I have some born again friends, when they figured out that I don't believe in their god, they told me I should and one of the reasons they give me is that heaven is a great place that there will be no bad things, no suffering, no pain, and that all will be happy because everything that is bad don't exsist in heaven.
I asked them how can one know what is happiness/good when the idea of all things bad/evil does not exsist in heaven.
One of them just points me to some page in the bible.
What do you guys think?
well if there was just heaven at first then good would not be a word, but since the earth is here and then theres heaven.(fyi i have a personal relationship with God) so since we know that the earth is sourounded by evil slash bad slash whatever you wanna call it, we can say that heaven is all good, because its taking everything out of the world that is bad. maybe i confused you maybe i didnt. thats my view
Valhalla is even better. There you can feast on roasted boar and drink lots of mead. The company there is much more fun than in heaven, because instead of boring angels that are playing lutes you are in the company of war heroes who don't bother themselves with concepts like good or bad. You can also put some dynamite around your waist and blow up some christians in the name of Allah. In that case you are rewarded in your afterlife with loads of virgins (if there is something left of you, what I sincerely doubt). Other people believe in reincarnation, so you better lead a good life or otherwise you'll turn into a shrimp :lol: .
I wonder how happy they'll all be when they can see so many of their loved ones roasting away below. . .
good owes Evil for making it Good..
if there's no illness, there's no health, if there's no bad, there cant be good, it would be just a standart line..
so if everything is great, and nothing bad, you cant "compare" so it will be a BORING standart line for you.. thats why there can be no heaven.. and hell either..
Well, we don't know, do we? Christians have to face this: We cannot have knowledge that doesn't start with experience. You can't know if evil and good could exist outside of each other, because you've never had an experience for that. You can't even really know if evil and good exist, if they're not just some abstract concepts we made up and have passed on socially for centuries. So, asking "Can good exist outside of evil?" is the wrong question. It's unanswerable.
I learned this from taoism.
The opposites need each othert, yin and yang are part of the tao, they may oppose each other, but they are part of the whole. If what is ugly does not exist, how can you define beauty?
Heaven, if there is such a place, I also think it would be boring, maybe it is a mindless place.
I don't really buy the idea that everything is defined by its opposite. It completely ignores those things that don't have opposites, like "hat", "twine", "clock", "time", "space", "immortality", "substance". How do we define time when it has no opposite? Time doesn't even have degrees like lightness and darkness do. There's no reason, then, to think that we would not be able to define a concept (or have the concept at all) without its opposite in existence.
Quote from: "Court"I don't really buy the idea that everything is defined by its opposite. It completely ignores those things that don't have opposites, like "hat", "twine", "clock", "time", "space", "immortality", "substance". How do we define time when it has no opposite? Time doesn't even have degrees like lightness and darkness do. There's no reason, then, to think that we would not be able to define a concept (or have the concept at all) without its opposite in existence.
hi, my first post! How exciting is that?
Anyway, aren't all those things you mentionned made of matter? The opposite of matter is called anti-matter. I am not so sure about anti-time, though.
I think the concept of heaven being boring, due to it's lack of bad stuff, is valid; an eternity of it would drive me to craziness.
Not to mentioned as someone mentionned above, knowing that your loved ones and fellow humans are roasting eternally like a boar in Valhalla.
did I mention that the WWGHA forum is down?
Yeah, I noticed that. What's up with it?
And yes, there's anti-matter (so that drives out substance), but for individual concepts (like a concept of leather, for example), there is no opposite. Saying anti-matter covers that concept is like saying black covers the concepts of all the other colors. If we define ALL the other colors by opposing them to black, what delineates each color?
Quote from: "Court"Yeah, I noticed that. What's up with it?
And yes, there's anti-matter (so that drives out substance), but for individual concepts (like a concept of leather, for example), there is no opposite. Saying anti-matter covers that concept is like saying black covers the concepts of all the other colors. If we define ALL the other colors by opposing them to black, what delineates each color?
Black is the opposite of colour. That we can deferentiate between the components of white light is besides the point. It's all light and black is it's opposite.
