Is there a version of eternity...

[Simon Anders]

that sounds appealing to you?

[PsychoticEpisode]

An eternity bedding with virgins sounds good but I would rather spend it here in this universe. So I guess just being immortal will do. When the universe ends does eternity go with it?

[Simon Anders]

An eternity bedding with virgins sounds good but I would rather spend it here in this universe. So I guess just being immortal will do. When the universe ends does eternity go with it?
No concerns about boredom?
How about the fact that time seems to go faster as we age? Would thousands of years go by after a while like days do now?
How would you keep it interesting?

(I am not answering your last question because I am interested in people's imagined experience of eternity and not in putting forth an explanation or set of assertions.)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

An eternity bedding with virgins sounds good

70 virgins? How do they remain virgins???

but I would rather spend it here in this universe. So I guess just being immortal will do. When the universe ends does eternity go with it?

By definition, eternity is beyond the life of this universe.
1111

[Leo Volont]

Eternity is one of the Absolutes along with Infinity, Omnipresence, blah blah. Absolutes such as these started out as mathematical fictions, imaginary concepts. People kept repeating them so much that people began to think of them as Real. But, no, absolutes remain in the province of imaginary mathematical, and now, theological concepts.

There are no real Absolutes. No Eternity has ever happened yet.


An eternity bedding with virgins sounds good but I would rather spend it here in this universe. So I guess just being immortal will do. When the universe ends does eternity go with it?

[PsychoticEpisode]

70 virgins? How do they remain virgins???

If that's what's promised to me by our Lord and maker then I expect Him to deliver. How He does it isn't my concern.:D

[Simon Anders]

There are no real Absolutes. No Eternity has ever happened yet.
Then why isn't it all finished? How do you know it has already been a forever?
A line going back infinitely in time......

[PsychoticEpisode]

No concerns about boredom?
How about the fact that time seems to go faster as we age? Would thousands of years go by after a while like days do now?
How would you keep it interesting?

Not worried about boredom. Immortality is not something I think you can be guaranteed.....I could be vaporised in a heartbeat and That would probably be it. For a mortal and an atheist like myself then eternity is as long as I can stick it out. I'd have to be blessed with some type of unknown power like Superman's to remain alive forever, instant tissue regeneration isn't going to help me if there's nothing left but it would probably stop the aging. There's enough stuff to keep it interesting, like a universe, assuming I am able to learn as I go along.

[scorpius]

There are no real Absolutes. No Eternity has ever happened yet.
HOW can you know this?

[JDawg]

He can't know this, Scorpius and Simon. He can't.

Anyway, no, there is no eternity that sounds appealing to me, simply because it is eternity. Just try to imagine it for a second. I don't think we're wired to want to last forever. I really don't. I mean, seeing all your friends and family again sounds nice, but I can't wrap my mind around the idea of forever.

Would you want to do any one thing forever? I assume my spirit would be as dynamic as I am, correct? So wouldn't my spirit get bored with smiling all day? Wouldn't it maybe perhaps want to get into some mischief? Wouldn't anyone ever feel the need to get into a fight?

Do you think there's cage fighting in heaven?

Anyway, none of the eternities I've heard presented to me are appealing. And for everyone to be happy, it would have to be subjective anyway. Like, I'd have to be able to go to my version of heaven, and you to yours, etc., etc..

[Simon Anders]

Anyway, none of the eternities I've heard presented to me are appealing.
This used to bother me when I was a kid. I would imagine smiling in Heaven.....for billions of years and I found it scary. I was supposed to find it appealing, certainly the better of the options, but there I was finding it scary - it also sounded boring.

[Eidolan]

I don't even know what I want to do with this life. How am I supposed to know how to spend it in eternity?

I figure I could stand eternity as long as I was stuck in a state of euphoria.

[swarm]

Obviously y'all haven't hung out with many virgins.

[lightgigantic]

that sounds appealing to you?
It is said that the distinction between conditioned (repeated temporal existence) and unconditioned life (eternal existence) is where one seeks happiness.

Eternal existence is characterized around being cent per cent socialized around the loving service of god.

Temporary existence is characterized around, to a greater or lesser degree, being socialized around the service of one's self (which extends to "my family, my nation, my people, my species, etc etc")

In short, as long as there is a single bread crumb, separate from god, that we find happiness in, we will have a type of existence that will require temporary senses, temporary body temporary identity etc etc

[Simon Anders]

It is said that the distinction between conditioned (repeated temporal existence) and unconditioned life (eternal existence) is where one seeks happiness.

Eternal existence is characterized around being cent per cent socialized around the loving service of god.

Temporary existence is characterized around, to a greater or lesser degree, being socialized around the service of one's self (which extends to "my family, my nation, my people, my species, etc etc")

In short, as long as there is a single bread crumb, separate from god, that we find happiness in, we will have a type of existence that will require temporary senses, temporary body temporary identity etc etc

For me a loving God would not be interested in eternal service, not needing that service anyway. But that is on the way off topic.

The idea of eternally serving God comes with no image for me, but I must say it does not sound enticing.

[lightgigantic]

For me a loving God would not be interested in eternal service, not needing that service anyway. But that is on the way off topic.
god doesn't require it
we do

The idea of eternally serving God comes with no image for me, but I must say it does not sound enticing.


NOI Verse 7. The holy name, character, pastimes and activities of Krsna are all transcendentally sweet like sugar candy. Although the tongue of one afflicted by the jaundice of avidyä [ignorance] cannot taste anything sweet, it is wonderful that simply by carefully chanting these sweet names every day, a natural relish awakens within his tongue, and his disease is gradually destroyed at the root.

Jaundice is a good example, since the cure for it is to eat sweet things, even though they taste quite bitter to the afflicted person.

As a side point, we are servants by nature - IOW even the filthy rich find actual pleasure in their friends and family.

The drastic change between conditioned and unconditioned life is simply re-directing the service attitude to its proper source

[Betrayer0fHope]

One where nobody died of "natural causes."

