Posted by: JAK ®
01/15/2002, 20:03:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Please enlighten shooter. Just what is your idea of “heaven.”
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/15/2002, 20:08:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
The pearly gates and streets of gold aren't for me I can tell you that much! They are obviously a description of someone's idea of material glory! My idea of heaven? I guess I think of heaven as the earth restored to it's original (Biblical) pristine state. Did you know the Bible mentions there will be no ocean in the new Earth? I hope that's not true! Of course the "new Earth" would have to be several Super Wal Marts bigger than the first to accomodate all the generations who have passed on. I don't know...I'll email you when I get there! Vicki
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/15/2002, 20:21:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
The pearly gates and streets of gold aren't for me I can tell you that much! They are obviously a description of someone's idea of material glory! My idea of heaven? I guess I think of heaven as the earth restored to it's original (Biblical) pristine state. Did you know the Bible mentions there will be no ocean in the new Earth? I hope that's not true! Of course the "new Earth" would have to be several Super Wal Marts bigger than the first to accomodate all the generations who have passed on. I don't know...I'll email you when I get there!
Vicki JAK:
Ah, then you reject the evolution of “the earth.” Just what would that “original pristine state” be? You clearly demonstrate your fundamentalist view of the Bible. You take it as literal. The various scripts of “the Bible” mention many things. As you jest about “e-mail,” you dodge the issue raised by shooter. You stated that what shooter described was “not your idea at all.” Is your answer that there will be no ocean(s) at/in “heaven”? Is your answer that “heaven” will consist of “several Super Wal Marts”? These are your words as a description of “heaven.” I agree that your view is not that which was described by shooter and which he/she regards as the view of “many” Christians. The “pearly gates and streets of gold” aren’t for you, but several Super Wal Marts are...do I understand that is your view of heaven? No oceans would be material. As to what is or is not “glory,” remains a matter of speculation, does it not? JAK
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/15/2002, 23:09:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Re-reading my comment about "several Super Wal Marts" again, in no way did I say that my idea of heaven included Wal Mart! Vicki
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 15:12:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Ah -- no Wal Mart. I’m sorry, Vicki. So far I can’t see what your notion of heaven IS. You answered shooter stating what your idea of heaven was not. Thus, this leaves us with the dilemma of just what you think heaven IS. Since you have stated that you have no idea of what it is and that 10 people will have 10 different ideas -- and you are a person -- one of more than 10, you appear also to think there is no reliable notion of “heaven.” JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Jan 16, 2002, 15:19:09
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/15/2002, 20:08:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Why is it that so many 'believing christians', LDS and otherwise, seem to think their idea of heaven/celestial glory/whatever consists in large part of sitting up high watching everyone they don't like burn in hell or be tormented forever?
Not really a 'christian' attitude at all.JAK:
How did you come to the conclusion "many"? Have you taken or read some kind of poll? If not, what is your basis?
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/15/2002, 20:12:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
religious stereotyping. Line up 10 believers and you're going to get 10 different answers. Let's hope 9 others join the line up so we can see! Vicki
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/15/2002, 20:30:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki states: It would appear that the basis lies in religious stereotyping. Line up 10 believers and you're going to get 10 different answers. Let's hope 9 others join the line up so we can see! JAK:
If you are correct in your analysis, it would appear there is no reliability for any characterization of “heaven.” However, ten for ten may be somewhat pessimistic. So far you are the first that I have heard to assert heaven will have e-mail. In your view is e-mail something NEW to heaven? Or, do you think heaven has had e-mail all the time -- and of course Super Wal Mart.
JAK
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/16/2002, 00:22:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
You're right! There IS no reliability for one's characterization of "heaven". Streets of gold, pearly gates and such are most certainly man's interpretation. I have no idea what heaven might be like and will have no way of knowing until I die. If there is no heaven and no God then I won't know the difference, will I? I did not assert that heaven will have email...it was a joke. Nor did I assert it would have a Super Wal Mart. Please read again. Vicki
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 15:05:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki stated (previously): The pearly gates and streets of gold aren't for me I can tell you that much! They are
obviously a description of someone's idea of material glory! My idea of heaven? I guess I
think of heaven as the earth restored to it's original (Biblical) pristine state. Did you know
the Bible mentions there will be no ocean in the new Earth? I hope that's not true! Of
course the "new Earth" would have to be several Super Wal Marts bigger than the first to
accomodate all the generations who have passed on. I don't know...I'll email you when I
get there!
