Problematic heaven.

[Celpha Fiael]

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

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

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

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

if a person glorifies someone in a way that they are not, is it not an insult?
”
Glorifies someone or a post that someone made? There is a key difference.

so there is something about
"snakelord, that was a brilliant post - the entire world should read it and applaud your genius"


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

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

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

playing dumb is one way to neutralize sarcastic statements

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

the first half

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

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

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

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

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

the colon cancer was an additional point you decided to focus on

“
I guess not only do you not understand...
”
Were you actually going to say something of substance, (i.e point out specific errors contained in the post etc),

I did
you assume that the eternity of spiritual existence is the body
this is because you don't understand and refuse to understand the concept of duality

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

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

or just keep up with the personal attacks? I notice while you have the ability to constantly tell people they don't understand, you never display the decency to point out where the error is etc.

i have noticed that you rarely request a clarification and respond poorly to such presentations

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

quote me

It speaks highly of you as a person and perhaps even shows a serious lack of self esteem that you can't even remain consistent in what you have or have not done/seen etc.

rather than constructing yet another argument that has a dubious foundation, quote me

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

So, are you celibate?

here I will save you the trouble

by this definition I am celibate

“
I guess it must have been your original value judgments
”
Once again the same problem as mentioned earlier appears. That quote from me wasn't about sex.

what was the boob flashing about then?
memories of lactation as an infant?

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

and you did that by contrasting sexual imagery with the worship of god

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

google "flash boobs" and see what the majority indicates

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

the context of your statement was the pointlessness of worshipping god - you could have chosen any one of a million things to contrast that with to reflect your value judgments - you chose

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

next?

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

lol
and what did you choose for interest and value ?

No lg, it wasn't about boobs or sex or pornography. The ultimate question then comes in the form of where is the value in such a thing where everyone is doing the exact same thing for all time?

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

To this one can assert that you'll just be happy - but then the counter is that you're no longer 'you' and thus where is the worth?

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

No lg, this wasn't about sex, or pornography

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

, or cleopatra, or vegetarianism or norwegian tomato farmers.

but it was about how you understand the proposition of eternal life by theists and it was about the extent to which material and spiritual duties reach

“
as already indicated, persons who have not approached puberty and asexual organisms are probably exempt ....
”
Certainly, along with celibate people and 40 year old virgins.

if by fulfilling such criteria they somehow avoid puberty or are asexual, yes

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

quit whining and stay on the topic

 

[SnakeLord]

you assume that the eternity of spiritual existence is the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) We wont give a damn about our loved ones

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

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

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

here I will save you the trouble

by this definition I am celibate

1) Evasion of the question.

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

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

google "flash boobs" and see what the majority indicates

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

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

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

lol
and what did you choose for interest and value ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lightgigantic]

SnakeLord

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

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

or alternatively, one could question the value of material existence - just like waking up makes one question the value of a dream (even though it may have seemed quite gripping at the time ...)

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

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

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

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

perhaps its a mixture of 1 and 3
suffering, much like happiness, in the material world is something like a phantasmagoria

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

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

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

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

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

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

there are also descriptions of people, activities and places in the spiritual realm as described in the vedas too

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

the forms that matter takes in this world have their solid counterparts in the spiritual world (plato ambiguously approached this with his notion of "universals")
In other words in this world we have temporary things, beginning with our bodily sense of self and extending down to everything related to such bodies, however in the spiritual world it is advocated that there are eternal things - hence spiritual existence has more "substance" than the reflections we encounter in this world - at the very least "immaterial" is a poor choice of words since it tends to suggest "voidness"

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

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

1) We wont give a damn about our loved ones

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


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

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

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

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

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

it does indicate what is commonly connotated with the words you use

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

“
lol
and what did you choose for interest and value ?
”
It is irrelevant to the point of the post. Seriously, you need to get over it - it was just the word "boobs", it's not the end of the world. Why are you so uptight?

because you insisted that I was getting off topic with talk of value systems and pornography
I am not saying you are on the cutting edge of sex exploitation
I am saying that you contrasted the value of worshiping god with the value of "boob flashing"
which gets back to the issue of where beauty ultimately lies (in the eye of the beholder of course)

“
which is why i brought up the issue of sex life, and how practically everyone is at it and has been at it since time immemorial, and it still clocks high on the demographics ....
”
Not according to you a few posts ago who stated you brought it up merely because I said you were an unbeholder. I have indeed been asking you what is wrong with everyone doing it ever since that time and you've evaded answer like the plague.

