'Physical enjoyment' in the afterlife

reply to post by nenothtu

I'm sorry. I couldn't decipher most of your response, even with a dictionary and a thesaurus.

Don't apologize. Your being unable to understand simple English makes no difference to me.

I believe you may have missed my point entirely. You are in a religious thread, dealing with religious concepts and seeking religious answers, yet appear to have no religious belief. My purpose in this discussion is to discover why you have a fascination with religion, yet seem to have no religion at all. I have to wonder why you are here in the first place, if not to seek religious answers yourself.

I don't have a fascination with religion. I have a fascination with psychology and language. I want to understand why people think the way they do, and why they use certain terminology the way they do.

"Truth" and what can be measured (and poked at) are two different things. just ask Heisenberg. Just because something cannot be measured does not mean it does not exist. Just because something is unknown or undiscovered, likewise, does not mean it does not exist. if it did, then there are a great many things known today that would not be, since at one time or another they were entirely unknown, not even suspected to be.

In other words, the phrase "no such forces have ever been seen or known to be at work anywhere or at anytime" can be said of a great many things that are now known, but were previously unknown. By the logic you present, they should not be (because they were, at one time or another not known to be at work, nor had they been seen), yet are.

Just when science thinks it knows and has discovered everything, something new comes along...

... which is why we can drive cars faster than 35 miles an hour without having all the air sucked out of our lungs and suffocating. Once upon a time, science said that was impossible.

Every time some force is discovered, that force is natural. Name one supernatural force that has been discovered and you will be naming natural forces.

And there is a pink-elephant orbiting Jupiter. Just because it hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just take my word for it. It takes an act of desperation, or extreme incredulity to believe such a thing.

I am completely open to forces that may or may not be found (of course these will not be supernatural forces, but natural forces). I am, however, against dogmatically insisting that there are supernatural forces, where no such forces have been found. Because one can imagine something doesn't make it so, neither does it imply that one should express such imaginings dogmatically as absolute truth.

reply to post by Aphorism

I have not been following the conversation you had with nenothtu, but asking to "find" a supernatural force is kinda silly, isn't it? If it has been "found", obviously it is not supernatural, especially if by "found", you mean empirically, through rational observation of the physical universe.

usertwelve
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The passage is referring to the "sons of God". Can you point out where the sons of God are angels?

Well, we first have to suss out how many different types of beings are recognized by Judaism and Christianity. There are Humans, Angels, and Demons in most cosmogonies relating to those religions.

We can further surmise that demons would not be referred to as "Sons of God", so that leaves Humans and Angels.

Depending on the translation, how closely or literally it follows the original language, that is spelled out right there in the text, with "Daughters of Man" being translated as "human". That differentiation leaves Angels as the only possible identity for "Sons of God".

Here is the same passage in another translation to hopefully clarify things:

1 When humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose. 3 So the LORD said, "My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years."

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men.

Genesis 6:1-4 (Free version of New English Translation with limited notes)

or another, somewhat more literal translation:

1 And it came about that men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them. 2 The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were good. And they took wives for themselves from all those whom they chose.
3 And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man; in their erring he is flesh. And his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
4 The giants were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore to them; they were heroes which existed from ancient time, the men of name. Genesis 6:1-4 (Green's Literal Translation)

It appears to be saying that "The Sons of God" had sex with "the daughters of humans" and the resulting offspring were "Giants", "the heros which existed in ancient times", etc. Supposedly Nimrod was one of these Nephilim "giants" or "mighty men" who went on to found the first five cities in Shinar or Sumeria.

If "the Sons of God" are merely other Humans, there is no need to differentiate between the two. Then it's just people rutting like weasels with other people, which happens all the time and is not a notable occurrence.

reply to post by nenothtu

There are Humans, Angels, and Demons in most cosmogonies relating to those religions.

If we limit ourselves to just the three then that would also make Jesus an angel?

Since he was also a son of God.

Aphorism

Don't apologize. Your being unable to understand simple English makes no difference to me.

