreting scripture?
the context of your statement was the pointlessness of worshipping god - you could have chosen any one of a million things to contrast that with to reflect your value judgments - you chose

“So anyway, do you remember that girl that flashed her boobs at us when we were fifteen?”

next?

To point it out the story was concerned with two men that were trying to find something of interest to tell each other. It's like the man and wife that work at the exact same place doing the exact same thing. When they get home they've got nothing to say. Basically these two men have been doing the exact same thing for 30,000 years, (worshipping god), and thus had to go back to something from a mortal existence to be able to relate to each other something of interest and value.
lol
and what did you choose for interest and value ?

No lg, it wasn't about boobs or sex or pornography. The ultimate question then comes in the form of where is the value in such a thing where everyone is doing the exact same thing for all time?
which is why i brought up the issue of sex life, and how practically everyone is at it and has been at it since time immemorial, and it still clocks high on the demographics ....


To this one can assert that you'll just be happy - but then the counter is that you're no longer 'you' and thus where is the worth?
I don't understand this statement - I can't fathom whether you are attempting to reiterate my argument in your own words or present a different angle on an existing argument of yours

No lg, this wasn't about sex, or pornography
but it was about what you contrasted in an attempt to present more appealing and interesting values

, or cleopatra, or vegetarianism or norwegian tomato farmers.
but it was about how you understand the proposition of eternal life by theists and it was about the extent to which material and spiritual duties reach

“
as already indicated, persons who have not approached puberty and asexual organisms are probably exempt ....
”
Certainly, along with celibate people and 40 year old virgins.
if by fulfilling such criteria they somehow avoid puberty or are asexual, yes



“
if you only want to discuss topics in the company of people who agree with you, this is not the place ....
”
A misunderstanding on your part i'm afraid. I didn't agree with rjr6 on page 1, but I didn't ask him to leave the thread. I am asking you to leave the thread because I don't feel there's anything of substance you can actually contribute - which is evidenced by your inability to stay on topic, your inability to recognise the point of a point, and your seeming inability to be honest. Now, please leave my thread. You can do so with any impression in your mind that you like - yes I only want atheists, or those that agree, or those with blonde hair.. I really couldn't give a shit.
quit whining and stay on the topic

you assume that the eternity of spiritual existence is the body

Not really. I used a typical concept of heaven in an easy to understand format. Whether a heavenly realm involves a 'body' or a 'soul' isn't really the issue or purpose of the post. I did of course tell you that the post would not be in line with everyone's notion of heavenly realms of afterlives - but if one is to assert that there is an afterlife and you have memories of mortal existence - how would you cope with an eternity away from your mortal loved ones. There are several answers:

1) We wont care about them/wont remember them: If this is the answer I question the value of heaven.

2) We will care: If this is the answer how will we cope with the knowledge that some of our loved ones reside in hell

3) Everyone will be in this heavenly realm: Fine, (although against biblical text).

The bg states: "..of the eternal [the soul] there is no change", so these question remain, as does my original post. In any instance where you see 'person', change it to say 'soul' if that's more to your liking. The person (soul) is eternal. If that person (soul) has memories and is eternal, how would that person (soul) feel knowing that a loved one('s soul) was burning? 1, 2, 3? Is there a 4 perhaps?

This is the discussion. I hope the above has helped you in some manner.

your argument, no matter how brilliant it may be, is noting more than a strawman since it aims at defeating an idea not advocated by scripture

It certainly is advocated by scripture, (although apparently not yours).

I would certainly advise some time spent reading revelations. It depicts the creation of a new earth and jerusalem where god will live among humans while those that swear, are cowards, immoral blah blah go to an eternal lake of sulphur. It goes on to state that this place and indeed humans are quite physical - the place even grows crops, has walls, gates, temples, and city streets. It goes on to say that fortune tellers and dogs must stay outside the city.

It is clear to state that the biblical image of the afterlife is a physical one, not an immaterial one.

Do forgive me for using a biblical template, but I figured it would get more pertinent responses considering this forum probably has more christians than say scientologists or hindus.

Revelations also states that along with no death or pain there will be no sorrow. This is a large part of what I have been trying to state and ask. You see, if there's apparently no sorrow then it would appear that there are two possible answers:

1) We wont give a damn about our loved ones

2) We will give a damn about our loved ones but they'll all be in this heavenly realm.

The second doesn't hold up under scrutiny given biblical statements that many - including unbelievers - go to an eternal burning pit of sulphur instead. Of course I was giving it some benefit of the doubt and hoping someone could relate to me how one would cope in an eternal setting without their loved one being there under the assumption that they did in fact give a damn.