[Simon Anders]

god doesn't require it
we doSome of you may. But then service is a poor choice of word - if 'we' require it rather than God does - since it comes from slave and servitude and the concept was definitely defined by the masters.

[lightgigantic]

Some of you may. But then service is a poor choice of word - if 'we' require it rather than God does - since it comes from slave and servitude and the concept was definitely defined by the masters.
servitude is only a dirty word in conditioned existence since the whole thing is artificial. No conditioned soul is capable of fully surrendering to another conditioned soul and no conditioned soul is worthy of such surrender. Still the material game of material masters and servants goes on, while our actual identity as a servant and god's identity as the master goes on in the background ....

[Simon Anders]

servitude is only a dirty word in conditioned existence since the whole thing is artificial. No conditioned soul is capable of fully surrendering to another conditioned soul and no conditioned soul is worthy of such surrender. Still the material game of material masters and servants goes on, while our actual identity as a servant and god's identity as the master goes on in the background ....It's a poor metaphor. And so is surrender. They're old metaphors, they are traditional. But they are poor. Even if one thinks God does not change, we don't have to use old metaphors based on abusive relationships.

And an eternity based on an abusive relationship is not appealing.

[swarm]

that sounds appealing to you?

Seriously. What's eternity?

[Simon Anders]

Seriously. What's eternity?
Perhaps you have a statement.

[lightgigantic]

It's a poor metaphor. And so is surrender. They're old metaphors, they are traditional. But they are poor. Even if one thinks God does not change, we don't have to use old metaphors based on abusive relationships.

And an eternity based on an abusive relationship is not appealing.
What is it exactly that you find abusive about accepting a role as a servant in a loving relationship?

It doesn't even make sense in the material world, what to speak of when you extrapolate it to the spiritual world (IOW in what way is a mother who loves her child abused in the relationship? In what way is child who loves their mother abused? In what ways do they attain a higher state of existence if they are not burdened by such a relationship?, etc etc)
:confused:

[Simon Anders]

What is it exactly that you find abusive about accepting a role as a servant in a loving relationship?

It doesn't even make sense in the material world, what to speak of when you extrapolate it to the spiritual world (IOW in what way is a mother who loves her child abused in the relationship? In what way is child who loves their mother abused? In what ways do they attain a higher state of existence if they are not burdened by such a relationship?, etc etc)
:confused:
In another life, we've been at this juncture before, you and I. There is no need for that metaphor. None at all.

But I doubt either of us will convince the other of their position, so I am going to drop it.

[greenberg]

In another life, we've been at this juncture before, you and I. There is no need for that metaphor. None at all.

But I doubt either of us will convince the other of their position, so I am going to drop it.

I think you shouldn't drop it, though.

I think it might be worthwhile to look into the negative associations that the notion of service brings into your mind, and check how justified those associations are. You yourself said elsewhere that it is important to check what it is that one believes.

Surrendering or serving a fire and brimstone god as usually described by mainstream Christians - this truly is defeat, a giving in to abuse and giving it nice names.

But that god of the Christians is not the only god, their description of God is not the only one there is.

Imagine someone, who, for example, is an expert cook. You like good food, don't you? And if you know someone who cooks really good food, you get all warm and fuzzy around that person when they cook and serve you food, and you really love to eat that food. You're even willing to pay them to cook for you, you are willing to buy the ingredients, you comply with their schedule - as long as you have the opportunity to eat that delicious food they make.

Or, another, example, imagine someone who is an expert philosopher. Really really good to talk to. Much smarter than you, sure, but still, you don't feel like trash around them and you absolutely love to talk to them.

Or an expert gardener or someone you love to cuddle with. Or someone who strikes you as really happy so you love to be around them. And so on.
Why would it be so impossible that God would be like that, all these wonderful qualities in one person?

[Simon Anders]

I think you shouldn't drop it, though.

I think it might be worthwhile to look into the negative associations that the notion of service brings into your mind, and check how justified those associations are. You yourself said elsewhere that it is important to check what it is that one believes.
And in that context I meant 'because perhaps once one realizes what one believes already one will no longer feel the need to continue seeking to build up a belief or to fine the "right" one. '

In relation to 'surrender' and 'service' as core metaphors for the relationship with God (or other relationships), I am not in that position. I know what I believe.

But that god of the Christians is not the only god, their description of God is not the only one there is. Agreed.
But I see no need to prioritize service or surrender. Sure, I'd cook a meal for God and serve it. And accept an invitation for a meal God cooked for me. But as one verb amongst many. The prioritization is unneccessary. And the service goes both ways. Again, as one verb amongst many.

I don't see any need to prioritize them. I am OK with this 'not seeing the need' on my part.

Or, another, example, imagine someone who is an expert philosopher. Really really good to talk to. Much smarter than you, sure, but still, you don't feel like trash around them and you absolutely love to talk to them.

Or an expert gardener or someone you love to cuddle with. Or someone who strikes you as really happy so you love to be around them. And so on.
Why would it be so impossible that God would be like that, all these wonderful qualities in one person?

edit: I am not really sure where 'serve' or 'surrender' need to be used in relation to these people (gods) you describe. I do know people like this and, yes, on occasion, one of us serves the other something, but I don't need to describe the relationship as centered on these verbs.

I am not assuming, at all, that God is the fire and brimstone guy. Now there is someone to surrender to, and there is someone to bow your head and serve and know your place. Or be demolished for not.

It seems in these examples, and also the one LG used with the Mother and Child, it is the older (more expert being) who is serving. But I certainly hope that is not all they are doing.

But if the metaphor works for LG, obviously he (or she) should keep at it. Likewise for you. Perhaps my reaction would have been better - to LG bringing up that metaphor - if I'd put it in more personal terms. It has taken some time for me to work out that I do not need those verbs to be used in the ways they have been used, just as some of the OT ideas of God seem not useful to me. Or worse. It has seemed like some people think I (and everyone) should use these verbs more as core metaphors and this dynamic has not been pleasant.

In any case, they're not for me.

[greenberg]

Simon Anders,


How would you describe valuable relationships, what is the core factor in them?

