Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we be possibly be happy in Heaven?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 132 (59289)
10-03-2003 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Philo-sopher
10-03-2003 6:03 AM


Truely they are recognizable in the actions of a mind, being demonstrable in the things that a mind has created.
Nope. It's only recognizable through communications with said mind. Not every action is a communication. In fact most of them aren't.
Given a totally alien tool, absent of its context, how would you determine it's purpose? You haven't even begun to answer this question, and it's really at the crux of the matter. What's the purpose of a screwdriver to a man who's never seen a screw?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-03-2003 6:03 AM Philo-sopher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-05-2003 1:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

Philo-sopher
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 132 (59506)
10-05-2003 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coragyps
10-03-2003 2:00 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
Good point. But how do we determine how important moral laws are? Jesus worked on the Sabbath - doing good things - It was the Pharisees who wanted to stone him to death for doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 10-03-2003 2:00 PM Coragyps has not replied

Philo-sopher
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 132 (59507)
10-05-2003 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Rrhain
10-03-2003 9:01 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
IF there were such things as demons, embodying absolute HATE then there would probably be a law against them. IF there is such a being as an ALMIGHTY GOD, embodying absolute GOODNESS then it is correct to only worship Him. The First Commandment is conditional upon ALMIGHTY GOD existing - and in the light of that existence, is eminently reasonable.
If a being of ABSOLUTE GOODNESS exists then it would necessarily be the correct object of worship, and we might also be morally obliged to worship it.
In the circumstance that we don't know of the existence of such a being, then the First Commandment cannot apply.
The First Amendment assumes that there is no moral obligation to worship one object over another - perhaps this is because it assumes there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 10-03-2003 9:01 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 10-06-2003 8:27 AM Philo-sopher has not replied

Philo-sopher
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 132 (59508)
10-05-2003 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
10-03-2003 9:43 PM


Dear Mr Frog,
Re: alien screwdrivers
The action of any creature is usually motivated by a need of some sort. Need for food, air, reproduction, expression etc. Without any needs, a creature would not do much if anything in the way of actions. Each of these needs constitutes a purpose, since the creature is guiding it's actions so as to reach a state of need satisfaction - the purpose being need satisfaction.
Almost all, if not all conscious actions are guided by such purposes. Being as all actions are motivated by needs, and needs constitute purposes, then nearly all actions express purposes.
So your first point that most actions do not express purpose is simply not true. Without purpose there would be no action.
That purpose is perceivable without direct verbal communication, is apparent from a simple observation concerning your own species.
If we take a glass of water, and invert it over the surface of a pond; if we then release a frog into the glass, it is observed that the frog, in it's desire to breath air, will adjust it's direction of swimming inorder to dive beneath the rim of the glass and back up to the air. The frog's behaviour expresses a purpose. If the frog's behaviour were purposeless it would most likely end up suffocating.
I do not think you can divorce a purposeful action from it's environment. Take away the air and water, and the frog's behaviour would not make sense. A human being might act purposefully to avoid a painful stimuli. To abstract his actions out of the context of a painful situation renders his actions meaningless. The purpose of a creature is found in the FULFILLMENT of it's needs within an environment. A creature or thing existing in a NON-ENVIRONMENT by definition would be incapable by whatever action of fulfilling any purpose. Purpose exists in the relation of creature to environment. This does not make purpose any less real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 10-03-2003 9:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 132 (59515)
10-05-2003 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Philo-sopher
10-03-2003 6:35 AM


Re: Happiness in Heaven
MMMeeeeeee! Defeatist!!!? OOHHH! But, whatever do you possibly mean my good Philo-sopher?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-03-2003 6:35 AM Philo-sopher has not replied

Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 132 (59523)
10-05-2003 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Philo-sopher
10-03-2003 6:17 AM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
AHHAAA! God Does Change!?! I used to think he was imutable(unchanging), and that was what I was tought when I was a fundamentalist x-ian. BUT, and it's a BIIIGG BUT, I was also tought Dispensationalism: the idea that God changed the way he related to people throughout Biblical history. So you say that God "roasted" Jesus and stopped demanding roasted sheep as an atonement for sin. Well now, not only does God change things(and his mind), He has Jesus (His son) killed to appease Himself. You're right about one thing; the altar no longer smells of burning flesh. It smells fishy, like CHILD-SACRIFICE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-03-2003 6:17 AM Philo-sopher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-05-2003 8:45 PM Prozacman has replied