JAK:
Asserting that “I’ll email you when I get there (heaven)!” implies that you conjecture that “heaven” has “email.”You are correct in the line “I don’t know...” You have yet to elucidate on that “original pristine state.” But your statement on that point implies that you guess/speculate that “original” WAS “pristine” and that it was a “state.” You don’t know that either. But you appear, as usual, to accept something with an absence of intellect. JAK
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
01/15/2002, 21:08:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
When I was much younger (roughly 7,8 years of age), my interpretation of Heaven consisted of partial compartmentalization into 'personal heavens' to which each soul would be provided but would still be allowed to interact with other souls, angels, and God. This view also included Heaven as having regular functions, with almost a governing body. I suppose at the time I thought its location might have been 'high up', but at the same time omnipresent yet disconnected. The understanding of Hell in this heaven was regarded as fairly irrelevant.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 15:17:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes. However, the mythology of heaven becomes quite complex when explored by (as some like to say) believers. It is interesting how quickly most respond with “I don’t know” when pressed for the particulars of their own version of a mythology. JAK
|
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/16/2002, 20:14:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
"...how quickly most respond with 'I don't know' when pressed for the particulars of their own version of a mythology?" And isn't your use of the word "mythology," here an unfair characterization with regard to those who believe that heaven, in fact, does, or will exist? Personally, it's not a relevant issue in my life. I certainly don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, and I doubt that many "believers," in the broadest sense of the term, do (many Mormons being a notable exception). I think the most appropriate and useful interpretation of the New Testament's message with regard to heaven is that we are to do everything possible to create the most ideal conditions possible for everyone, now, on this planet, in other words, I think we are responsible to and charged with creating heavan on earth, and I'm not alone in this view. Anything else is gravy. However, if I didn't believe this, at least, were possible, what would be the point of trying to exert any but the minimum effort? Perhaps "non-beleivers" don't need that motivation, but for me, it's a very basic, simple, and pragmatic proposition, every day, whether to face existence with fear (not of hell mind you, but of all of life's contingencies) or whether to face it with faith in the possibility of something better, sooner or later. Zoe
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
01/16/2002, 20:36:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
I certainly don't spend a lot of time thinking about [what Heaven is like], and I doubt that many "believers," in the broadest sense of the term, do (many Mormons being a notable exception). When I was a Mormon believer, I didn't spend much time thinking about it either. And neither do most of my fellow saints. I think you have a diseased view of Mormonism. I believe that you came by it honestly, but you ought to believe me too, that, even as an atheistic refugee of the belief system, I only find fairly run-of-the-mill pathologies present in the Mormon ecosystem, the same kind that infect practically every way of thinking worldwide.
|
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/16/2002, 21:53:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
at least. I have no reason to doubt yours. As for my view of Mormonism, it definitely has strong, but I think, justified negatives. However, I think you would have to agree that the Mormon doctrine of the necessity of performing baptisms for the dead, and the Mormon belief that familial relationships survive this life do indicate a committment to a more concrete and detailed concept of the hearafter, than most liberal Christian faiths (certainly that I've encountered so far), and tend to encourage speculation in this regard. Afterall, if you can't get to the highest degree of heaven (and what true believing Mormon would not want to do so, or, at least not want to admit to not particularly wanting to do so?) without having attended the Mormon Temple at least once for endowments and (please correct me if I'm wrong - I can't keep up with all of the changes and I don't recall whether this is still taught)having been married in the temple, which require a temple recommend, at least at some point, which requires fairly strict adherence, to a fairly strict code of conduct, you've got to give it some thought, unless you're not anywhere nearly as enthusiastic as most of the Mormons I've known. My Grandmother, for instance, placed a great deal of importance, when she remarried, on marrying a man who could take her to the temple since her first husband could not. However, I didn't mean to imply that all Mormons are necessarily obsessed with their status in the hereafter. It just occurred to me that, in general, they seem more concerned with the issue, and certainly concerned in a different way, than most Christians I've known so far. In fact, I've never heard a minister in any of the Christian churches I attend give a traditional hell-fire and brim-stone sermon, or attempt to describe "heaven" in any way (and I probably wouldn't return to such a church). Again, I have no reason to doubt that you did not spend much time contemplating this issue as a Mormon, and am glad to hear it, as you seem to be a fairly pragmatic, down to earth soul (and I mean that as a complement, believe me, because, I really felt a lack of exposure to such qualities being raised as a Mormon - perhaps that has influenced my tendency to attribute many of the problems I perceive in Mormonism to insanity). Zoe