I imagine there must be such a description, so as to be able to distinguish valuable relationships from unvaluable ones.

[Simon Anders]

Simon Anders,


How would you describe valuable relationships, what is the core factor in them?

I imagine there must be such a description, so as to be able to distinguish valuable relationships from unvaluable ones.
The closer ones have the feeling of love is present and felt.

[swarm]

Perhaps you have a statement.

No. Just a question...what's eternity?

[Simon Anders]

No. Just a question...what's eternity?
I'd rather not define it or try to define it. Eternity is offered or proclaimed in a number of religions, hell even secular people sometimes keep the door open to it with ideas of uploading themselves into digital eternities. So the idea is out there and it means something to people - or perhaps a variety of 'things'. I am curious how people, many of whom hope they can 'have' eternity find that a pleasant thought.

If someone's answer is 'yes', then in the ensuing questioning, perhaps I will get a definition of 'their' eternity, along with the explanation of why it seems like a good thing and how they will 'spend' their time.

[greenberg]

I am curious how people, many of whom hope they can 'have' eternity find that a pleasant thought.

If someone's answer is 'yes', then in the ensuing questioning, perhaps I will get a definition of 'their' eternity, along with the explanation of why it seems like a good thing and how they will 'spend' their time.

I remember years back, I was talking to some Mormons and on their leaflet, there were enticing questions like "Did you know that families can be together forever?" From the Mormons I knew, this was very important to many of them.

It wasn't until just recently that I have thought about this again, and I have felt a great yearning. Not that I would want to be with my family, the way it is now, forever - but the idea of an eternal perfect family life - I find this very attractive.
By "perfect" I am of course implying 'without suffering'.

[Medicine*Woman]

Seriously. What's eternity?
*************
M*W: Anytime someone is put "on hold."

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: Anytime someone is put "on hold."
Funny, this made me think of the expression on a dog's face when you leave them alone in the house. It is the look of someone on the cusp of experiencing enternity (and not pleased about it).

[Simon Anders]

I remember years back, I was talking to some Mormons and on their leaflet, there were enticing questions like "Did you know that families can be together forever?" From the Mormons I knew, this was very important to many of them.

It wasn't until just recently that I have thought about this again, and I have felt a great yearning. Not that I would want to be with my family, the way it is now, forever - but the idea of an eternal perfect family life - I find this very attractive.
By "perfect" I am of course implying 'without suffering'.
I would say I feel a push pull related to this idea. I can relate to your expression of the pull, but is there also something frightening about the idea for you.

[greenberg]

I would say I feel a push pull related to this idea. I can relate to your expression of the pull, but is there also something frightening about the idea for you.

No. How about for you?

[Leo Volont]

Why isn't it all finished? Why are we NOW? We are caught in the Process.

How do we know it has not already been forever? Duh. There is really no way to answer absolute stupidity. When somebody says something so stupid it is an indicator that anything intelligent said in reply will not be understood anyway.

I once was witness to a scene between a Maintenance Sergeant and a Company Commander. Everyone was busy working to get the Company Area and Vehicles ready for General Inspection, but about a half dozen solders were left sitting in the corner watching TV. The Commander demanded to know why these particular troops were not assigned jobs. The Maintenance Sergeant said that he reviewed their Records and observed their low performance ratings and test scores and decided that if these particular solders were put to work under anything less than direct point by point supervision, they were very likely to do more harm than good.

When somebody asks how we know that Forever has not already happened... well, please just sit down over there and watch some TV and try not to break anything.


Then why isn't it all finished? How do you know it has already been a forever?
A line going back infinitely in time......

[Leo Volont]

Do you write against these single people one at a time, or do you write for the World?

Don't answer these particular people with their one question, but answer ALL the People out there with the SAME Question. You might not be able to convince the one person, the one particular village idiot that occassioned the line of discussion, but maybe you will be able to give Food for Thought to hundreds of thousands of other people who may someday see this discussion in some Archeological Find.

In the Theater they say "there are no small roles, just small actors". there is something like that in Intellectual Forums... the importance and intelligence of it all is limited only by our own capacity and efforts. We should not worry about whether some slope-head imbecile understands or not.



But I doubt either of us will convince the other of their position, so I am going to drop it.

[Simon Anders]

No. How about for you?Yes.

[Simon Anders]

There is really no way to answer absolute stupidity.

I agree.

[Simon Anders]

Do you write against these single people one at a time, or do you write for the World?

Neither. I do however get put off by certain kinds of repetition. I felt like I was repeating myself in a way that I did not want to continue and that this had to do with the dynamic between me and LG or perhaps between our ways of looking at the world.

If you are interested in the points I made in that discussion, I might very well find it interesting to write back and forth on the topic to you.

So, I note what you see as a failure of mine when one judges it from an abstract generalizaion.

I also note that the specific topic did not interest you enough to respond to it.

Perhaps it was just fine here in the concrete world that the topic was dropped.

A good call on my part, as it were.

[greenberg]

Yes.

What?

[swarm]

I'd rather not define it or try to define it.

I've noticed a lot of religion consists of arguing about undefined or poorly defined terms and concepts.

It seems to me that any experience would be unbearable should eternity run too long and any experience would be bearable as long as eternity was sufficiently short.

[swarm]

I remember years back, I was talking to some Mormons and on their leaflet, there were enticing questions like "Did you know that families can be together forever?" From the Mormons I knew, this was very important to many of them.

It wasn't until just recently that I have thought about this again, and I have felt a great yearning. Not that I would want to be with my family, the way it is now, forever - but the idea of an eternal perfect family life - I find this very attractive.
By "perfect" I am of course implying 'without suffering'.

Why long for false promises?

"Eternal perfect" is just the big lie.

Get right with your family now. Its hard but its real and their lives and yours pass fast.

My mom just died. My aunt-in-law is dying and a brother-n-law was just in a distillery explosion which seriously injured him.

Having to say good bye is easier when the time you had wasn't wasted.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

If that's what's promised to me by our Lord and maker then I expect Him to deliver. How He does it isn't my concern.:D

Are they virgin males or females?

