mirage

And because it hurts! Yep, not getting a proper bodily burial in consecrated ground was considered a big thing. That's why execution in many countries was particularly feared when it included passing your corpse to the local anatomists to chop up. Really more of a superstition (
that's still around today! ) than official doctrine. Augustine didn't think the manner of disposal was essential to resurrection, just that the ceremony and bodily burial showed a sign of faith in this resurrection.

Burning also had other powerful connotations, of course. It symbolises hell and also the purifying power of fire to burn away sins.

And everyone like a nice bonfire!

lpetrich

So Heaven will be like a drug high that lasts forever? Something makes me think about Karl Marx...

Legend

That was sort of what I first stated to luluv but there is a way around it.

God, seeing that he can do anything, can create continually circumstances (of what sort, I cannot know) that would rid our boredom when it does come. By doing this, God need not tamper with who we are to rid our boredom.

Stephen T-B

Luvluv's gone now, but the idea of billions of decrepid bodies arising on Judgement Day brings to mind a horror movie.
And they'll all be naked. Yuk.


A question for Rational BAC: does the soul have a mind?

mirage

This "who we are" thing is a bit of a red herring. It can't be defined adequately. What can it mean beyond continuity of experience through memory and perhaps a characteristic pattern of responses to certain stimuli. But it's constantly changing, obviously. Even you characteristic responses change depending on chemical environment - tiredness, disease, caffeine, alcohol, mdma, cocaine, depression, treatment for same. Which one is "really you". In heaven you would just be blissed out the whole damn time. There would be no need for intellectual stimulation (you could have "everything made clear" to you if you like, but that's hardly going to sustain an eternity of contentment.) It's the whole one with god thing that's supposed to make it pleasurable.

A continual drug high is exactly what it's supposed to be like.

Of course it can't possibly have any "meaning", however you set it up. That is a logical impossibility deriving from the fact that meaning requires a larger reference frame. But that wouldn't bother me. Infinite pleasure would do just fine. The only reason we like meaning in the first place is the satisfaction it gives us.

We would be like those rats that starve themselves to death in the presence of abundant food, constantly hammering the lever that's wired up to their reward centre. That's the only point to life. Warm fuzzies to the power of n, straight from the source! Yeah!

inner-peace

Hmmmm..... this is one thing that I ponder much about when i thought i was a xtian..... eternity.... I mean what would you do in heaven for an eternity? I know god was planning on making a new earth again I guess but jesus he likes to fuck with his creations so much I don't think I 'd like to be up there in the sky with daddy if he's anything like the popess.... lol maybe he's a hot chick that has nice big tits like pam anderson... now that would be heaven.... I hope she goes to heaven so I can fuck her while john lennon plays imagine or some other song and thomas jefferson sign his name on my ass and i'll be like thanks playa :huh: :rolling: :thumbs:

Stephen T-B

The thing about "heavenly bliss" as we might imagine it (and as Rational BAC points out), is to do with what we are and what we know as living, intelligent creatures.

But the soul isn't "living" and it can't be intelligent because it doesn't have the physical wherewithall for intelligence. (Neither, for that matter, does God). So in terms of "soul-intelligence" something other than what we understand by "intelligence" must be involved.

Since the whole matter of souls is pure guesswork, I suppose anyone's guess as to what that might be is as good as anyone else's.

My opinion?
The whole thing is complete and absolute twaddle...

Classical

?????????????????????

I'm mortified by this post.

Mageth

I've been thinking a bit about this, which is related to luvluv's "infinite novelty." I also believe that luvluv also claimed that we, as humans, can experience an infinite amount of novelty.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that God is capable of generating "infinite novelty" (maybe a bit more on that later), I disagree that we humans are able to experience an infinite amount of novelty. Certainly not with our physical bodies. Our brains are obviously very complex, but they are made up of a finite number of neurons, and include a finite number of interconnections between neurons. Granted, these numbers are very large. For the sake of argument, I'll posit that various electrochemical interactions in our brain, in reaction to stimuli received through the senses, act to set our brains into various "states" through which we experience the world. That's rough, but I think you get the idea.