I don't know where the issue of it being wrong cropped up - but since you brought it up any thing can be done in a wrong or inappropriate fashion - even worship of god - what to speak of sex

So as that's the case, and you now claim you brought it up to point out that it's boring or worthless because everyone does it then just say so instead of dragging a post on and on pointlessly for the best part of a week.

The whole point of saying it was not exclusive was because you made the claim "you are not a beholder" - practically everyone knows what sex is about

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

sex life is the central aspect of material life - other ones include sleeping, eating and defending - between the attainment of those four I think you get 24/7 ratings from a vast majority

“
I don't understand this statement - I can't fathom whether you are attempting to reiterate my argument in your own words or present a different angle on an existing argument of yours
”
Well, you would be able to fathom it if you had have read the original post which said the exact same thing: "If so they’re not themselves anymore, in which case I would argue as to its value.."

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

which gets back to the dream thing
If you have a dream that you are cleopatra, who is the entity having the dreaming experience (if its not "you", who is it?)

Waking up from a dream does not transform you into a different "you", but a greater "you" ("greater" in terms of a sense of self with more stable points of reference).

In the same way attaining spiritual existence transforms one into a being with a "greater" sense of self

“
but it was about what you contrasted in an attempt to present more appealing and interesting values
”
Actually no. The reason for it is because, in general, a woman flashing her boobs at you is a memorable but very rare event, (this is not to suggest that you can't find porn all over the internet - we're not talking e-boobs here).

lol

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

the number of times a conditioned soul has wholeheartedly worshiped god is much much rarer

 

[SnakeLord]

or alternatively, one could question the value of material existence

Or alternatively one could make their own thread to talk about unrelated issues.

perhaps its a mixture of 1 and 3

Finally we're getting somewhere. Everyone will be there but we wont care - I hear ya.

conditioned life is one bad situation followed by another

If you say so :shrug:

if you insist that one takes one’s bodily existence with them to heaven

I did no such insisting - I merely pointed out what scripture has to say on the matter.

there are also descriptions of people, activities...

<lg> Scripture doesn't advocate that heaven is physical
<me> Yes it does
<lg> so do the vedas.

:shrug:

this is all based on the notion that the bodily existence we have at the moment is all and everything of ourselves

No it isn't, it is based on the notion that the 'you' remains you. Hands, feet and pimples are of no consequence.

if you suddenly came to the awareness that your body was nothing more than a vehicle you drove around in, what then?

Same questions apply because the 'you' is still you. The vehicle is inconsequential to that.

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

So.... to answer my question: we wont give a damn?

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

Why? Nobody else but you had a problem with it. I am not here to cater for your fragile sensibilities. If you can't handle the word boob without throwing a hissy fit, then go to safer sites like mickeymouse.com.

I am saying that you contrasted the value of worshiping god with the value of "boob flashing"

That's an error on your part. I can't help you with that.

practically everyone knows what sex is about

Practically...

which gets back to the dream thing

No it doesn't. My question/statements have nothing to do with dreams or cleopatra or tomato farmers. Try again.

the number of times a conditioned soul has wholeheartedly worshiped god is much much rarer

O.....k

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

or alternatively, one could question the value of material existence
”
Or alternatively one could make their own thread to talk about unrelated issues.

well your thread is discussing the values behind heaven isn't it ... and you are using the values behind material life aren't you

“
perhaps its a mixture of 1 and 3
”
Finally we're getting somewhere. Everyone will be there but we wont care

perhaps

“
conditioned life is one bad situation followed by another
”
If you say so

born screaming and die screaming - and there is also frequent opportunities for screaming in between

“
if you insist that one takes one’s bodily existence with them to heaven
”
I did no such insisting - I merely pointed out what scripture has to say on the matter.

I don't recall the scriptural reference

“
there are also descriptions of people, activities...
”
<lg> Scripture doesn't advocate that heaven is physical
<me> Yes it does
<lg> so do the vedas.

your problem is that empiricism doesn't have much scope for notions of the real beyond the physical

“
this is all based on the notion that the bodily existence we have at the moment is all and everything of ourselves
”
No it isn't, it is based on the notion that the 'you' remains you. Hands, feet and pimples are of no consequence.

then why do you talk of things related to the hands, feet and pimples as objects of eternal concern in heaven?