Eternal existence is characterized around being cent per cent socialized around the loving service of god.

Seems like hell to me.

god doesn't require it
we do

Maybe you do.

servitude is only a dirty word in conditioned existence since the whole thing is artificial. No conditioned soul is capable of fully surrendering to another conditioned soul and no conditioned soul is worthy of such surrender. Still the material game of material masters and servants goes on, while our actual identity as a servant and god's identity as the master goes on in the background ....

How many of your fellow inmates agree?

What is it exactly that you find abusive about accepting a role as a servant in a loving relationship?

It doesn't even make sense in the material world, what to speak of when you extrapolate it to the spiritual world (IOW in what way is a mother who loves her child abused in the relationship? In what way is child who loves their mother abused? In what ways do they attain a higher state of existence if they are not burdened by such a relationship?, etc etc)
:confused:

The next few times they bring your medicine, hold it under your tongue until you can safely dispose of it. I hope you're better soon.
1111

[Simon Anders]

I've noticed a lot of religion consists of arguing about undefined or poorly defined terms and concepts.You are welcome to define the term if you use it. It seems like you are assuming it is best for the OP writer to define the term first. That could work. On the other hand it might limit the discussion first to an argument about the meaning of the word, even amongst people for whom the word is not used and/or is not important. I notice that people do use this word and have beliefs based on it, often that it will be good to live eternally. Given that people believe this, I wanted to hear what those who believe in and use the term find appealing about eternal existence. From that discussion I will get their definition of eternity, while possibly working in parallel with other defintions that other people have.

It seems to me that any experience would be unbearable should eternity run too long and any experience would be bearable as long as eternity was sufficiently short.
It sounds like you, yourself, do not really think in terms of eternal. But if I am incorrect, is eternity something that sounds appealing to you? You can also throw in your definition of eternity if you have one.

[Simon Anders]

What?Potential boredom or indifference. The possibility that terrible things are somehow necessary to give life its vitality or dynamism and that eternity, if it had these, would be unbearable, and if it lacked them would be lacking, and eternally.

Please note: I am not saying that my concerns are correct, simply that I have feelings of repulsion ALSO in relation to eternity.

Do you imagine this eternity playing out in a certain way? I mean, what you would be doing with your time, etc? Would there be goals?

[lightgigantic]

StrangerInAStrangeLa

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Eternal existence is characterized around being cent per cent socialized around the loving service of god.
”
Seems like hell to me.
welcome to the material world, the wonderful alternative

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
god doesn't require it
we do
”
Maybe you do.
meanwhile wring your hands as you are assailed by desire and attachment to things that will shortly not exist, from dead hamsters to fleeting youth ...
:rolleyes:

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Am I on Candid Camera!?!
1111

[Simon Anders]

Am I on Candid Camera!?!
1111Since it happens so rarely, I'd like to mention that I agreed with you, Stranger, generally, in this last interchange with LG.

[Sarkus]

This question reminds me of a quote I read somewhere... but for the life of me can't recall by who or where (sorry):

"Of what joy can eternity be when there is nothing to look forward to, for is it not the imminence of death that makes life worth the living?"

(or words to that effect).

[greenberg]

Potential boredom or indifference. The possibility that terrible things are somehow necessary to give life its vitality or dynamism and that eternity, if it had these, would be unbearable, and if it lacked them would be lacking, and eternally.

Please note: I am not saying that my concerns are correct, simply that I have feelings of repulsion ALSO in relation to eternity.

Do you imagine this eternity playing out in a certain way? I mean, what you would be doing with your time, etc? Would there be goals?

For example, I could cook and clean and such for eternity. Provided, of course, that there would be no ecological or economical strife and no pollution in getting the ingredients and fuel and pots and all things necessary.
I'd also work in the garden and field, starting early, finishing late - I have absolutely no problem with imagining doing this for eternity. And since I would be doing it for all eternity, I wouldn't age or become ill, and always have some level of fitness for being able to work.

I would be absolutely fine if eternity would be just like this life, but without the aging, illness and death in their various forms.

[Enmos]

I've noticed a lot of religion consists of arguing about undefined or poorly defined terms and concepts.

It seems to me that any experience would be unbearable should eternity run too long and any experience would be bearable as long as eternity was sufficiently short.

Eternity will last forever. No one really wants to live forever, trust me.

[cosmictraveler]

Eternity is......


http://www.garciakennels.com/blackness.jpg

[Enmos]

A black rectangle ? :confused:

[cosmictraveler]

Yes, do you doubt me?:shrug:

[Enmos]

No, no... I'm just surprised.
Erm.. how did you acquire this knowledge ?

[greenberg]

Eternity will last forever. No one really wants to live forever, trust me.

Hm. If my teeth would take forever to rot, then they wouldn't actually rot, right? So in eternity, I'd actually keep my teeth, and in a good state at that! And if this same principle is applied to other things - like worn knee joints, blocked arteries, greying hair etc. - then eternity would actually be quite nice. No rotting of teeth, no wearing of knee joints, no greying of hair ...

[cosmictraveler]

I once died and was dead for over 3 minutes and this is all I remember about the time I was dead. They revived me or I wouldn't be here today to enlighten you as to what lies ahead for us all. :)

[Enmos]

Hm. If my teeth would take forever to rot, then they wouldn't actually rot, right? So in eternity, I'd actually keep my teeth, and in a good state at that! And if this same principle is applied to other things - like worn knee joints, blocked arteries, greying hair etc. - then eternity would actually be quite nice. No rotting of teeth, no wearing of knee joints, no greying of hair ...

If you say so. It isn't all down to your physical state, though..

[Enmos]

I once died and was dead for over 3 minutes and this is all I remember about the time I was dead. They revived me or I wouldn't be here today to enlighten you as to what lies ahead for us all. :)

I see what you meant with the black square now. I can't say I disagree ;)

[greenberg]

If you say so. It isn't all down to your physical state, though..