Evidently your version of English is just TOO simple for me. No problem - I'm sure it wasn't worthy of a response anyhow, whatever it said, so no harm, no foul.

Every time some force is discovered, that force is natural. Name one supernatural force that has been discovered and you will be naming natural forces.

Perhaps the difference here is how one defines "supernatural". You seem to think it something that is "unnatural", making "super"natural to mean "UN"natural, and I believe it to be the ultimate in nature. Perhaps you stress "super", whereas I stress "natural", seeing "super"natural as "hyper"natural. What can be more natural than that which created all of nature, from which all nature sprang forth?

And there is a pink-elephant orbiting Jupiter. Just because it hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just take my word for it. It takes an act of desperation, or extreme incredulity to believe such a thing.

And it takes an excessively closed mind to reject the possibility out of hand, with no evidence either way. Who am I to determine the validity of what you think YOU have seen in your journeys around Jupiter?

Now about this pink elephant... can you provide any other witnesses who have seen it, or was it just you?

I am completely open to forces that may or may not be found (of course these will not be supernatural forces, but natural forces). I am, however, against dogmatically insisting that there are supernatural forces, where no such forces have been found. Because one can imagine something doesn't make it so, neither does it imply that one should express such imaginings dogmatically as absolute truth.

Likewise, simply rejecting something does not make it NOT so. If it did, there would be no Obamacare.

Dogma is a funny thing. Dogmatically insisting that something is NOT is not much different than dogmatically insisting that something IS.

So, your dogmatic expression of an "absolute truth" is not demonstrably superior to mine.

If, a thousand years ago, you had told people that little tiny biological entities they couldn't see caused them to become ill, you probably would have been burned for being a witch, and attempting to cover the real means of making people ill - obviously (at the time) witchcraft. What discoveries do you suppose the next thousand years may bring? or do you think we have discovered everything by now?

A firm, dogmatic belief that everything has been discovered by now is necessary to make the argument that there are no "supranatural forces" yet to be discovered.

usertwelve
reply to post by nenothtu

 

There are Humans, Angels, and Demons in most cosmogonies relating to those religions.

If we limit ourselves to just the three then that would also make Jesus an angel?

Since he was also a son of God.

edit on 10/30/2013 by usertwelve because: (no reason given)

Jesus never said that He said He was a Son of Man.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Agreed, but the text we are discussing did. So does that mean the authors were calling him an angel?

Nevermind.

Long day, causing misreading via blurry eyeballs.

usertwelve
reply to post by nenothtu

 

There are Humans, Angels, and Demons in most cosmogonies relating to those religions.

If we limit ourselves to just the three then that would also make Jesus an angel?

Since he was also a son of God.

edit on 10/30/2013 by usertwelve because: (no reason given)

No, because Jesus was never differentiated from entirely human. Even most Christians I know say he was "wholly human", and then go on to add other illogical stuff to that. He referred to himself exclusively as "the Son of Man". Anything else is by inference or the attribution of others.

The passage in Genesis specifically differentiates "the Sons of God" from humans. There is therefore not even a hint that it was meant in the metaphorical or spiritual sense that it was applied to, say for example, David, who was also referred to as a "son of God".

reply to post by nenothtu

He referred to himself exclusively as "the Son of Man".

I see. So the sons of God of old didn't do that?

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.

Sometimes our intellect is of no use to us in fathoming things out, especially when it comes to things of a mystical nature. Believe it or not souls do have eyes and ears. Every soul is endowed with the inner faculty of hearing (surat) and seeing (nirat) which can only be grasped by people who practice “Surat Shadb Yoga” definition here. The soul has two primary internal faculties, the power to hear and the power to see, inner hearing and inner vision. The inner sound has countless names, Divine Music of the Voice of God, the word of God and Music of the Spheres among many.

