'Physical enjoyment' in the afterlife

Aphorism
How could anyone experience anything without their body? We see with the eyes, taste with the tongue, hear with the ears, so on and so on. Souls don't have eyes or ears, hands to grasp, nor mouths to eat. Nothing physical can be experienced without something physical experiencing it.

How does the wind blow without ropes and pulleys?

How does sunlight warm us from 92 million miles away, with neither physical contact nor proximity?

Why don't we not leave a hole in the air when we move?

All those thing which we now have an explanation for were once thought mysterious.

"Supernatural" is just a word used to describe natural occurrences for which no one has yet found an explanation.

nenothtu

Aphorism
How could anyone experience anything without their body? We see with the eyes, taste with the tongue, hear with the ears, so on and so on. Souls don't have eyes or ears, hands to grasp, nor mouths to eat. Nothing physical can be experienced without something physical experiencing it.

How does the wind blow without ropes and pulleys?

How does sunlight warm us from 92 million miles away, with neither physical contact nor proximity?

Why do we not leave a hole in the air when we move?

All those thing which we now have an explanation were once thought mysterious.

"Supernatural" is just a word used to describe natural occurrences for which no one has yet found an explanation.

But give Archimedes a long enough lever and he can move the world.

It really looks good on paper, but what then would Archimedes rest the lever on?

Atlas held up the earth, until Hercules tricked him with apples. Hercules held it for a little bit, but Hercules got Atlas just where Atlas could be tricked. But it looked good on paper.

Just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it will be practical or that it can even happen, regardless of the math involved.

You know that there are too many variables when it comes to natural explanations.

The sun giving us warmth is radiation, isn't it? But tell me, why do people associate the sun with happy feelings? How does a bright, sunny day make you want to go out in it and ride a bike or jog or meditate in it? Does radiation fry their brains to make them feel good on a sunny day?

Even children associate the sunny day as something that makes them happy, even blind children who can't see the sun. You could say it is habituation conditioning, as Pavlov's dogs, but who conditions children to make them happy in the sun?

Are people less happy in the winter sun? Some are, but that's just because it is too cold. But children still bundle up and get their sleds to slide down hills, in the sun that makes them happy.

Yeah, the sun is there, but why do people associate happy with it instead of sadness, even knowing about the dangers of the sun?

WarminIndy

But give Archimedes a long enough lever and he can move the world.

It really looks good on paper, but what then would Archimedes rest the lever on?

Atlas held up the earth, until Hercules tricked him with apples. Hercules held it for a little bit, but Hercules got Atlas just where Atlas could be tricked. But it looked good on paper.

Just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it will be practical or that it can even happen, regardless of the math involved.

You know that there are too many variables when it comes to natural explanations.

Stuff that "looks good on paper" is usually best left on the paper, if the inventor knows what's good for him! Not only are there too many variables that are uncontrollable, but more often than not they are predicated upon functional impossibilities, like the theory of faster-than-light communication that involves beating a several light years long iron rod with a hammer, moving the far end in Morse code simultaneously with beating the near end in Morse code with the hammer. It "looks good on paper" until you start trying to build the light-years long iron rod.

A functional impossibility.

Now, that does not prove that faster-than-light communication is impossible, it just indicates that if you're going to attempt it, that probably isn't the way to go about it.

Similarly, proving religion to be "true" or "false" will probably not be successfully accomplished using scientific methods. The two are structurally incompatible - they use entirely different methods and procedures, have different aims and goals. It's like trying to bake an apple pie using oranges for the filling. it just ain't gonna work.

That's the problem I have with Creationists who try to "prove" religion using science (or, more properly, pseudo-science). They are no different than Atheists who try to disprove religion using the same methods.

They are both using incompatible filling to bake their pies with.

The sun giving us warmth is radiation, isn't it? But tell me, why do people associate the sun with happy feelings? How does a bright, sunny day make you want to go out in it and ride a bike or jog or meditate in it? Does radiation fry their brains to make them feel good on a sunny day?