The good and bad concepts are the same, I figure. There are different kinds and degrees of good; magnanimity, kindness, gentleness...etc. But that does not change the fact that bad is the opposite of everything we call good, and without the oppsing concept (with all it's different components that we can differentiate as well) we could not appreciate it's value.
I suppose I should add that the curent cold snap up here is appreciated because I know how comfortably warm it is down there, and I am very very jealous.
Not jealous about the big jesus in the stduent center, however, that simply would not happen in Canada. I can't believe that that is happenign in a
university. You have my deepest sympathy
I have to disagree with the good and bad thing. Unfortunately, it just doesn't hold up, because not all abstract concepts have opposites. If the concept of time can exist and be understood (to a degree) without the concept of anti-time existing, then I see no reason to assume or accept the possibility that "good" or "bad" concepts could not be held without their opposites existing.
After thinking about it for a few days I can say Court is right, there are concepts that do not need the opposites to exsist, I can even add some like "idea" and "shapes or form". These have no opposites.
But in soome cases I still cannot see one can be without the opposite like inside/outside, how can you say something is inside without knowing what outside is?
I think this is the case with good and evil.
It is one reason I cannot accept an all good heaven.
There is no morality in heaven,
In heaven, you can murder, rape, and hurt, with nobody caring.
Maybe that is what the God did,
He manage to kill, command murder, and rape
because he is not interested in what is right and wrong
all he wants is people to worship him.
There is no good or evil in reality, only what we as self-aware beings put out. An animal does not have good or evil in it. It cannot be held accountable for its actions. Though they still perform "evil" actions like goring, maiming, eating, biting, stinging, poisoning people who come across them. We humans have added emotional attachment to actions and called some good and others bad. This isn't too terrible as rape, murder, molesting, stealing, beating people isn't good for society hence we do need to refrain from it.
Although not all concepts need an opposite to be understood, like a chair, what were discussing is dynamics, more easily understood with music. How do you know what loud is without quiet? Or, fast without slow?
You don't need to know the opposite of a chair, if such a thing exists, to understand it. Without some concept of good and evil, neither would exist, nor could we actually understand the concept. i.e If everyone and everything moved at the same speed there would be no fast or slow.
In terms of the original post there could be perfection in heaven, if it too exists, only if we have memory of our concepts of good and evil here on earth.
I agree with Big Mac in that good and evil are defined by the culture we are in. The Aztecs sacrificed humans to their Gods almost daily. While we, whatever that is, might consider this evil, for the Aztecs it was good and necessary.
Thank you to those who post to this topic, I often asked myself such questions ( like my latest one : if in the beginning there is only god... ) I get to learn what others think.
There is no good nor evil. They are fallacious constructs of the hominid mind, incapable of accepting the chaotic and temporal existence.
Mastriani is basically right. The concepts of good and evil are a basis upon which to gauge the shades of gray we are surrounded by and are ourselves. It's like using negative infinity and infinity in math. Neither exists in nature, but the concepts of each are a theoretical basis upon which to build everything in between. Do good and evil exist in reality? Not really. The idea of something perfectly moral and something that is perfectly immoral in reality isn't possible (or is subjective). Some things are very moral or very immoral, and in order to gauge them we have our absolute values of each.
Certainly, constructs of the hominid imagination. Not sure that "good and evil" even qualify for theory, more like whimsical fantasy.
Of course, there are always those who will argue for the actuality of morality under the social contract pretense. At the end of the day, it comes down to what sphere of imagination you use to make yourself comfortable in a violent world.
Morality is a real life application of the golden rule, and the golden rule is the basis unpon which positive intrepersonal relationships exist in our society. If I am driving on the road and I see someone struggling to fix a flat tire, I have no developmental qualms about stopping and helping. It has no real survival benifits, but I do feel good about it, and I'm sure the person with the flat appreciates it.
Your scenario only works under the pretense of the social contract theory, which is a hominid construct.
Predator, prey, resource. Everything else is an imagination sequence.
I understand what you're saying, but to ignore hundreds of thousands of years of social development, in any species, is like watching the TV without the sound on. You're missing something. Also, the morality of which I speak places value on other members of the community, which essentially means that you put value into the continuation of your species. If everyone helped everyone else, mankind would be safer and more likely to continue into the future. Even though it's not a proven survival trait yet, it's likely. Look at wolves and other pack animals. It's general knowledge that their social structures play an active role in their survival, and that the stronger from the pack will help the weaker.