Jesus is speaking of these two internal spiritual faculties when he said to his disciples:

Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for you hear. For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them. And to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. Matthew 13:16-17

More explanation below (Here)

The attention-faculty of the soul (Surat-Nirat) usually remains dormant in most people, what some call "The Blind Eye." Mystics portray the typical materialistic society as being a place of sleeping souls unaware of their true identity as soul, and often are even mislead by religious voices that speak about a million topics, but unfortunately, how to see and hear spiritually is usually not one of them. Sant Tulsi Sahab says, "Through the ritualism of the pundit, the whole world has been deluded. 'Wake up, wake up!' has been said for ages......For ages and ages, aeons and aeons, the soul has slept; who but the Saints can wake it." And Kabir says, "For millions of years you have slept, this morning, will you not wake?"

Coming under the saran or protection of the Satguru means being summoned to awakening again, and one then learns the Methods of Sadhana or spiritual practice that make it possible for the soul to see and hear. One's ability to see and hear is restored. This is the true "healing" of those who are blind and cannot hear, and the true "resurrection from the dead" that the Master bestows upon their disciple-students or chelas.
The mystic terms "Surat" and "Nirat" refer to the soul's consciousness: the attention, the ability of the soul to concentrate within, hear spiritually (Surat), see within (Nirat) and experience the bliss of higher regions.

reply to post by nenothtu

Perhaps the difference here is how one defines "supernatural". You seem to think it something that is "unnatural", making "super"natural to mean "UN"natural, and I believe it to be the ultimate in nature. Perhaps you stress "super", whereas I stress "natural", seeing "super"natural as "hyper"natural. What can be more natural than that which created all of nature, from which all nature sprang forth?

Of course, when talking about things that are born only in the imagination, and that are found no where in reality, definitions are going to differ. We are essentially discussing nothings here.

I was utilizing the dictionary definition of supernatural.

And it takes an excessively closed mind to reject the possibility out of hand, with no evidence either way. Who am I to determine the validity of what you think YOU have seen in your journeys around Jupiter?

Now about this pink elephant... can you provide any other witnesses who have seen it, or was it just you?

Oh no I've never seen it. I read it in a book once. I was told this book is the truth, so I believed it. You should believe it too.

Likewise, simply rejecting something does not make it NOT so. If it did, there would be no Obamacare.

Dogma is a funny thing. Dogmatically insisting that something is NOT is not much different than dogmatically insisting that something IS.

So, your dogmatic expression of an "absolute truth" is not demonstrably superior to mine.

If, a thousand years ago, you had told people that little tiny biological entities they couldn't see caused them to become ill, you probably would have been burned for being a witch, and attempting to cover the real means of making people ill - obviously (at the time) witchcraft. What discoveries do you suppose the next thousand years may bring? or do you think we have discovered everything by now?

A firm, dogmatic belief that everything has been discovered by now is necessary to make the argument that there are no "supranatural forces" yet to be discovered.

Yes I might be being a little dogmatic, but who isn't when talking about things that have no bearing whatsoever on our lives. And I believe there isn't any absolute truth, so just pretend that I put "in my opinion" in front of everything I say. I have been doing the same to you.

What am I rejecting exactly? There is nothing there to reject. We are not even sure what we are talking about anymore. How can we reject something that isn't even there? Consequently, how can one believe in something that isn't there? He cannot.

I have never said nothing new will be discovered, only that if it does, it will be entirely natural. No supernatural forces needed.

usertwelve
reply to post by nenothtu

 

He referred to himself exclusively as "the Son of Man".

I see. So the sons of God of old didn't do that?

How far "of old" re we talking here? I believe David may have, and at least one of the prophets did. The "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 didn't, not that I can fin any reference to, anyhow.

reply to post by Aphorism


Fair enough.

You have a nice day, then.

Since your days here are all you will ever have, enjoy them to the fullest. I wish you well in that endeavor, and I mean that.

ETA: I just had to do this, but I promise to stop afterwards, and let you get on with your puzzling existence.

How can we reject something that isn't even there? Consequently, how can one believe in something that isn't there? He cannot.

By that logic, there MUST be something there then, since some people DO believe in it. Now, I don't say this to tweak you or anything, or to say that anything does exist, only to point out a flaw in your logic. In example, I don't believe in your pink elephant orbiting Jupiter, but if you DID (or if you could convince someone else to), than by this logic that would say that it has to be real, because according to this sentence, no one can believe in things that are not there.