Even children associate the sunny day as something that makes them happy, even blind children who can't see the sun. You could say it is habituation conditioning, as Pavlov's dogs, but who conditions children to make them happy in the sun?

Are people less happy in the winter sun? Some are, but that's just because it is too cold. But children still bundle up and get their sleds to slide down hills, in the sun that makes them happy.

Yeah, the sun is there, but why do people associate happy with it instead of sadness, even knowing about the dangers of the sun?

That, right there. We cannot explain human emotional responses by applying the physics of thermal radiation to them. We have to look in other areas entirely. That is the iron rod people kep trying to use... it's the incompatible pie filling. They are bound for disappointment.

But it does look good on paper, doesn't it?

reply to post by WarminIndy


I do not see any supernatural interplay in those examples. Each anecdote you've related involves real places, real people, real situations—not a single supernatural thing or substance is needed to fill the holes of our understanding in these cases. Feelings or imaginings or ideas do not require supernatural forces to manifest.

So then why involve mystical forces? I personally cannot find a single use for them in either thought or expression.

Aphorism
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So then why involve mystical forces? I personally cannot find a single use for them in either thought or expression.

The simplest solution would be not to use them, then.

Why do you worry about them at all?

What is it about supernatural forces that gets your attention at all?

reply to post by Aphorism


Yeah! What you said! I just look at the computer screen and try to think of what to say on this subject and nothing pops into my brain except "nothing" so that must be the answer! Nothing!

Rex282
The very obvious fact should be no one who is dead is alive.They are dead…in death sleep.They will be "awakened"(resurrected..but not into their dead physical body) in the age of the Kingdom of God.

I have had a handful direct experiences that say that theology is wrong.
The dead are not asleep. They are alive, in other form, and VERY active.

nenothtu
The Bible does mention a "glorified body" as I recall,

THe bible says Jesus did first what we will do ... and he resurrected. He was in a 'body' that was his old one, but changed. He walked through locked doors. He traveled great distances ...appearing and disappearing ... etc etc. He appeared to be eating (I don't know if He really was or if He really needed to or if it was just Him doing familiar things with His apostles to keep them calm ...a psychological ploy)

So we have the after life we are a spirit cruising around haunting things, so are we awake permanently or are we half asleep, or do we sleep long hours then get up and haunt. What happens when we get bored of haunting what then? Can we eat or drink? Wow whats real in the afterlife?

I don't think you'll need to search out any enjoyment there. I think it's full time. I think it would be pretty bizzare.

reply to post by FlyersFan


The two men on the road to Emaus were not His disciples. They had been walking along talking about what had happened and He walked with them asking them about what their opinion was. Then He began to give them scripture of which they then began to realize it was Him.

He ascended in front of 500 witnesses, not all of which were His disciples, but then only 120 were at the upper room. Did they need to have Him come to keep them calm? They had already accepted His death. They were at the housing sitting shiva, meaning that they were mourning. This is a common practice even today among the Jews.

They never said anywhere, none of them, that they were terrified of the Romans coming after them. They never hinted at that point that they were going to be persecuted for their faith. That was not a fear for them. They were at His mother's house, she was among the women who had gone to the tomb to prepare His body, because that had been suspended because it was the Sabbath and the Passover. Usually it is done within 24 hours, unless it is the Sabbath and a holy day. That was the reason the women were at the tomb first. They were keeping tradition. Mary Magdalene asked Him what happened to His body, because she had thought He was the gardener. She asked "Where have THEY" taken him?" Meaning, if she had been sitting shiva in the house with the disciples, then she knew it was not the disciples that removed Him, so to her it had to be the Romans.

And since the Romans didn't do it, then that leaves one other alternative, as the Romans had been standing guard and no one messes with a Roman guard, you have to have big cahunas to do that and the Jews did not have weapons, and the disciples were sitting shiva.