|
Posted by: Douglas A... ®
01/17/2002, 13:28:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
I certainly don't spend a lot of time thinking about [what Heaven is like], and I doubt that many "believers," in the broadest sense of the term, do (many Mormons being a notable exception). Reply:You should spend more time thinking about it. Mormons should spend a lot more time than they do if they are to actually fulfill what they belive (see AOF # 10) KYMAK agent
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 21:45:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK stated previously: Yes. However, the mythology of heaven becomes quite complex when explored by (as some like to say) believers. It is interesting how quickly most respond with “I don’t know” when pressed for the particulars of their own version of a mythology. Zoe asks: What exactly do you find "interesting" about “how quickly most respond with 'I don't know' when pressed for the particulars of their own version of a mythology?" And isn't your use of the word "mythology," here an unfair characterization with regard to those who believe that heaven, in fact, does, or will exist? JAK:
“Mythology” is the correct word. Stories with regard to this issue and assertions of supernatural intervention or favor are filled with speculation for which there is no supporting evidence. Most myths express a religious belief of people. That is what myths do.It is interesting because otherwise rational people are content to embrace the irrational. ...Interesting also because in a world where calculation and reason are key to discovery, people are willing to abandon that reason so easily in maters of religion (their religion). However, in matters of the Islamic religion, they would reject entirely issues of faith which Muslims hold sacred, and they would apply reason to characterize Islamic myths (or Hindu for that matter or any OTHER religion than their own) as irrational or wrong.
|
Posted by: sojourner ®
01/15/2002, 22:42:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Wow. "Not really a 'christian' attitude at all" is an understatement. That's outright sadistic! To be honest, other than that it is the dwelling place of God and the future dwelling place of those under God's grace, the particulars of Heaven elude me. FWIW, - sojourner
|
Posted by: Douglas A... ®
01/17/2002, 13:36:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
To be honest, other than that it is the dwelling place of God and the future dwelling place of those under God's grace, the particulars of Heaven elude me.
FWIW,
- sojournerThe BOM says it will be built in America. (see this:
KYMAK agent
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 15:22:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
"all lust desires eternity - and all pain needs a helpful hand." But frequently in old age, “lust” is simply for end. And those in pain simply want an end. JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Jan 16, 2002, 15:23:14
|
Posted by: someone ®
01/16/2002, 11:33:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
The only problem with that is, from my experience, "everyone they don't like" consists more of other church members rather then outsiders that they seldom associate with.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 14:52:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Your point is well taken, someone. “Heaven would be hell” for other reasons too. The heaven myth is frequently a place or state in which there are no challenges, nothing to DO, no problems to solve -- just bliss, happiness, and joy FOREVER. Without a major shift in mentality (assuming there is mentality in heaven), such a place or state would be one of insanity. Joy is possible and appreciated only in contrast with that which is NOT joy. Good is possible and appreciated only in contrast with that which is NOT good. Now Vicki seems to see a “Super Wal Mart” in response to my query for her to describe her view of heaven.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Jan 16, 2002, 15:27:53
|
Posted by: Maude ®
01/16/2002, 16:03:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
But there is something to DO in this heaven, JAK. Sit around and sing the praises of The Most High all day (and all night, too, I suppose, since there would be no night). What a sorry ego that god must have to require eternal and continual pumping up. The prospect of doing that forever and ever, amen, sets my teeth on edge. It would be as bad as the Mormon reward for righteous women: perpetual pregnancy. I think NOT. Maude
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 16:07:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Perpetual pregnancy" sounds bad, very bad. So what is the heaven myth for males? I'm not sure we should go there. JAK
|
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/16/2002, 19:56:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