To this you could respond that we wont care, or you could respond that we will care but.. I dunno, all our loved ones will be there or it will at least appear to us as if they're there - a heavenly hallucination if you will. If you can think of anything else please share - but do remember, vegetarians and tomato farmers aren't relevant or very helpful.

here I will save you the trouble

by this definition I am celibate

1) Evasion of the question.

2) Not the post I was referring to. I shall locate it but it takes time.

3) Use standard definition, not lg definition please. Yes or no?

google "flash boobs" and see what the majority indicates

See what I mean about you and irrelevancy? google, "flash boobs" and what the majority indicates has nothing to do with my post in any way whatsoever.

you could have chosen any one of a million things to contrast that with to reflect your value judgments

I could have done, yes. I get the feeling no matter which of those million things I used, you would still consider it an apt and appropriate moment to waffle on about something irrelevant while completely missing the point of the actual post.

lol
and what did you choose for interest and value ?

It is irrelevant to the point of the post. Seriously, you need to get over it - it was just the word "boobs", it's not the end of the world. Why are you so uptight?

which is why i brought up the issue of sex life, and how practically everyone is at it and has been at it since time immemorial, and it still clocks high on the demographics ....

Not according to you a few posts ago who stated you brought it up merely because I said you were an unbeholder. I have indeed been asking you what is wrong with everyone doing it ever since that time and you've evaded answer like the plague. So as that's the case, and you now claim you brought it up to point out that it's boring or worthless because everyone does it then just say so instead of dragging a post on and on pointlessly for the best part of a week.

I might as well point out that the key issue here is 'eternity'. Although most everyone has sex, they don't do so 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year forever and ever. This was indicated with the "30,000 years" - to ask what the value is in conducting the same activity continually for such a length of time - which includes everyone and thus what is there to talk about? (wife/husband same job blah blah).

I don't understand this statement - I can't fathom whether you are attempting to reiterate my argument in your own words or present a different angle on an existing argument of yours

Well, you would be able to fathom it if you had have read the original post which said the exact same thing: "If so they’re not themselves anymore, in which case I would argue as to its value.."

If you are different in this heavenly realm, (i.e you no longer care about loved ones/are happy serving one being for eternity depending upon you as a person - it differs from person to person), then you are no longer 'you'. if you're not 'you', where is the value in it? The question is a simple one.

but it was about what you contrasted in an attempt to present more appealing and interesting values

Actually no. The reason for it is because, in general, a woman flashing her boobs at you is a memorable but very rare event, (this is not to suggest that you can't find porn all over the internet - we're not talking e-boobs here).

How many times have you been walking down the street and some woman has come up and flashed her boobs at you? It's very rare, (generally), and would most likely be memorable. It is also something that most normal people would be able to relate to and understand.

SnakeLord


Whether a heavenly realm involves a 'body' or a 'soul' isn't really the issue or purpose of the post. I did of course tell you that the post would not be in line with everyone's notion of heavenly realms of afterlives - but if one is to assert that there is an afterlife and you have memories of mortal existence - how would you cope with an eternity away from your mortal loved ones. There are several answers:

1) We wont care about them/wont remember them: If this is the answer I question the value of heaven.
or alternatively, one could question the value of material existence - just like waking up makes one question the value of a dream (even though it may have seemed quite gripping at the time ...)

2) We will care: If this is the answer how will we cope with the knowledge that some of our loved ones reside in hell

3) Everyone will be in this heavenly realm: Fine, (although against biblical text).

The bg states: "..of the eternal [the soul] there is no change", so these question remain, as does my original post. In any instance where you see 'person', change it to say 'soul' if that's more to your liking. The person (soul) is eternal. If that person (soul) has memories and is eternal, how would that person (soul) feel knowing that a loved one('s soul) was burning? 1, 2, 3? Is there a 4 perhaps?