OK. It's out of my system now. Continue with your regularly scheduled programming.

Given that the 'afterlife' is one without strictly physical senses (although another poster pipped me on the 'spiritual sight & hearing)...no, there is no 'physical' enjoyment in the afterlife...

...but, it's a neat question anyway...

Å99

reply to post by nenothtu

I suppose we can refer to any reference that uses the term 'sons of God' by the authors. They used that term and were very well versed in the Torah. If the use of the phrase in Genesis means angels why would they then refer to other humans by the same reference.

List of usages

Also, if it were angels that went to the daughters why did God punish men with a flood for what the angels did?

Gen. 2:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

reply to post by usertwelve


Oh lordy, you're gonna make me do homework!

This may take a while, but I'll get back to you on that.

usertwelve
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I suppose we can refer to any reference that uses the term 'sons of God' by the authors. They used that term and were very well versed in the Torah. If the use of the phrase in Genesis means angels why would they then refer to other humans by the same reference.

List of usages

Without quoting and replying to each instance of usage, we can see that the first 5 are from the Old Testament. Each of those five differentiate "Sons of God" from humans. The three from Job are the most striking in that regard, speaking of an audience in the Heavenly court in which the Sons of God gather to present themselves - which, from the references seems to be a periodic occurrence - and Satan coming to seemingly pay his respects as well. I say "seemingly", because the rest of the book shows pretty clearly he had ulterior motives (trying to get Job in hot water with God) In Job, there is reference to direct face-to-face conversation on these occasions, so we can see that it was not just a bunch of humans running into a synagogue and talking to the air.

In the last 6 references, from the New Testament (half John, half Paul), it is specified that in the post Jesus era, an adoption of sorts must occur before being "Sons of God" - men are not born that way. I.e - "John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" ; "Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.". In other words, humans are humans, and "Son of God-ship" is "manifest" on those who believe in Jesus... which cannot have occurred in Old Testament times, when Genesis 6:2 and following were written.

From the New Testament quotes, it appears that it is something that becomes manisfest in specific chosen individuals, a separate thing from their humanity, not bestowed upon humans in general.

Also, if it were angels that went to the daughters why did God punish men with a flood for what the angels did?

Gen. 2:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

He didn't.

It says there that God was unhappy with humans for their evil attitudes not for bearing children, regardless of parentage, which it does not speak to. It seems a bit rough to make the birds and animals pay the price too, but I reckon when a God gets mad, it REALLY gets mad!

reply to post by nenothtu

Fair enough.

You have a nice day, then.

Since your days here are all you will ever have, enjoy them to the fullest. I wish you well in that endeavor, and I mean that.

ETA: I just had to do this, but I promise to stop afterwards, and let you get on with your puzzling existence.

A little travelling and a little conversation with others of many cultures will show that we're not at all that different you and I. We speak a different language. That is it.

By that logic, there MUST be something there then, since some people DO believe in it. Now, I don't say this to tweak you or anything, or to say that anything does exist, only to point out a flaw in your logic. In example, I don't believe in your pink elephant orbiting Jupiter, but if you DID (or if you could convince someone else to), than by this logic that would say that it has to be real, because according to this sentence, no one can believe in things that are not there.

I completely agree. There is something there, we're just never honest about it. It consists of words, rhetoric, ideas, prose, verse and parable. What, outside of that, has taught us about this subject?

I will not say goodbye as I hope to talk to you again. This sort of conversation is valuable to me. Thank you.

reply to post by nenothtu

So OT reference = angel and NT reference = some type of spiritual state. Know of any reason why the NT authors made a switch from it meaning angels?

"Son of God-ship"

This isn't in the text itself.

It says there that God was unhappy with humans for their evil attitudes not for bearing children, regardless of parentage, which it does not speak to.

It seems the author combined these two verses for a reason. They never tell us of any wickedness from man. Only the wickedness of the "sons of God".

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.