I'm curious, how would you feel if you were the person with the flat tire, and I was the one to stop by and help out? Or what if I had a flat? Would you stop and help out?
Quote from: "Mastriani"Your scenario only works under the pretense of the social contract theory, which is a hominid construct.
Predator, prey, resource. Everything else is an imagination sequence.
All hominids? :wink:
Quote from: "Willravel"I understand what you're saying, but to ignore hundreds of thousands of years of social development, in any species, is like watching the TV without the sound on. You're missing something. Also, the morality of which I speak places value on other members of the community, which essentially means that you put value into the continuation of your species. If everyone helped everyone else, mankind would be safer and more likely to continue into the future. Even though it's not a proven survival trait yet, it's likely. Look at wolves and other pack animals. It's general knowledge that their social structures play an active role in their survival, and that the stronger from the pack will help the weaker.
I'm curious, how would you feel if you were the person with the flat tire, and I was the one to stop by and help out? Or what if I had a flat? Would you stop and help out?
First, you will have to answer this question: Do you want my honest response, or a socially acceptable one?
I really don't have the patience for vitriolic pissing matches on the internets any more.
Quote from: "Mastriani"First, you will have to answer this question: Do you want my honest response, or a socially acceptable one?
Absolutely. Judging by your previous post, you wouldn't be as comfortable with the socially acceptable response.
Quote from: "Mastriani"I really don't have the patience for vitriolic pissing matches on the internets any more.
I'm not interested in sarcastic back and fourths either. I know I'm smarter than some people and some people are smarter than I, and having come to terms wih that I am out here on the interweb partially to see what other people think and maybe teach a little and learn a little, but mostly to make fun of president Bush.
QuoteAbsolutely. Judging by your previous post, you wouldn't be as comfortable with the socially acceptable response.
Unexpected, but thank you nonetheless. My perception of my known attitudes towards the situation are as thus:
1. I do not trust other hominids. If you stop to "help" me change a flat, my caution would be up, as there is an automatic assumption of alterior motive or agenda.
2. No, I would not stop. Two reasons:
a. Again, there is no certainty that the flat tire is not a ruse for an alterior motive or agenda.
b. There are no indicators that there is a resource advantage to such empathetic or "altruistic" behaviors.
QuoteI'm not interested in sarcastic back and fourths either. I know I'm smarter than some people and some people are smarter than I, and having come to terms wih that I am out here on the interweb partially to see what other people think and maybe teach a little and learn a little, but mostly to make fun of president Bush.
LMMFAO ... good on ya mate. On that we can agree.
regarding ulterior motives, I concur.
But, when was the last time you(and by you, I mean anyone here) saw someone with a flat tire on the side of the road?
I would especially be wary of that situation since, for the life of me, I cannot remember the last time I witnessed such a situation. Plus, AAA isn't that expensive, and they'll come and do that shit for you.
I was using the flat tire as an example.
Any time I see someone at a green light struggling to push his or her car out of the way, obviously in need of assistance, I'd be all over it. I am all over it. I do it whenever I can.
I guess the question is: do I have an alrerior agenda? The short answer is: I get off on pushing cars, sexually. The serious answer is: altruism is a part of my personality. Not helping out would be like not wanting to breathe or not wanting to eat. Does it serve a purpous? Not for me, but it sure does for the person I'm helping. I'm a socialist and a humanist.
I'll help people if it's a situation where I'd feel safe doing so....I wouldn't feel safe stopping at the side of the road to help someone I don't know (even if the person really does need help that doesn't mean he or she isn't a criminal and I'd rather be safe than sorry); yet, if they looked like they need help I will call the police station and tell them someone needs assistance.
For instance, hitchhikers need help because they have no car but that doesn't mean it's safe to pick them all up.
QuoteI guess the question is: do I have an alrerior agenda? The short answer is: I get off on pushing cars, sexually. The serious answer is: altruism is a part of my personality. Not helping out would be like not wanting to breathe or not wanting to eat. Does it serve a purpous? Not for me, but it sure does for the person I'm helping. I'm a socialist and a humanist.