As far as eating and drinking, it wasn't for His benefit, because He didn't eat as in needing nourishment, but to sit with those who loved Him and enjoyed fellowship. And that's what He teaches, is the fellowship. He said to His disciples at the last supper (a seder meal) that He would not drink the wine with them now, but drink it new with them in heaven. He passed that cup, and then went out to pray for God to pass the cup, but nevertheless, not His will, but God's will be done. He then went to pray and the disciples fell asleep, and He had to ask them three times if they could not spare one hour in prayer with Him. For Him to come back to them, was a means of showing them they were forgiven. That's a lot of grace. But because He knew that He had taught them from scripture about Himself, then He would have to fulfill all of it, including the parts of His resurrection. He was basically telling them "It's a new day and new way".

But what was it that convinced Thomas that Jesus had risen? Seeing the nail prints and the wound in His side. Thomas was looking at the the natural and arrived at the conclusion, this was something above the natural.

AthlonSavage
So we have the after life we are a spirit cruising around haunting things, so are we awake permanently or are we half asleep, or do we sleep long hours then get up and haunt. What happens when we get bored of haunting what then? Can we eat or drink? Wow whats real in the afterlife?

What makes you think you will come back to this earth to haunt someone? Just because some do, doesn't mean we all will.

And do ghosts get bored when haunting? Oh my, Halloween is so close, that's what people have on their minds. I don't celebrate Halloween, and I don't get why people associate ghosts with it, I don't think Celtic Pagans believe that on Samhain. And I have noticed that when paranormal investigators go to research hauntings that most of them practice what they say are pagan rituals or go for the Catholic way of dealing with it. Some burn sage and some throw holy water. I never understood how they believe ghosts are going to be afraid of natural things, such as sage and water. But then again, I suppose if someone has enough faith in it, anything can be possible.

I'm not saying there aren't ghosts, but I think this way, and I grew up in a haunted house, that what you are hearing is a memory implanted in a house. People say that it is all energy, so what about audio energy that isn't transferred? But then there are some people who raise up things in ceremonies and it wreaks havoc.

We just can't perceive everything in that supernatural realm. Even my brother that is Celtic Pagan, says that there are two types of world views, one is academic, where practitioners believe they must light certain colored candles in a certain order to cause an effect. The other kind is evoking pure energy to manipulate it to cause an effect. He does the latter. I don't know what he tries to accomplish, but he thinks the way that I do, ghosts aren't afraid of sage and holy water.

But the other thing he says, from his experience, is that ghosts lie. They present themselves as one thing to you, but in essence they are not what you think they are. Unless you count for people who claim to have seen or heard a loved one who came to tell them something and then leave. I do think that is possible.

But you have to remember this, time is only for this present world. There is no such thing as time in the supernatural realm, so what we think of as days, may only be a bleep of a second to them. We do live in the fourth dimension, time.

But let me ask you this, have you ever noticed that a house that has been abandoned, why does it break down more quickly than houses that are lived in? You might say that it is because people are fixing them up, but I have lived now for two years in the same place and it hasn't suffered any breaking down, but a house near me that people moved out less than a year ago, is really in bad shape now. Why does that happen? I have seen it many times and don't understand it. So I wonder if no one is in a place, because people do give off energy and live in time, does time accelerate or slow down where there are no people?

In heaven, there is no time but a lot of people are there. If people give off energy, then because people are there, then it can't be broken down? I am musing now, but these are things I think about.

Why do people say that hauntings are a result of renovation?

Sorry for the thread drift, but I suppose I was trying to tie the questions in regarding ghosts and eating. I would think eating is the result of being in the fourth dimension, our bodies require the energy that comes from food, for us to keep giving off energy? So food in heaven can be designed not for the time perspective, but for the energy?

Oh I am treading now into the energy waters, but I do think about those things.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Matthew 22:30 - At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

I think that this takes on a different perspective if the bit that precedes it is included.