your statement that "Joy is possible and appreciated only in contrast with that which is NOT joy," is awfully similar to one of Joseph Smith's statements that "There must needs be an opposition in all things," and I've heard many Mormons use this argument to answer the question why evil and suffering continue to exist (although they have other, possibly better, arguments to explain this)? With regard to Joseph Smith, I'm afraid I have to view the statement rather cynically and assume ulterior motives. Personally, I don't buy this assertion at all. What would be the point of even postulating or promising a heaven that wasn't at least more pleasant than this existence? In addition, I'm curious to know, does increased suffering increase ones appreciation and capacity for joy? How much suffering is necessary to form the minimum capcity necessary to appreciate not just the joyous the heaven you hypothesize above, but one only marginally better than this existence? Lastly, do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim? Zoe
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 21:15:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Any evaluation implies or states contrast or comparison. My comments following the “heaven would be hell” addressed that point. Any perception of “good” requires a comparison or contrast. That comparison or contrast is either implied, stated, or both. A common conception is that heaven is a place (or state of existence)in which there is no illness, no pain, no sickness of any kind. All there is peaceful and in perfect harmony. If this is essentially correct, would it produce happiness or satisfaction for eternity? No problems exist to solve, no challenge exists to be reached. There is nothing to do (or be). All there are equal. (It seems to be a pass-fail place or state). Nothing is said about grade of A vs. D. What kind of interaction is there between the occupants? People speak of heaven as a place where they will be united with there loved ones (and of course God). How will those loved ones be recognized? How many generations back will people be recognized? Will there be “discussion” of those who didn’t make it? Surely that would produce sadness. There is no sadness in heaven. If there is only happiness, goodness, truth and light, how is that measured -- against the alternative of challenge? Since there is no evil, how are those who claim heaven exists able to recognize good. Good as opposed to what? Are there flowers, trees, or animals? No one speaks of this. It would appear that heaven would be a terrible place (state) if people got their way about what heaven is supposed to be. At the lingering painful death of an elderly woman recently, family members remarked, “She is in a much better place.” They didn’t mean she no longer exists or that death was final. I doubt that
many have thought through what they think heaven to be. They just wallow in a kind of euphoria. It is a mindless expression which they want to have some meaning. Heaven is an illusion. Zoe stated: Personally, I don't buy this assertion at all. What would be the point of even postulating or promising a heaven that wasn't
at least more pleasant than this existence? In addition, I'm curious to know, does increased suffering increase ones
appreciation and capacity for joy? How much suffering is necessary to form the minimum capcity necessary to
appreciate not just the joyous the heaven you hypothesize above, but one only marginally better than this existence?
Lastly, do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim? JAK:
“Promising” is selling. Promising what can’t be delivered is fraud. The “point” may be power, control, money, etc. “More pleasant” is preferable to less pleasant. The contrast is stated. There can be little doubt that knowing serious pain gives one the capacity to appreciate its absence. Knowing real poverty gives one a capacity for appreciation of its opposite. Surely there can be no doubt regarding that. The degree to which individuals are capable of appreciation would seem to vary widely.There is evidence that people who have been cured of cancer have a capacity to appreciate life in a way that others may not. Young people, for example, often feel invincible -- nothing can harm them -- they think. Their appreciation for danger and risk is different that of someone who has experienced and faced that danger and risk. It is, in part, the reason young people are at greater risk for death from auto accidents, drug abuse, etc. Never having faced death, their capacity to appreciate life may be diminished. We are told that often young people who attempt or successfully commit suicide do not really understand suicide truly ends their life.
|
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/16/2002, 22:30:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
Any evaluation implies or states contrast or comparison. My comments following the “heaven would be hell” addressed that point. Any perception of “good” requires a comparison or contrast. That comparison or contrast is either implied, stated, or both.
A common conception is that heaven is a place (or state of existence)in which there is no illness, no pain, no sickness of any kind. All there is peaceful and in perfect harmony. If this is essentially correct, would it produce happiness or satisfaction for eternity? No problems exist to solve, no challenge exists to be reached. There is nothing to do (or be). All there are equal. (It seems to be a pass-fail place or state). Nothing is said about grade of A vs. D. What kind of interaction is there between the occupants?
People speak of heaven as a place where they will be united with there loved ones (and of course God). How will those loved ones be recognized? How many generations back will people be recognized? Will there be “discussion” of those who didn’t make it? Surely that would produce sadness. There is no sadness in heaven. If there is only happiness, goodness, truth and light, how is that measured -- against the alternative of challenge? Since there is no evil, how are those who claim heaven exists able to recognize good. Good as opposed to what? Are there flowers, trees, or animals? No one speaks of this.