Sure. But if the same principle as mentioned earlier on the example of teeth etc. in eternity applies also to other phenomena, then eternity doesn't seem bad at all. Imagine: no pollution, no fighting, no killing, no dying - wouldn't that be nice.

[Enmos]

Sure. But if the same principle as mentioned earlier on the example of teeth etc. in eternity applies also to other phenomena, then eternity doesn't seem bad at all. Imagine: no pollution, no fighting, no killing, no dying - wouldn't that be nice.

No life.

[Simon Anders]

For example, I could cook and clean and such for eternity. Provided, of course, that there would be no ecological or economical strife and no pollution in getting the ingredients and fuel and pots and all things necessary.
I'd also work in the garden and field, starting early, finishing late - I have absolutely no problem with imagining doing this for eternity. And since I would be doing it for all eternity, I wouldn't age or become ill, and always have some level of fitness for being able to work.

I would be absolutely fine if eternity would be just like this life, but without the aging, illness and death in their various forms.That's great. I envy that you have no residual concern that something would be missing or unbearable.

[greenberg]

No life.

How do you figure that?

[Enmos]

How do you figure that?

Same principle you applied to rotting teeth etc.. :shrug:

[lightgigantic]

Am I on Candid Camera!?!
1111

as if growing old and owning a hamster that dies is exclusive

meh
:rolleyes:

[lightgigantic]

I once died and was dead for over 3 minutes and this is all I remember about the time I was dead. They revived me or I wouldn't be here today to enlighten you as to what lies ahead for us all. :)
Kind of like a person calling the international shots on a country's sights and scenes when they spent 15 minutes in the transit lounge ....

[lightgigantic]

Same principle you applied to rotting teeth etc.. :shrug:
You currently have no life?
:confused:

[Enmos]

You currently have no life?
:confused:

Read.. LG, read :cool:

[lightgigantic]

If you say so. It isn't all down to your physical state, though..

No life.

Same principle you applied to rotting teeth etc.. :shrug:
:shrug:

[Enmos]

:shrug:

Funny stuff LG :D

[lightgigantic]

Funny stuff LG :D
whenever you're ready to paraphrase your statements ....

[Enmos]

whenever you're ready to paraphrase your statements ....

I don't seem to recall saying that to you though, I thought I addressed that to Greenberg.. :shrug:
Nosy ?

[lightgigantic]

I don't seem to recall saying that to you though, I thought I addressed that to Greenberg.. :shrug:
Nosy ?
:shrug:

[greenberg]

I don't seem to recall saying that to you though, I thought I addressed that to Greenberg.
Nosy ?

It's a public forum. It adds to the discussion if other people too pick up a theme discussed between two posters.

[greenberg]

Same principle you applied to rotting teeth etc..

So things like rotting teeth etc. are all there is to life?

Why then did you say:

It isn't all down to your physical state, though..

-?

[Enmos]

So things like rotting teeth etc. are all there is to life?

Why then did you say:



-?

You said:
Sure. But if the same principle as mentioned earlier on the example of teeth etc. in eternity applies also to other phenomena, then eternity doesn't seem bad at all. Imagine: no pollution, no fighting, no killing, no dying - wouldn't that be nice.

:shrug:

[greenberg]

Enmos -

You seem to think that if there is no pollution, no fighting, no killing, no dying - then there is no life?
How do you come to that conclusion?

[Simon Anders]

Kind of like a person calling the international shots on a country's sights and scenes when they spent 15 minutes in the transit lounge ....in shock, no less.

[Enmos]

It's a public forum. It adds to the discussion if other people too pick up a theme discussed between two posters.

He is just trying to be a smart ass.

[Enmos]

Enmos -

You seem to think that if there is no pollution, no fighting, no killing, no dying - then there is no life?
How do you come to that conclusion?

How did you extend "teeth taking forever to rot, thus not rotting" to "no pollution, no fighting, no killing, no dying".
I'm curious now..

[Simon Anders]

enmos,
you need to look at your post #62. There you respond to that list with 'no life.'

[Enmos]

enmos,
you need to look at your post #62. There you respond to that list with 'no life.'

I know, it was a response to Greens post.. but I'm waiting for Greens explanation. Possibly I didn't get what he meant.

[Enmos]

Hm. If my teeth would take forever to rot, then they wouldn't actually rot, right? So in eternity, I'd actually keep my teeth, and in a good state at that! And if this same principle is applied to other things - like worn knee joints, blocked arteries, greying hair etc. - then eternity would actually be quite nice. No rotting of teeth, no wearing of knee joints, no greying of hair ...

If you say so. It isn't all down to your physical state, though..

Sure. But if the same principle as mentioned earlier on the example of teeth etc. in eternity applies also to other phenomena, then eternity doesn't seem bad at all. Imagine: no pollution, no fighting, no killing, no dying - wouldn't that be nice.

No life.

See what I mean ?

[Simon Anders]

I know, it was a response to Greens post.. but I'm waiting for Greens explanation. Possibly I didn't get what he meant.
It seemed like you were making an assertion. If you do not have those things (on the list) you do not have life. Is that what you meant?

[Enmos]

It seemed like you were making an assertion. If you do not have those things (on the list) you do not have life. Is that what you meant?

No, see my post above.

[Simon Anders]

I did.

Still....

It seemed like you were making an assertion. If you do not have those things (on the list) you do not have life. Is that what you meant?

[Enmos]

Huh ? I'm very confused right now..
Either I completely misunderstood Green, or I'm the only one that did understand him.

:shrug:

He is applying his "not rotting teeth" principle to everything and arrives at 'no death'. If that applies then it must also mean 'no life'.

[greenberg]

He is just trying to be a smart ass.

Is he?
I know he is smart. I also know he is not an ass. :p

[Enmos]

Is he?
I know he is smart. I also know he is not an ass. :p

He probably has an ass though :D

[swarm]

Eternity will last forever. No one really wants to live forever, trust me.

Some claim they do. How long is forever? All the time there is? All the time you have? Is it more than a moment? Less? How do I know I'm not already living forever?