Mind you, before making any of the following statements, I make clear that it is not a matter of judgement, assuming fault on any individual, or an attempt at an ad hominem attack; I only use what is in evidence, to wit:
My answer would be, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you have an alterior agenda. Social contract has been a lengthy, and mostly valuable, development in hominid sociality. Also, other primates and other species of the higher order exhibit this, as a survival trait.
Whether or not your awareness of your imaginative capacity announces your altruism is always exercised off the hidden agent of currency in social transactions, reciprocity, is not important.
There are two reasons this occurs: You are an alpha specimen attempting to gain with less energy expenditure, what is available by proxy of social contract; or you are an omega specimen, and maintaining the defined parameters of the social contract, guarantees you continuance.
Most never take the time to view what we do socially as hominids, but it is an economic (resource) transaction.
When you state:
QuoteNot helping out would be like not wanting to breathe or not wanting to eat.
This shows that it is deeply engrained into the biochemical framework, to assist in the capacity to ensure continuance, (procreation). It actually goes to the extent, genetically, that moving away from the social process, can cause physical repercussions.
To balance the scales of the discourse, there is another side represented by myself and some of the other posters: strict competitiveness of the reptilian mind. Noticed in all of our commentary; lack of trust, solitary notions of the self security by not taking part in the social contract, and likelihood of tendencies toward more aggressive reactions with sensations of insecurity, (assumed under bias).
Together we represent the theoretical balance of sociality: altruism under social contract ensures some resource leveling; reptilian minded competitiveness allows for "herd culling".
Both are strategies for the procreative assurance, species continuance.
Back to the OP, this is why "good and evil" do not exist, it is a matter of genetic impetus for the largest part of behavior indicators. The consequence attached to the behaviors is judgment by the imaginative capacities of the hominid mind.
Quote from: "Mastriani"Mind you, before making any of the following statements, I make clear that it is not a matter of judgement, assuming fault on any individual, or an attempt at an ad hominem attack; I only use what is in evidence, to wit:
No worries. I can take it.
Quote from: "Mastriani"My answer would be, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you have an alterior agenda. Social contract has been a lengthy, and mostly valuable, development in hominid sociality. Also, other primates and other species of the higher order exhibit this, as a survival trait.
I'm with you so far.
Quote from: "Mastriani"There are two reasons this occurs: You are an alpha specimen attempting to gain with less energy expenditure, what is available by proxy of social contract; or you are an omega specimen, and maintaining the defined parameters of the social contract, guarantees you continuance.
You're speaking above my education level, I think. Could you elaborate on "alpha specimen" and "omega specimen"?
Quote from: "Mastriani"Most never take the time to view what we do socially as hominids, but it is an economic (resource) transaction.
I do good for others so that they will do good back to me, as a behavioral economy...sounds a bit like a technical explaination of the golden rule.
Quote from: "Mastriani"This shows that it is deeply engrained into the biochemical framework, to assist in the capacity to ensure continuance, (procreation). It actually goes to the extent, genetically, that moving away from the social process, can cause physical repercussions.
Interesting. I have no problem accepting the possibility that altruistm comes from an inate biochemical response as opposed to a conscious decision. The result is the same.
Quote from: "Mastriani"To balance the scales of the discourse, there is another side represented by myself and some of the other posters: strict competitiveness of the reptilian mind. Noticed in all of our commentary; lack of trust, solitary notions of the self security by not taking part in the social contract, and likelihood of tendencies toward more aggressive reactions with sensations of insecurity, (assumed under bias).
Together we represent the theoretical balance of sociality: altruism under social contract ensures some resource leveling; reptilian minded competitiveness allows for "herd culling".
Both are strategies for the procreative assurance, species continuance.
I find you conclusions reasonable.
so, not to be a dick or anything, but it's ulterior not alterior. A common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
QuoteYou're speaking above my education level, I think. Could you elaborate on "alpha specimen" and "omega specimen"?
An alpha specimen in a genetic "pool" or group, is the one that exhibits what are the most advantageous traits, towards the procreative strategy. Likely traits being intelligence, imagination, strength, virility, aggression, etc.