It would appear that heaven would be a terrible place (state) if people got their way about what heaven is supposed to be. At the lingering painful death of an elderly woman recently, family members remarked, “She is in a much better place.” They didn’t mean she no longer exists or that death was final. I doubt that
many have thought through what they think heaven to be. They just wallow in a kind of euphoria. It is a mindless expression which they want to have some meaning. Heaven is an illusion.
Zoe stated:
Personally, I don't buy this assertion at all. What would be the point of even postulating or promising a heaven that wasn't
at least more pleasant than this existence? In addition, I'm curious to know, does increased suffering increase ones
appreciation and capacity for joy? How much suffering is necessary to form the minimum capcity necessary to
appreciate not just the joyous the heaven you hypothesize above, but one only marginally better than this existence?
Lastly, do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim?
JAK:
“Promising” is selling. Promising what can’t be delivered is fraud. The “point” may be power, control, money, etc. “More pleasant” is preferable to less pleasant. The contrast is stated. There can be little doubt that knowing serious pain gives one the capacity to appreciate its absence. Knowing real poverty gives one a capacity for appreciation of its opposite. Surely there can be no doubt regarding that. The degree to which individuals are capable of appreciation would seem to vary widely.
There is evidence that people who have been cured of cancer have a capacity to appreciate life in a way that others may not. Young people, for example, often feel invincible -- nothing can harm them -- they think. Their appreciation for danger and risk is different that of someone who has experienced and faced that danger and risk. It is, in part, the reason young people are at greater risk for death from auto accidents, drug abuse, etc. Never having faced death, their capacity to appreciate life may be diminished. We are told that often young people who attempt or successfully commit suicide do not really understand suicide truly ends their life.RESPONSE: (surprisingly!) I still don't agree with you, and have realized that there is an additional problem with your thesis (that heaven as you hypothesize it must be hell to live in). Your point that the promise of heaven sells Christianity is valid, although I don't personally find it motivating, since I regard this belief as a hope, and not a promise. In addition, while I expect that knowing serious pain does, in fact, increase the capacity to apprecate its absence, in order for your thesis regarding heaven (as stated in very condensed form above) to hold up, wouldn't you have to assume that humnas would forget (the additional problem) all of their earthly pain in heaven, and thus have completely lost their capacity to appreciate joy? Again, how much pain is required to form the requisite (whatever that may be) capacity to experience joy? In addition, while I agree that there is evidence (and have read and heard some) that survivors of cancer, and/or near death experiences do have an expanded capacity to appreciate life, is this expanded capacity in all cases permanent, and could it not, instead be equally as validly described as a decreased capacity to feel (relatively) minor pain? I don't find your example regarding the decreased recklessness of young people, as they age and learn to better appreciate the risks of rash behavior, helpful to your case. Does not such appreciation, viewed from another angle, look like increased worry, stress, fear, and even propensity to phobia? I don't really see that the experience of pain must increase joy in most cases here. In fact, it seems to me more likely that with an increased sense of caution, there is often increased and crippling inhibition. Finally, using your argument that there can be no experience of joy without the experience of pain (or at least a reasonable amount of it) doesn't seem to pan out, as far as I know, with regard to infants. I had a fairly intense discussion with someone here ages ago on this very issue, and they did not provide any empirical evidence that infants cannot experience joy, or have a reduced capacity for joy. My own perception is that infants, by comparison with adults, at least, often at least appear to be unrestrainedly joyful; I think this is part of what makes them attractive to us, despite their endless demands on us. In fact, I believe someone else finally commented that there was empirical evidence to the contrary, though I don't recall if they gave a reference. Zoe
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 22:51:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Zoe, You both misunderstood and misstated parts of my post. JAK
|
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/16/2002, 23:50:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
tomorrow. I'm tired and ready to quit this evening. Thanks for the discussion. It's been fun. Zoe
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/17/2002, 14:52:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Zoe, I was unable to respond at the time, and can take a moment now to address some of your post.