Greenberg, why do you assume you don't decay for eternity? A long logarithmic slide into oblivion?

[swarm]

is eternity something that sounds appealing to you?

Duration itself cannot be evaluated sans is context.

So far the only eternity to date, which passed before my birth, was unremarkable from my current personal perspecitve.

[Enmos]

Some claim they do. How long is forever? All the time there is? All the time you have? Is it more than a moment? Less?
Forever. For all time. Until the end of time.
I think they don't know what they are talking about.

How do I know I'm not already living forever?
:confused:

[JDawg]

I just had a thought, but I'm not sure if it's big enough for its own thread...it might be a bit off-topic...well, it is off-topic, but it concerns eternity, so it's not all that off-topic...

Anyway, hasn't anyone ever wondered just what the hell the point of a heaven would be? Think about it...doesn't the whole notion of it sound ridiculous? The idea of spending forever someplace? Aside from that, what's the point? Couldn't a god just as easily let us blink out of existence at death? Don't you think that's better than having to contemplate eternity? Better yet, how would it be worse? It's not even an "all or nothing" question, since you'd never know you were missing out.

Anybody?

[Enmos]

I just had a thought, but I'm not sure if it's big enough for its own thread...it might be a bit off-topic...well, it is off-topic, but it concerns eternity, so it's not all that off-topic...

Anyway, hasn't anyone ever wondered just what the hell the point of a heaven would be? Think about it...doesn't the whole notion of it sound ridiculous? The idea of spending forever someplace? Aside from that, what's the point? Couldn't a god just as easily let us blink out of existence at death? Don't you think that's better than having to contemplate eternity? Better yet, how would it be worse? It's not even an "all or nothing" question, since you'd never know you were missing out.

Anybody?

I agree that it's ridiculous, especially if you count in the free-will aspect.
Seems to me the biblical heaven and hell are pretty much the same thing :D

[JDawg]

I agree that it's ridiculous, especially if you count in the free-will aspect.
Seems to me the biblical heaven and hell are pretty much the same thing :D

I wonder sometimes if the whole idea of the afterlife is meant more to comfort those who fear their own deaths, or those who grieve lost ones. I wonder which one it was originally supposed to serve...

Because it's a really basic premise. I mean, eternal life is the perfect cure-all to what must have just been a shitty existence in those times, but it's not very imaginative.

[Enmos]

I wonder sometimes if the whole idea of the afterlife is meant more to comfort those who fear their own deaths, or those who grieve lost ones. I wonder which one it was originally supposed to serve...

Because it's a really basic premise. I mean, eternal life is the perfect cure-all to what must have just been a shitty existence in those times, but it's not very imaginative.

I'm leaning towards war. What could be a better motivator to die for your God than to know you won't actually die at all, but instead receive the biggest award of all ?
Or more generally, control over the people (not just the heaven and hell thing, but the whole of religion)

[Enmos]

I think it's really interesting that it stuck for so long.. perhaps throughout the millennia some sort of selection took place.

[JDawg]

I'm leaning towards war. What could be a better motivator to die for your God than to know you won't actually die at all, but instead receive the biggest award of all ?
Or more generally, control over the people (not just the heaven and hell thing, but the whole of religion)

Still, death is at the center of it. So by what you've said here, it sounds like you believe it meant to serve those who feared death itself, rather than the loss of someone they love.

See, I tend to think it goes the other way. We have such elaborate funerals and burials and tombs and things of that sort, I tend to think that the notion of the afterlife and all of that stuff was simply to ease grief rather than fear. I think using it as a reward in war probably came later.

[JDawg]

I think it's really interesting that it stuck for so long.. perhaps throughout the millennia some sort of selection took place.

You mean that faith has lasted so long? Or specifically the belief in an afterlife?

Don't you remember being a kid and believing in something like Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy? Or the monster in your closet, or under your bed? When you don't know the answer to something--when you can't know the answer--it's very easy to just give it attributes anyway. Consider the nature of faith--it's all about death. Every reward of faith comes in this supposed afterlife--not in mortal life, but the afterlife. All of it is centered around things we just don't know. That's why it's stuck.

[greenberg]

Greenberg, why do you assume you don't decay for eternity? A long logarithmic slide into oblivion?

It's a matter of logical analysis:

For a tooth to rot would take x units of time. Right? This is how the concept of decay works - in a particular extent of time, the decay takes place, until it is complete.

For example, "It took uncle Tom's molar 45 years to rot."
Now, if we keep the same conceptual structure, and replace the time unit "45 years" with "eternity", we get:
"It took uncle Tom's molar an eternity to rot."
When does eternity finish? Never. Ergo, the decay has never completed. Ergo, uncle Tom's molar never rot.

[lightgigantic]

JDawg
I just had a thought, but I'm not sure if it's big enough for its own thread...it might be a bit off-topic...well, it is off-topic, but it concerns eternity, so it's not all that off-topic...

Anyway, hasn't anyone ever wondered just what the hell the point of a heaven would be? Think about it...doesn't the whole notion of it sound ridiculous? The idea of spending forever someplace? Aside from that, what's the point? Couldn't a god just as easily let us blink out of existence at death? Don't you think that's better than having to contemplate eternity? Better yet, how would it be worse? It's not even an "all or nothing" question, since you'd never know you were missing out.

Anybody?
The notion of eternity becomes repulsive when we determine its value by material standards. As you accurately determine, death is a great mercy in this world since there is no eternal platform of pleasure.

The argument is, however, that there is a different value involved in a liberated existence. In other words, there is a type of pleasure afforded in liberated existence that if fully accommodating to an eternal identity. In this world we don't find any "object" (whether it is one's car, one's family and friends, one's fame or even one's body) that is resistant to change. Nonetheless, we adamantly serve these objects in the pursuit of pleasure.