Assuming that the things we experience are experienced through states of our brains, our brains may be viewed as very complex, but finite, state machines. There is a finite number of different states that anyone's brain can be in (which may be referred to as a "configuration space"), and thus there is a finite number of experiences anyone can have. A lot, needless to say, but still finite. And note that most, by far, of these different states can be ruled out as meaningless. Most possible states that your brain could be in you could classify as "random" or "garbage". And many other states would be redundant or repetitive. But, obviously, we are left with an immense number of possible experiences, possible brain states, a huge configuration space. But a finite number, not an infinite number.

That, in a nutshell, is one big problem I have with the idea of an infinite amount of variety, or novelty, that could be used to alleviate boredom in eternity. Along with an infinite amount of novelty, you have to presuppose some sort of an "infinite state machine" for "resurrected humans" capable of experiencing that infinite novelty. That's a hard pill to swallow, seeing as how it's presupposed that we'll be resurrected in some sort of physical body. State machines are not infinite - they have a finite number of states, a finite configuration space.

God, I suppose, is presupposed as some sort of "infinite state machine", with an infinite configuration space, but able not only to experience infinite novelty (well, since his knowledge is infinite, it's hard to say he'd "experience" anything, or that anything could possibly be novel to him), but to generate infinite novelty (requiring an infinite configuration space) for us to experience. This is an absurdity, in my opinion, but I reckon some people are simply willing to overlook that absurdity. And, by proposing that we'll be able to experience infinite novelty, and "never get bored" because there will always be something new to experience, presupposing that we will be like God in that respect; we will be "infinite state machines."

As noted, I have a problem with the notion of "infinite novelty". It's related to configuration spaces and "state machines". I mentioned a good metaphor, or thought experiment, that illustrates this problem earlier in this thread - Jorge Luis Borges' "Library of Babel." If you haven't read that short story, you should. Here it is on line:

http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscor..._of_babel.html

Note this line from the last paragraph:

"Those who imagine it to be without limit forget that the possible number of books does have such a limit."

Given infinite time, one could read all the volumes in the Library of Babel, that contain all that is possible to be written (all that has been written, all that will be written, and all that it is possible to write) given a set of symbols, and thus all that is possible to be expressed through writing (though what is actually meaningful, and "novel", is a very small subset of the Library). And still be left with infinity before you.

------

That said, as has been mentioned, the main objection I have with this proposal (that God can generate infinite novel experiences for us, thus "logically" overcoming the notion that we would get bored in eternity) is that boredom is emotional, and as such is simply not overcome by such a simplistic "logical" argument. It simply does not follow from the assertion that an infinite variety of experiences will be available to us that we will not become bored. People become bored in this life, even though there is an essentially limitless supply of new and novel experiences available to all of us. If humans maintain their capacity to be bored in the afterlife, then humans will become bored given infinite time, even granting the possibility of "infinite novelty" and the capacity to experience "infinite novelty" (which, again, I have a problem with).

Again, Borges addresses the notion of immortality, and the problems therewith, in another short story which I could not find online: "The Immortal" (or "The Immortals"). I highly recommend it.

----

What we're left with is what some others have indicated - some sort of change in our essence. Some sort of eternal state of bliss. But it would require, in my opinion, that we also be fundamentally changed so that "boredom" is no longer possible.

If that appeals to you, so be it. I reckon if I was put in that state, I would necessarily be blissful for all eternity - a perfectly happy denizen of heaven. But novelty would not be required - one could stand in one spot, doing nothing at all but "experiencing" the same thing for all eternity, in perfect bliss. Or one could be an infinite number of tasks to perform, and do so in perfect bliss. One is as good as the other. But no external stimulation would be required to maintain one's bliss.

But then, I would no longer be human, would I?

Stephen T-B

Mageth: "But it would require, in my opinion, that we also be fundamentally changed so that "boredom" is no longer possible."

You've put your finger on the button with that.

We are not talking about "us" enjoying an eternity of heavenly bliss, but something we wouldn't even recognise as "us."
We are an intelligent life-form, full of curiosity and requring constant stimulation, via thoughts and sensations.
A soul is not a life-form, and if it could endure an eternity of heavenly bliss, it must be devoid of intelligence.