An omega specimen is one that continues by the benefit of the superior members of the "pool" or grouping. These are the submissives, but they are essential in their own right, as long as they do not become burdensome to the other members.
These roles are hierarchical, and dynamic. Age, experience, health, accidental death all play a part in the changing of these roles. There are some "pools" or groups where this doesn't apply, position in the hierarchy is genetically determined or an individual attempting to raise themself up must leave the current group and attempt to insert into a new one.
QuoteI do good for others so that they will do good back to me, as a behavioral economy...sounds a bit like a technical explaination of the golden rule.
Certainly, but with one essential difference: the genetic version requires no moral/ethical impetus. It exists simply for the benefaction of the social group and their procreative strategies.
QuoteInteresting. I have no problem accepting the possibility that altruistm comes from an inate biochemical response as opposed to a conscious decision. The result is the same.
Yes and no. The result is the same as long as there isn't a skewing of perspective created by fallacies such as morality.
QuoteI find you conclusions reasonable.
Unfortunately, they aren't "my" conclusions, but thank you for your time and the vote of confidence. Many empiricists before me elucidated the points, and gathered the theories. My position is much less venerable. I am the regurgitator of their knowledge.
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"so, not to be a dick or anything, but it's ulterior not alterior. A common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
Grammar nazi. Hahaha. You win. Ulterior motive = hidden motive. Alterior motive = backup motive.
Actually alterior isn't a word, a backup motive would be an alternative.
How's that for grammatical fascism?
the reason that christians would know that there are no 'bad' things in heaven is because they have already lived on earth, where both good and bad exist. nowhere in the bible does it say that people would forget their lives on earth when they enter the afterlife.
If a Christian is in heaven yet hasn't forgotten his earthly life then that means he would also know that people are in hell. How could heaven possibly be all good if you are tormented by that knowledge? Well, unless you simply don't care about family, friends, and people in general who went to hell.
Quote from: "Willravel"Do good and evil exist in reality? Not really.
Well I suppose that depends on what you mean by "real", huh? Is a psychological motivation for a physical action "real"? I would argue that it is, since it has a perceptible and measurable effect. So whether good and evil are social constructs or represent the mandate of an ultimate authority it seems silly to say they don't exist. They are adjectives, correct? We have an adjective for the color blue. We, as a species, have agreed that when the light reflected from an object has certain properties that are translated into our brains a certain way… the thing is blue. There are people who are colorblind and may disagree. Just as there are people who don't find murder to be evil. That does not overpower the general consensus or void the reality of the concept. Blue exists because we do, and our interpretive faculties require consensus in order to communicate.
As to the OP, I think the story of creation and the garden make it abundantly clear that God created us as agents of evil to make each other miserable. Had He not wanted that result, He would have kept the "serpent" out, or made the "tree of knowledge" better protected, or not made it at all. Clearly â€"if one is to take the creation account as true even in a metaphorical sense- God wanted us to know the difference between good and evil. This leads me to conclude that this knowledge is necessary for heavenly creatures. Which leads me to conclude that there is a purpose for our suffering.
Heaven would certainly suck if we knew our loved ones would be burning forever. And there would be no point of heaven without a memory of the suffering we had endured. But if, as Revelation says, the gates of heaven are always open, then those who have been purged will be joining us all anyway. So no need to fret.
P.S. Will, I love your humor. Let's be friends.
Quote from: "toink33"I have some born again friends, when they figured out that I don't believe in their god, they told me I should and one of the reasons they give me is that heaven is a great place that there will be no bad things, no suffering, no pain, and that all will be happy because everything that is bad don't exsist in heaven.
I asked them how can one know what is happiness/good when the idea of all things bad/evil does not exsist in heaven.
One of them just points me to some page in the bible.
What do you guys think?
Your question is highly valid. The fact is that unless we define something as "bad" we cannot truly denote a polar opposite. It seems to me that the fact we suffer allows us to appreciate life. Heaven as it is presented is a place where nothing that is bad to us ever exists;your friend can point you to w/e verse in the bible but it doesnt change the fact that if we never had a concept of "suffering" we could never have a concept of "bliss".