The idea of heaven is that god is the centre of service, and god (unlike practically anything else we experience in this world) does not change. If one comes to the state of dovetailing one's desire to finding pleasure in god, then that is sufficient to qualify them for liberated existence. Unfortunately we get waylaid by illusion and more often then not find pleasure in things which will shortly not exist ... so the whole scene becomes one of the cheater and the cheated ... which is certainly an unpleasant prospect for eternity

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

JDawg

The notion of eternity becomes repulsive when we determine its value by material standards. As you accurately determine, death is a great mercy in this world since there is no eternal platform of pleasure.

The argument is, however, that there is a different value involved in a liberated existence. In other words, there is a type of pleasure afforded in liberated existence that if fully accommodating to an eternal identity. In this world we don't find any "object" (whether it is one's car, one's family and friends, one's fame or even one's body) that is resistant to change. Nonetheless, we adamantly serve these objects in the pursuit of pleasure.

The idea of heaven is that god is the centre of service, and god (unlike practically anything else we experience in this world) does not change. If one comes to the state of dovetailing one's desire to finding pleasure in god, then that is sufficient to qualify them for liberated existence. Unfortunately we get waylaid by illusion and more often then not find pleasure in things which will shortly not exist ... so the whole scene becomes one of the cheater and the cheated ... which is certainly an unpleasant prospect for eternity

Hell.
1111

[Simon Anders]

Duration itself cannot be evaluated sans is context. A very logical answer. Do you ever find anything appealing or unappealing despite what logic indicates you should feel?

[lightgigantic]

Hell.
1111
meanwhile, make yourself at home (complete with rotting molars, dead hamsters and fleeting youth or whatever ...)
:o

[swarm]

A very logical answer. Do you ever find anything appealing or unappealing despite what logic indicates you should feel?

Actually its experiencial and just coincidentally logical as well.

If I tell you you are going to spend some time, is that appealing with no idea how it is spent?

Time itself is necessary but not sufficient to having a good time.

There is however a potential exception to this. One would presume there is a point at which one who is enlightened is complete unto himself, empty, unmoved, at peace. Such a person's state would no longer be effected by external considerations and eternity in heaven or hell would be no different one from the other.

Of course since eternity, perfectly enlightened beings, heaven and hell are all just idle chatter, we are left with actual time and real people who do things in time, derive experience from the combination and become tired of what they are doing.

[Enmos]

Still, death is at the center of it. So by what you've said here, it sounds like you believe it meant to serve those who feared death itself, rather than the loss of someone they love.

See, I tend to think it goes the other way. We have such elaborate funerals and burials and tombs and things of that sort, I tend to think that the notion of the afterlife and all of that stuff was simply to ease grief rather than fear. I think using it as a reward in war probably came later.

Perhaps you're right.

[Enmos]

You mean that faith has lasted so long? Or specifically the belief in an afterlife?

Don't you remember being a kid and believing in something like Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy? Or the monster in your closet, or under your bed? When you don't know the answer to something--when you can't know the answer--it's very easy to just give it attributes anyway. Consider the nature of faith--it's all about death. Every reward of faith comes in this supposed afterlife--not in mortal life, but the afterlife. All of it is centered around things we just don't know. That's why it's stuck.

I mean faith in a god.. religions.
I see what you mean with the kid-story, but usually people grow up and see how things really are. Why does religion stick ?

[Simon Anders]

Actually its experiencial and just coincidentally logical as well.

If I tell you you are going to spend some time, is that appealing with no idea how it is spent?
In a sense your rhetorical question is in part an answer. For you it would depend on what you were doing, the mere idea of an unbelievably long time is not daunting for you. We've been talking about eternity - I am aware of non-durational versions of this, but since you mention 'some time' above I will look at Joe on the street's version. Given your rhetorical - and perhaps also actual - question above, I get the impression that a billion years, as long as you expect to be experiencing this or that and not experiencing certain other things, at least regularly, could be at worst not unappealing.

I think there are other people who would find the idea daunting or scary.

So this last response to me, which expresses the ideas rather universally, it seems to me is actually a specific, personal response. Which is, of course, what I am looking for, at least also.

[swarm]

It's a matter of logical analysis:

For a tooth to rot would take x units of time. Right? This is how the concept of decay works - in a particular extent of time, the decay takes place, until it is complete.

For example, "It took uncle Tom's molar 45 years to rot."
Now, if we keep the same conceptual structure, and replace the time unit "45 years" with "eternity", we get:
"It took uncle Tom's molar an eternity to rot."
When does eternity finish? Never. Ergo, the decay has never completed. Ergo, uncle Tom's molar never rot.

You have made a crucial mistake here. Uncle Tom's molars never finish rotting, or rather at they do when t = eternity, but they do the most significant portion of their rotting in the beginning and continue to rot forever.

An endless decay.

[greenberg]

You have made a crucial mistake here. Uncle Tom's molars never finish rotting, or rather at they do when t = eternity, but they do the most significant portion of their rotting in the beginning and continue to rot forever.

An endless decay.

In that case, the teeth have to renew to some extent forever too, so that there is dental matter to rot for all eternity; and if they renew, it can't rightfully be said that they are rotting.


Anyway, this is a logical and practical cunundrum, and I am not sure that the conceptual framework of our usual everyday experience of impermanence and change can be adequately transfered onto eternity.

We sometimes tend to think that eternity is simply life as we usually know it, but prolonged indefinitely, without there being a death at the end, only age.

But there are "versions" of eternity where there is no birth, aging, illness and death, so most of what we usually think is "real" wouldn't apply there to begin with.

[JDawg]

JDawg

The notion of eternity becomes repulsive when we determine its value by material standards. As you accurately determine, death is a great mercy in this world since there is no eternal platform of pleasure.

The argument is, however, that there is a different value involved in a liberated existence. In other words, there is a type of pleasure afforded in liberated existence that if fully accommodating to an eternal identity. In this world we don't find any "object" (whether it is one's car, one's family and friends, one's fame or even one's body) that is resistant to change. Nonetheless, we adamantly serve these objects in the pursuit of pleasure.