Zoe’s last paragraph 01/16/2002, 22:30:27 Finally, using your argument that there can be no experience of joy without the experience
of pain (or at least a reasonable amount of it) doesn't seem to pan out, as far as I know,
with regard to infants. I had a fairly intense discussion with someone here ages ago on this
very issue, and they did not provide any empirical evidence that infants cannot experience
joy, or have a reduced capacity for joy. My own perception is that infants, by comparison
with adults, at least, often at least appear to be unrestrainedly joyful; I think this is part of
what makes them attractive to us, despite their endless demands on us. In fact, I believe
someone else finally commented that there was empirical evidence to the contrary, though
I don't recall if they gave a reference. JAK:
First, I did not take the above position. Rather, I suggested that contrasts are required for people to recognize and appreciate differences. Something like happiness (a human emotion) is in contrast to its absence. To illustrate, we enjoy good food most when we are hungry (no reference here meant to be associated with starvation) not when we have just eaten. If we enjoy good food and have eaten nothing for a period of 6 to 8 hours, food looks better, tastes better than if we had eaten a satisfying meal only 20 minutes before.I did not suggest there “can be no experience of joy without the experience of pain.” Rather, I do suggest that joy is a stronger emotion if one has seen sorrow -- particularly with the same people or in similar circumstances. An elderly woman in my family remarked at a recent family gathering (reunion), “It is so wonderful to get together when it’s not a funeral.” While I hadn’t thought of that particular idea, her remark led me to understand her joy and appreciation for the family was enhanced by a keener awareness that she had seen many of the same people -- at a funeral -- multiple funerals over the years. She was happy. We all were, but her awareness of what had been, and I am sure her awareness of what is to come in the family was expressed in that sentence in a way most present were not thinking. She was 88 at the time. People who are 88 and still have good perspicacity have a different viewpoint than those who are a number of years younger than she was. Of course infants represent quite a different spectrum. For them, they ARE at the center of the universe. Their perspective is entirely about themselves. They can express “happy” at the slightest thing. And a digestive cramp of any kind can bring on loud protest. Happy for them has everything to do with THEM. Joy at the arrest of a man accused of murdering his wife and three children is a remote “happy” which may bring no smile to the face. It is a sense of joy in justice. For someone else who contemplates murdering his own wife, that arrest may bring fear and dread. Circumstances and the relationship of persons to those circumstances are through comparison & contrast. Those two overlapping factors are required for evaluation which gives humans a sense of better or worse -- good or bad. An infant, a developing baby, a developing child -- all can recognize comparison and contrast even though they may be quite unable to articulate verbally such awareness. Restraint (to which you referred) is a learned response. Children, young people, and adults who fail to learn restraint have much difficulty, and society has much difficulty in dealing with them. Addressing your last paragraph above is sufficient for a post here, I think. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, Jan 20, 2002, 19:17:53
|
Posted by: someone ®
01/17/2002, 16:28:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
Just a thought; I personally take a post-structuralist position with reguard to language. If I were Christian though; I suppose I might argue that what we experience as "good" etc. is ontologically inferior to "the good". Ultimately, if our words such as "good" are truly referencing metaphysical objects, then as spiritual beings in heaven perhaps we could experience true "good"; and this would stand on its own without the need of any type of opposite. Of course, I think any expression of "Good" etc. is easily deconstructed.