“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:24-30 NIV)

In that context, it seems like the Sadducees are asking Jesus whom the woman will be forced to be married to in heaven -- the law that they cite (a brother being required to marry his brother's widow if there were no children) is a Jewish Law, not a law of God, so they were asking whether God was required to honour man's laws, and if so, how did that work out?

I see Jesus' answer as being a refutation of that -- the widow could "marry" any of them, or none of them, because the laws of man are not binding in heaven. Part of that is based on the hope that my wife and I, who had so few years together, can resume our relationship, in some measure, and part of it is based on the realization that, if things are so radically different in heaven, are we still "us"? If I am genderless, or I recognize my wife as "someone I used to know", and that's the extent of it, am I really me? To what benefit would it be that we could no longer be husband and wife if we chose to be?

As for sex and eating and stuff, opinions vary. Swedenborg swore up and down that people in heaven had sex in his visions of the place, there are those who point to Psalms as evidence that there is a heavenly feast at which the poor are treated as they never were on Earth, and that barren women will bear children. That's contrasted with those who say it's a spiritual existence where none of that can happen, and others who go with the (rather boring) notion that you're worshipping God up there 24/7 with no time for the mundanities of physical being or other people.

Who knows? Maybe it's whatever we want it to be, so if you're opposed to a physical aspect, you don't get it.

reply to post by nenothtu

The simplest solution would be not to use them, then.

Why do you worry about them at all?

What is it about supernatural forces that gets your attention at all?

Nowhere did I say I was worried. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

Talking about supernatural forces gets my attention. Talking, the last I checked, is not a supernatural force and therefor capable of getting and maintaining one's attention.

reply to post by adjensen


The Levirate Law was before Moses' time, it was cultural. It simply became incorporated into Mosaic law. That law was originally intended to protect women and provide for them in the even their husband died. This was all over the ancient Canaanite world.

We don't really grasp what their world was like and we shouldn't pass today's judgment against them. I learned that in researching genealogy, we simply can't look at them with our modern eyes to pass judgment, we have to say our ancestors did what they did. We live in a different time than they did.

It was normal for teenage girls to be married in those days. The mortality rate was different and people tended to die much younger then. That's why 45 would have seemed so old then, but today, 45 is the new 25. I don't feel like what I thought my grandmother was like at this age. I do more than she did and I do different things than she did.

If we look at the ancient world in which the Mosaic law included Levirate, then we must know what was going on in those days. They lived in a world of constant battle, women were the targets. Look at the story of the Rape of the Sabine Women, that's a Roman story. Levirate was designed to protect women, because in that era, women were brought into families usually far from their own families and she had property from her first husband. She didn't have to marry his brother, she could do so if she chose, but it basically kept her in the family. And then she wouldn't go hungry because she then had land that she could grow food on.

One of the other laws built into it, was that farmers had to allow their fields to not be fully harvested, that grain was to be left for the widows and orphans. That's why Naomi and Ruth went back to Israel, they had been in Moab. Ruth was allowed to marry Boaz under the Levirate law because her husband had died but his closest kinsman could lay claim to her. Boaz was not the closest kinsman, he then had to "buy" the rights to marry her from the others that were closer. But Ruth was not Israelite, she was Moabitess, but people in Moab also practiced Levirate.

The world they lived in was dangerous for women. The Bible does provide for protection of women, but Levirate had existed prior to Moses. Levirate was designed to keep women from starving to death. It was a practical way in that world for women to be supported. Levirate is basically saying that the brother is going to represent the family in keeping her in it, so she would not lose property.

We can see how then Jesus is the kinsman redeemer, He marries His bride by buying her with His own blood, to provide for her eternally where she will never go hungry or live in a dangerous world again.

Aphorism
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The simplest solution would be not to use them, then.

Why do you worry about them at all?