This is the discussion. I hope the above has helped you in some manner.
perhaps its a mixture of 1 and 3
suffering, much like happiness, in the material world is something like a phantasmagoria

conditioned life is one bad situation followed by another ... all because of thinking the body is the self

SB 7.25 In his bewildered state, the living entity, accepting the body and mind to be the self, considers some people to be his kinsmen and others to be outsiders. Because of this misconception, he suffers. Indeed, the accumulation of such concocted material ideas is the cause of suffering and so-called happiness in the material world. The conditioned soul thus situated must take birth in different species and work in various types of consciousness, thus creating new bodies. This continued material life is called samsara. Birth, death, lamentation, foolishness and anxiety are due to such material considerations. Thus we sometimes come to a proper understanding and sometimes fall again to a wrong conception of life.

if you insist that one takes one’s bodily existence with them to heaven, then of course one will meet with lamentation, foolishness and anxiety

- in other words the nature of the soul is reality, but the designation it takes under bodily illusion is something like a dream. If one arrives at a position of realizing their eternal nature as a part and parcel of god, what scope would there be to seriously entertain deep feelings of attachment to other souls one encountered through bodily attachments - there are several scriptural incidents where a soul is reanimated into bodily existence - their response to the great rejoicing of his relatives is "which parents are you? I have had many, many different parents during my material sojourn"

“
your argument, no matter how brilliant it may be, is noting more than a strawman since it aims at defeating an idea not advocated by scripture
”
It certainly is advocated by scripture, (although apparently not yours).

I would certainly advise some time spent reading revelations. It depicts the creation of a new earth and jerusalem where god will live among humans while those that swear, are cowards, immoral blah blah go to an eternal lake of sulphur. It goes on to state that this place and indeed humans are quite physical - the place even grows crops, has walls, gates, temples, and city streets. It goes on to say that fortune tellers and dogs must stay outside the city.
there are also descriptions of people, activities and places in the spiritual realm as described in the vedas too

It is clear to state that the biblical image of the afterlife is a physical one, not an immaterial one.
the forms that matter takes in this world have their solid counterparts in the spiritual world (plato ambiguously approached this with his notion of "universals")
In other words in this world we have temporary things, beginning with our bodily sense of self and extending down to everything related to such bodies, however in the spiritual world it is advocated that there are eternal things - hence spiritual existence has more "substance" than the reflections we encounter in this world - at the very least "immaterial" is a poor choice of words since it tends to suggest "voidness"


Do forgive me for using a biblical template, but I figured it would get more pertinent responses considering this forum probably has more christians than say scientologists or hindus.

Revelations also states that along with no death or pain there will be no sorrow. This is a large part of what I have been trying to state and ask. You see, if there's apparently no sorrow then it would appear that there are two possible answers:

1) We wont give a damn about our loved ones

2) We will give a damn about our loved ones but they'll all be in this heavenly realm.


The second doesn't hold up under scrutiny given biblical statements that many - including unbelievers - go to an eternal burning pit of sulphur instead. Of course I was giving it some benefit of the doubt and hoping someone could relate to me how one would cope in an eternal setting without their loved one being there under the assumption that they did in fact give a damn.

To this you could respond that we wont care, or you could respond that we will care but.. I dunno, all our loved ones will be there or it will at least appear to us as if they're there - a heavenly hallucination if you will. If you can think of anything else please share - but do remember, vegetarians and tomato farmers aren't relevant or very helpful.

this is all based on the notion that the bodily existence we have at the moment is all and everything of ourselves
- putting aside the notion of having taken many births and deaths in this world, if you suddenly came to the awareness that your body was nothing more than a vehicle you drove around in, what then?
how would it be possible to seriously get agitated by the vehicular status of others related to your vehicle - imagine how ridiculous it would look if a person driving a toyota felt immense distress to the point of endangering their whole life outlook if their car got totaled - what to speak of how ridiculous it would be if they felt such distress for all toyotas that got totaled

I guess the bottom line is that the intense affection we feel towards our relatives and friends is an aspect of a state of being and spiritual existence is characterized by a much broader state of being that completely transforms the former - hence my whole suggestion of the dreaming thing


“
google "flash boobs" and see what the majority indicates
”
See what I mean about you and irrelevancy? google, "flash boobs" and what the majority indicates has nothing to do with my post in any way whatsoever.
it does indicate what is commonly connotated with the words you use

if you seriously want to avoid such connotations, I suggest you be more careful about your selection of language


“
lol
and what did you choose for interest and value ?
”
It is irrelevant to the point of the post. Seriously, you need to get over it - it was just the word "boobs", it's not the end of the world. Why are you so uptight?
because you insisted that I was getting off topic with talk of value systems and pornography
I am not saying you are on the cutting edge of sex exploitation
I am saying that you contrasted the value of worshiping god with the value of "boob flashing"
which gets back to the issue of where beauty ultimately lies (in the eye of the beholder of course)

“
which is why i brought up the issue of sex life, and how practically everyone is at it and has been at it since time immemorial, and it still clocks high o