|
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/19/2002, 13:30:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
If so, you are succeeding. I think someone has provided a better answer to your question than I have been able to. However, since you say I have misunderstood you, I am wonering how your reponse to my point here, relates back to your assertions about the inherently anhedonic quality of the "Christian concept of heaven," what ever that may be. Because, I don't see how that position is supported by your comments here, and, I try to read the comments in the context of the topic. Can you clarify? Zoe
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/20/2002, 19:22:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
Your lack of specificity with regard to the particulars of my comments makes the answer to your question No. JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/17/2002, 15:18:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
Zoe states:
I don't find your example regarding the decreased recklessness of young people, as they
age and learn to better appreciate the risks of rash behavior, helpful to your case. Does
not such appreciation, viewed from another angle, look like increased worry, stress, fear,
and even propensity to phobia? I don't really see that the experience of pain must increase
joy in most cases here. In fact, it seems to me more likely that with an increased sense of
caution, there is often increased and crippling inhibition.JAK:
The young people may develop greater appreciation as they become aware of the comparisons -- the alternatives. Greater “worry, stress, fear...” is of value. If a friend is killed in a drunk driving accident, another young person may (that is in important word “may”) come to greater appreciation -- appreciation of consequences and alternatives. They may conduct their own lives differently better as a result of the appreciation for consequences.In general, I would not agree with your notion of “crippling inhibition.” Inhibition is valuable and need not be “crippling.” Of course an inhibition could become crippling. When it does, it is mental illness best addressed by mental health care professionals. An infant (to which you referred) is quite uninhibited. We may find it cute and attractive -- in an infant. An adult who is uninhibited is a sorry sight to witness. And young adults who are uninhibited may be a sorry sight as well. Civilization requires inhibition. We could not function as a society without inhibition. Certainly we could discuss the merits of useful or appropriate inhibition as opposed to mental illness which “cripples.” Such was not my intent in previous remarks with regard to comparison & contrast as required for humans to make distinctions (between better and worse, etc.). JAK
|
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/19/2002, 13:39:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
what has this to do, if anything, with the necessary nature of the Christian heaven? I too think it's good and necessary that young humans, through experience acquire greater appreciation of the damage that one thoughtless moment can cause. However, I'm not sure what application this truth of our present existence has in the context of a presumably immortal state of estence in the Christian afterlife, and I guess this response will also do for your second paragraph: while a little inhibition is probably a good thing here, what application has it with regard to the issues raised at the top of the thread? Presumably "heaven" whatever that may mean is at least civilized, and, as someone posits, much, much more. Zoe Previous post (for reference): Zoe states:
I don't find your example regarding the decreased recklessness of young people, as they
age and learn to better appreciate the risks of rash behavior, helpful to your case. Does
not such appreciation, viewed from another angle, look like increased worry, stress, fear,
and even propensity to phobia? I don't really see that the experience of pain must increase
joy in most cases here. In fact, it seems to me more likely that with an increased sense of
caution, there is often increased and crippling inhibition.
JAK:
The young people may develop greater appreciation as they become aware of the comparisons -- the alternatives. Greater “worry, stress, fear...” is of value. If a friend is killed in a drunk driving accident, another young person may (that is in important word “may”) come to greater appreciation -- appreciation of consequences and alternatives. They may conduct their own lives differently better as a result of the appreciation for consequences.
In general, I would not agree with your notion of “crippling inhibition.” Inhibition is valuable and need not be “crippling.” Of course an inhibition could become crippling. When it does, it is mental illness best addressed by mental health care professionals. An infant (to which you referred) is quite uninhibited. We may find it cute and attractive -- in an infant. An adult who is uninhibited is a sorry sight to witness. And young adults who are uninhibited may be a sorry sight as well.
Civilization requires inhibition. We could not function as a society without inhibition. Certainly we could discuss the merits of useful or appropriate inhibition as opposed to mental illness which “cripples.” Such was not my intent in previous remarks with regard to comparison & contrast as required for humans to make distinctions (between better and worse, etc.).
JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
01/20/2002, 20:19:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Zoe states:
Again JAK, I have to ask what has this to do, if anything, with the necessary nature of the Christian heaven?JAK:
First we need to know YOUR description of “Christian heaven.” As you observed in agreement with the comments of another contributor, people who regard themselves as Christian have widely differing notions of the “nature of the Christian heaven.” They do not agree.Nevertheless, in virtually all of those notions, comparisons and contrasts are critical to the perceptions. People apply their perceptions. What is better and what is worse are required in those perceptions. Zoe states:
I too think it's good and necessary that young humans, through experience acquire greater appreciation of the damage that one thoughtless moment can cause. JAK:
It is not only a “thoughtless moment.” Rather it is a world view absent critical analysis and review. That outlook is modified by experience, by life. Experience in life is directly linked to any response a person makes when confronted with decision and action. Zoe states:
However, I'm not sure what application this truth of our present existence has in the context of a presumably immortal state of estence in the Christian afterlife, and I guess this response will also do for your second paragraph: while a little inhibition is probably a good thing here, what application has it with regard to the issues raised at the top of the thread? JAK:
No view of “immortal state of estence (existence) in the Christian afterlife” is reliable. That such a thing exists is speculation. That is one reason there is an absence of agreement about it -- no evidence for it. Lack of evidence for any mind or awareness following death makes such conjectures speculation without reason. Your word “presuma | |