What is it about supernatural forces that gets your attention at all?

Nowhere did I say I was worried. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

Talking about supernatural forces gets my attention. Talking, the last I checked, is not a supernatural force and therefor capable of getting and maintaining one's attention.

Because you are here. You are posting on the subject. It obviously holds your attention.

We do not generally talk about subjects we are not concerned or do not care about.

WarminIndy

arpgme
So what if you see a loving light. How do you know that's God?

Just because you were taught God is light and love you just believe it. No different from the religiously brainwashed.

For most people, spirituality means taking whatever feels good.

There's some people who don't even believe demons and darkness exists anymore, they are in for a surprise.

Most people don't care for truth, just assumptions of whatever makes them happy

We can ask the same question, "How do we know it's not God?"

How can it be that people transcend time and space removed from our senses above our physical body, with all its psychological attachments, and be in the presence of something so great and powerful, that what is so great and powerful then is reduced to "Your former belief" or "Your brainwashed conditioning".

She never said what she believed prior to this. She never said she was a Judeo/Christian, all she said was she arrived there before a presence that was overwhelming, that when she came back, then she knew it was God.

People can say the Flying Spaghetti Monster is god too, but wouldn't they also have to be brainwashed or conditioned to the belief that the presence they stand before is dripping spaghetti sauce?

This woman experienced something so powerful, it changed her perspective about life. But isn't that what it is all about? Transcending this mortality?

Ronald Reagan said one of my favorite quotes after the Space Shuttle disaster..

"They slipped the surly bonds of earth and touched the face of God". That makes me cry every time I think of it, the earth is a bondage, we are held here to it. But transcending this earth and this bondage, we can touch God. Isn't that what every one is trying to do with every form of religious experience?

All words describe... teacher is a person, but teacher is a partial description about that person. My given name, is a word which describes at least what my father wanted me to be (ie: it has a meaning beyond the word itself)and it is something I also answer to, call my name, and I will answer. I know when my name is spoken, someone wants my attention. But, when I want my teachers attention, I can say "teacher" and that teacher will know I am speaking about them too.

God has many names, ie: many ways of describing the same in our languages,

Just as someone can be a carpenter, a husband, a father, a friend, and well as "Eddie" or "Joe" he can also have longer descriptions, Eddie the charitable one... if you say that then many people might know just 'which' Eddie you are referring to, perhaps there is another eddie but he is a drunk.

God, is a word which people gave (since God was uncreated and has no second) for that 'thing' which cannot be adequately described in words, that being who has no second, God is a class without classification. But there are many names, that span many languages, for that One entity.

PS. I was not correcting you, I was only adding to the truth you were speaking.

reply to post by FlyersFan

FlyersFan
THe bible says Jesus did first what we will do ... and he resurrected. He was in a 'body' that was his old one, but changed. He walked through locked doors. He traveled great distances ...appearing and disappearing ... etc etc. He appeared to be eating (I don't know if He really was or if He really needed to or if it was just Him doing familiar things with His apostles to keep them calm ...a psychological ploy)

He was certainly "physical" in some form, considering how he intentionally gave his hand to his disciple to check him, and PROVE he wasn't a spirit.

Also, as to the original topic, I seem to remember linking you to a Bible verse talking about feasting in heaven with all the good guys.

I don't see anything inherently immoral or "low" with physical activities (in heaven or elsewhere), so I have no need to justify them.

reply to post by nenothtu


Words are definitely things I am concerned about. That is all we are talking about here. There is no actual supernatural force plaguing my thoughts.

What about my concern of certain words causes you to worry? And why does it hold your attention?

babloyi
He was certainly "physical" in some form, considering how he intentionally gave his hand to his disciple to check him, and PROVE he wasn't a spirit.

... and at the same time his new and improved physical body could walk through walls and through locked doors ... and travel great distances at quick speeds ...etc. It obviously wasn't the exact same body he died in. It CHANGED.