The idea of heaven is that god is the centre of service, and god (unlike practically anything else we experience in this world) does not change. If one comes to the state of dovetailing one's desire to finding pleasure in god, then that is sufficient to qualify them for liberated existence. Unfortunately we get waylaid by illusion and more often then not find pleasure in things which will shortly not exist ... so the whole scene becomes one of the cheater and the cheated ... which is certainly an unpleasant prospect for eternity

Well, I suppose that's as fair an answer as there is.

I mean faith in a god.. religions.
I see what you mean with the kid-story, but usually people grow up and see how things really are. Why does religion stick ?

Because the questions answered by the existence of a god don't always have other obvious alternatives. Consider what it was that made you realize Santa didn't really exist; likely, it was either catching your parents in the act, or hearing every other kid at school say it wasn't true because their parents said so. If you lived in a bubble where you couldn't really have access to the alternatives to the story, you'd probably still believe in Santa.

Religion is similar. Can you tell me what created the universe? Can you tell me why the universe exists? Can you tell me what happens to our consciousness when we die? Because the quickest, easiest answer is "God did it", that's what makes religion last. If the day ever comes that we can answer those questions, you'll see religion fade. Of course, they'll likely be replaced by new religions that answer the new questions that will inevitably arrise.

[Enmos]

In that case, the teeth have to renew to some extent forever too, so that there is dental matter to rot for all eternity; and if they renew, it can't rightfully be said that they are rotting.


Anyway, this is a logical and practical cunundrum, and I am not sure that the conceptual framework of our usual everyday experience of impermanence and change can be adequately transfered onto eternity.

We sometimes tend to think that eternity is simply life as we usually know it, but prolonged indefinitely, without there being a death at the end, only age.

But there are "versions" of eternity where there is no birth, aging, illness and death, so most of what we usually think is "real" wouldn't apply there to begin with.

Green they just rot and fall out and then you have to live eternity without teeth.
Why do you think time grinds to virtual hold when you live forever ? It makes no sense.

[Enmos]

Because the questions answered by the existence of a god don't always have other obvious alternatives. Consider what it was that made you realize Santa didn't really exist; likely, it was either catching your parents in the act, or hearing every other kid at school say it wasn't true because their parents said so. If you lived in a bubble where you couldn't really have access to the alternatives to the story, you'd probably still believe in Santa.

Religion is similar. Can you tell me what created the universe? Can you tell me why the universe exists? Can you tell me what happens to our consciousness when we die? Because the quickest, easiest answer is "God did it", that's what makes religion last. If the day ever comes that we can answer those questions, you'll see religion fade. Of course, they'll likely be replaced by new religions that answer the new questions that will inevitably arrise.

All excellent points, and I agree.
However, I don't believe people believe in god to explain the creation of the universe (if such a thing even happened in the first place), what happens after you die, etc.
It's simply because they have been indoctrinated to believe. I don't think many theists have come to believe through a rational process.

[greenberg]

Green they just rot and fall out and then you have to live eternity without teeth.

In which case it cannot be said that they rot forever.


Why do you think time grinds to virtual hold when you live forever ? It makes no sense.

It seems that your understanding of eternity is basically this:
"Eternity is simply life as we usually know it, but prolonged indefinitely, without there being a death at the end, only age."

[greenberg]

However, I don't believe people believe in god to explain the creation of the universe (if such a thing even happened in the first place), what happens after you die, etc.
It's simply because they have been indoctrinated to believe. I don't think many theists have come to believe through a rational process.

Agreed. Hence at least in some religious traditions, there is focus on eliminating blind faith and pursuing direct knowledge/perception.

[Enmos]

In which case it cannot be said that they rot forever.
No, but you made that assertion, no one else did.

It seems that your understanding of eternity is basically this:
"Eternity is simply life as we usually know it, but prolonged indefinitely, without there being a death at the end, only age."
That's my understanding of living forever. Why should it be anything else ?
Eternity in itself doesn't require life.

[JDawg]

All excellent points, and I agree.
However, I don't believe people believe in god to explain the creation of the universe (if such a thing even happened in the first place), what happens after you die, etc.
It's simply because they have been indoctrinated to believe. I don't think many theists have come to believe through a rational process.

Well, yes, but these are the reasons why they continue to believe. Remember, the Bible begins with the story of creation...I'd say it plays a pretty important role in their faith.

Also, explaining the creation of the universe is likely among the reasons religion was created.

[Enmos]

Well, yes, but these are the reasons why they continue to believe. Remember, the Bible begins with the story of creation...I'd say it plays a pretty important role in their faith.

Also, explaining the creation of the universe is likely among the reasons religion was created.
Sure, but my question was why religion persists ;)

[Simon Anders]

No, but you made that assertion, no one else did.Actually someone else did and perhaps it seemed you were joining their discussion.

[swarm]

In that case, the teeth have to renew to some extent forever too, so that there is dental matter to rot for all eternity; and if they renew, it can't rightfully be said that they are rotting.

No a logrithmic slide into decay will do the job starting with the available teeth.


But there are "versions" of eternity where there is no birth, aging, illness and death, so most of what we usually think is "real" wouldn't apply there to begin with.

Sounds void to me.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

It can't take eternity for something to happen. Either it happens or it doesn't. Either it takes 30 years or 30 trillion millennia. "Taking eternity" means it never happens.
1111

[lightgigantic]

It can't take eternity for something to happen. Either it happens or it doesn't. Either it takes 30 years or 30 trillion millennia. "Taking eternity" means it never happens.
1111
I think that is greenberg's point ....
:o

[Enmos]

I think that is greenberg's point ....
:o

That last bit is Greens point.

[swarm]

It can't take eternity for something to happen. Either it happens or it doesn't. Either it takes 30 years or 30 trillion millennia. "Taking eternity" means it never happens.
1111

Some things are discrete events, like a bulb burning out. Somethings are not, like radioactive decay.

In this hypothetical event we have a logarithmic decay which ends in totality at infinity.

[Simon Anders]

another way to look at the issue is
some people are saying if there is an experiencer there must be decay.
This is an assertion about possibility.
It cannot be proven by pointing out how things are locally.

[laladopi]

complete divine blissful harmony.