“
if you suddenly came to the awareness that your body was nothing more than a vehicle you drove around in, what then?
”
Same questions apply because the 'you' is still you. The vehicle is inconsequential to that.

the consequence is that if you were "you", you wouldn't be the vehicle - thus the whole construct of bodily identification and bodily relationships would be nil

“
I guess the bottom line is that the intense affection we feel towards our relatives and friends is an aspect of a state of being and spiritual existence is characterized by a much broader state of being that completely transforms the former
”
So.... to answer my question: we wont give a damn?

much as we are likely to not give a damn about dreaming we were cleopatra having something serious going on with old julius (upon waking up of course .. before then could be a different matter ...)

“
if you seriously want to avoid such connotations, I suggest you be more careful about your selection of language
”
Why? Nobody else but you had a problem with it.

you are the one who had a problem with my suggestion of the word "pornography" in reference to your "boob flashing"

and even then my suggestion was ultimately about value systems - the only reason I even mentioned the word "pornography" was because you included "boob flashing"

what would you have preferred I call it?

Mammary fixation?
:shrug:

I am not here to cater for your fragile sensibilities. If you can't handle the word boob without throwing a hissy fit, then go to safer sites like mickeymouse.com.

Once again, its not like I am accusing you of being on the cutting edge of sex exploitation

I am saying that you contrasted the value of worshiping god with the value of "boob flashing"
which gets back to the issue of where beauty ultimately lies (in the eye of the beholder of course)

“
I am saying that you contrasted the value of worshiping god with the value of "boob flashing"
”
That's an error on your part. I can't help you with that.

if you weren't contrasting two value systems with this passage

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

what are you doing?

“
which gets back to the dream thing
”
No it doesn't. My question/statements have nothing to do with dreams or cleopatra or tomato farmers. Try again.

but it does have to do with understanding how we will reflect on material existence from a spiritual vantage point

“
the number of times a conditioned soul has wholeheartedly worshiped god is much much rarer
”
O.....k

i wouldn't expect you to understand, being an unbeholder

 

[SnakeLord]

well your thread is discussing the values behind heaven isn't it ... and you are using the values behind material life aren't you

Not really, but whatever.

born screaming and die screaming - and there is also frequent opportunities for screaming in between

O.....k :shrug:

I don't recall the scriptural reference

Pay attention.

your problem is that empiricism doesn't have much scope for notions of the real beyond the physical

:shrug:

<lg> Scripture doesn't advocate that heaven is physical
<me> Yes it does
<lg> so do the vedas.

then why do you talk of things related to the hands, feet and pimples as objects of eternal concern in heaven?

??

the consequence is that if you were "you", you wouldn't be the vehicle - thus the whole construct of bodily identification and bodily relationships would be nil

But you are still you, so the question and thread remains. Will "you" or wont "you" give a shit about your loved ones when dead and in heaven?

much as we are likely to not give a damn about dreaming we were cleopatra

Fucking hell.. forget cleopatra. Answer a straight question. Will we or wont we give a damn about our current loved ones when we're dead and in some heavenly realm?

you are the one who had a problem with my suggestion of the word "pornography" in reference to your "boob flashing"

I merely pointed out the irrelevancy and your inability to work out that it was irrelevant. Everyone else managed fine, I even got a pm on irc about it.

I am saying that you contrasted the value of worshiping god with the value of "boob flashing"

Yeah, you've said that twice. Repeating the same statement doesn't make it any more valid. The point was not the boobs.

what are you doing?

Explained in detail in previous posts. Go read them... or continue with irrelevancy. Whatever.

but it does have to do with understanding...

No it doesn't.

 

[lightgigantic]

“
the consequence is that if you were "you", you wouldn't be the vehicle - thus the whole construct of bodily identification and bodily relationships would be nil
”
But you are still you, so the question and thread remains. Will "you" or wont "you" give a shit about your loved ones when dead and in heaven?



“
much as we are likely to not give a damn about dreaming we were cleopatra
”
Fucking hell.. forget cleopatra. Answer a straight question. Will we or wont we give a damn about our current loved ones when we're dead and in some heavenly realm?

well, if the medium that we express our affection for loved one's in this world is much like the medium we express our affection for loved ones in dreams .....

 

[SnakeLord]

Forget it, you're incompetent.

 

[lightgigantic]

Forget it, you're incompetent.

and what does that make you by default, eh?