Philo-sopher
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 132 (59595)
10-05-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Prozacman
10-05-2003 2:54 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
Yes...well....As you know Christians don't practice child-sacrifice. And God only practiced it once, and that was on Himself (since Jesus is God). In a sense God is a Child, and in another sense GOd is the Ancient of Days, so using the word "child" in it's everyday sense may be a misnomer.
Whether God changes His mind or not about things..... Do YOU change your mind about things? If God is vastly superior to you, shouldn't He be able to change His mind that much FASTER.
Your argument is interesting. It suggests that God appears as inconsistent through Biblical History. This would imply that qualities shown at one time are contradicted by qualities shown at another time. You may have a point. The Old Testament God is a God of Judgement and war. The New Testament God is a god of Love. God is a god of both judgement and love. Most people might express these two emotions in the same day - God chose to express them in different ages. He has always been the same God having the same qualities of Judgement and Love; it is just that He expressed different qualities at different times; so God Himself, has not changed.
On the subject of animal sacrifice. Nowadays it appears stupid and barbaric that an innocent creature should suffer pain and death for the misdemeanors of human beings. But remember that on the Day of Atonement, God chose the animal that would be sacrificed to the Lord by lottery. It was to be an animal without blemish. It would bear the sins of all the people. Just like Jesus, these animals are now in heaven, glorified - because, though innocent, they bore the punishment for the sins of people... God bless them
Why did God allow the animals to be sacrificed in the first place? Why didn't He send His Son earlier? I don't know....All I know is that for any animal to be able to substitute for Jesus, it must have received the same reward that Jesus received from the Father.
I believe that animals have souls, and they are very sentient. Hence I am a vegetarian - and I know that all Christians should be also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Prozacman, posted 10-05-2003 2:54 PM Prozacman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by zephyr, posted 10-05-2003 11:51 PM Philo-sopher has replied
 Message 99 by Rei, posted 10-06-2003 2:23 AM Philo-sopher has not replied
 Message 102 by Prozacman, posted 10-06-2003 5:47 PM Philo-sopher has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 98 of 132 (59620)
10-05-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Philo-sopher
10-05-2003 8:45 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
Philo...
Can you cite a biblical basis for what you're saying? I'm a vegetarian myself, and am all for the avoidance of animal suffering... but the only Christians I've ever known who even questioned the consumption of animal flesh were Seventh Day Adventists, and everyone else viewed them with great suspicion. Two places in the Bible, off the top of my head, would seem to conflict with your view:
1) when Adam and Eve leave the garden wearing new garments of animal skins, and
2) when Peter has a vision where he objects to eating unclean animals and is told (three times, I believe) to "kill and eat."
Those were always presented to me as part of an overall view that God's people were meant to subdue the world, to kill animals whenever it was convenient, and to consider them part of God's creation but in no way equal to us and not possessing a soul.
Consider me the devil's advocate here... I'm on your side, but I remember all too well what I was taught.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-05-2003 8:45 PM Philo-sopher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Prozacman, posted 10-07-2003 11:17 AM zephyr has replied
 Message 109 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-07-2003 12:08 PM zephyr has not replied
 Message 114 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-07-2003 3:03 PM zephyr has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 99 of 132 (59639)
10-06-2003 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Philo-sopher
10-05-2003 8:45 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
I'm a vegetarian too, and I have to agree with Prozacman. There are quote after quote in the bible endorsing the eating of meat. Jesus himself breaks bread and *fish* for everyone to eat. He follows all of the Hebrew customs and eats the ritual meals. In the old testament, it's even worse; vegetarians aren't talked about very kindly.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-05-2003 8:45 PM Philo-sopher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Prozacman, posted 10-07-2003 11:36 AM Rei has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 132 (59677)
10-06-2003 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Philo-sopher
10-02-2003 9:46 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
quote:
IQ is limited in it's impact on our ability to understanding the purpose of our existence.
...and many other things, such as if there is a god or not.
quote:
EQ, AQ, PQ, SQ, MQ and of course CQ are just as important.
um, what?
quote:
It is also possible that a Being that is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, realising our limited ability to fathom it's mind, may simply have decided to tell us the purpose - hence revelation.
It's certainly possible, but there are countless sources and kinds of revelation produced from nearly countless religionas and philosophies, even individuals.
Are they all correct even when they are contradictory?
If not, then which one/s are correct?
quote:
Purposes are apparent in nature. They are often designed into the function of things. These functions comprise the purpose for that thing. A leaf, for example, is designed for the purpose of converting sunlight into food for a plant. We may never perceive the whole purpose of everything, since we are finite, yet we do (everyday) perceive the smaller purposes of somethings - and if enough somethings accumulate - we begin to get an idea of the gestalt whole - a glimpse of the bigger message.
The 'bigger message' to me, when looking at nature, is that it is comprised of 'good enough' design, rather than purposeful design, and the modification of old strutures for new functions, rather than special individual design; you know, evolution.
I do not see God in how nature works, in other words.
quote:
Of couse if you want to save yourself all this trouble - just pick up a Bible.
Um, why do you asume that I haven't?
There are many, many, many people who read the bible and (gasp!) do not walk away believing as you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-02-2003 9:46 PM Philo-sopher has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 101 of 132 (59678)
10-06-2003 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Philo-sopher
10-05-2003 12:57 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
quote:
The First Amendment assumes that there is no moral obligation to worship one object over another - perhaps this is because it assumes there is no God.
Incorrect.
The first ammendment takes no stance on the existence or not of God. It is meant to prevent the establishment of a government-endorsed religion, and to protect the individual's right to practice the religion of their choice, among other things.
the first ammendment states:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-05-2003 12:57 PM Philo-sopher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Prozacman, posted 10-07-2003 11:07 AM nator has not replied

Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 132 (59796)
10-06-2003 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Philo-sopher
10-05-2003 8:45 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
Weellll, not so fast. A certain group of christians does seem to keep on sacrificing Jesus in a spiritual sense; If I understand them correctly, and I may be wrong about this, they do it every time they have MASS. That's another thing I was taught when I was a fundamentalist, but if I was misinformed about the MASS, then it only proves that I was LIED to. If MessenJAH reads this, then that answers his question as to why I think extreme religion is unhealthy(i.e.the two warring factions in Ireland, or the two forms of Islam fighting each other in the Middle-East), but I will also reply directly to him. Not so fast again; Yes, I change my mind quite alot, but God isn't supposed to if he's all-knowing; unless we believe in Dispensationalism which teaches that God decided WAAYY ahead of time to change his mind a few times! By the way, if He does change his mind that much FASTER as you say, then he might be a computer! God is both Loving and Judging in both testaments. Examples: The Flood and the Song of Solomon=O.T., Giving to the poor and throwing souls into everlasting fire=N.T. In any case God needs to control His emotions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Philo-sopher, posted 10-05-2003 8:45 PM Philo-sopher has not replied

Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 132 (59898)
10-07-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Rrhain
10-03-2003 9:01 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
The fundamentalists want to foist their weird version of history upon us by trying to get us to accept that the Ten Com's are the basis for modern law. I used to think it was, but now I think it had more to do with the Geek invention of Democratic government, and possibly the Code of Hammurabi.
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 10-03-2003 9:01 PM Rrhain has not replied

Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 132 (59900)
10-07-2003 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by nator
10-06-2003 8:27 AM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
GO Schraf GO!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 10-06-2003 8:27 AM nator has not replied

Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 132 (59905)
10-07-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by zephyr
10-05-2003 11:51 PM


Re: Happy in Heaven??
Be careful! Some x-ians will say that Seventh-Day-Adventists are not "True X-ians". Then we have another thread to unwind!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by zephyr, posted 10-05-2003 11:51 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by zephyr, posted 10-07-2003 11:28 AM Prozacman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024