If you were creator

[Eudaimonist]

Eternal pain and suffering means eternal life and happiness would be possible and in fact this is the only answer to the question of eternity. You can't have one without the other.

That would be a good reason not to have eternal life and happiness at all.

If that idea really made any sense, which it doesn't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

So does this mean there will be eternal pain and suffering in Heaven?

Ken

I don't think so. I think they'll be eternally separated. Although those suffering may know they missed out on eternal life, but those who have eternal life will not know any pain or suffering whatsoever.

 

[Chriliman]

That would be a good reason not to have eternal life and happiness at all.

If that idea really made any sense, which it doesn't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What if you must choose between eternal bliss or eternal suffering? Which would you choose?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What if you must choose between eternal bliss or eternal suffering? Which would you choose?

That is insufficient information for me to make a judgment.

Eternal bliss sounds like the better option, but not if it means being "lobotomized" so that I forget all of my loved ones who are living in eternal suffering.

Eternal suffering sounds like the worse option, unless it simply means that this is how one is able to live a human life. A functionally human life that contains the possibility of suffering may be preferable to life stuck in a bliss-machine that simply feeds you pleasant dreams and blissful feelings.

But that is leaving my original point -- that if eternal bliss must be bought at the price of eternal suffering for unwilling others, then eternal bliss ought to be regarded as morally dubious.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

That is insufficient information for me to make a judgment.

Eternal bliss sounds like the better option, but not if it means being "lobotomized" so that I forget all of my loved ones who are living in eternal suffering.

Eternal suffering sounds like the worse option, unless it simply means that this is how one is able to live a human life. A functionally human life that contains the possibility of suffering may be preferable to life stuck in a bliss-machine that simply feeds you pleasant dreams and blissful feelings.

But that is leaving my original point -- that if eternal bliss must be bought at the price of eternal suffering for unwilling others, then eternal bliss ought to be regarded as morally dubious.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What if all your loved ones also chose eternal life because you showed them how to obtain it?

 

[Chicken Little]

So does this mean there will be eternal pain and suffering in Heaven?

Ken

interesting! so maybe he calls the eternal pain and suffering parts "his footstool" for some reason. so in reality maybe everyone gets to heaven after all and seems most won't fully appreciate their new abodes. of course they never appreciated anything else he did either.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What if all your loved ones also chose eternal life because you showed them how to obtain it?

What if they aren't getting eternal life (according to you) because they happen to follow the wrong religion or path?

In the real world, there exist families in which some members believe that they have found the key to eternal happiness, but other family members either believe that they have found a different key, or that there is no key to be found. Wishing this sort of thing away doesn't make it disappear from reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't think so. I think they'll be eternally separated. Although those suffering may know they missed out on eternal life, but those who have eternal life will not know any pain or suffering whatsoever.

But you said eternal life and happiness is only possible with the existence of eternal pain and suffering; that you can’t have one without the other.
Going by this logic, if there is no pain and suffering in Heaven, there can’t be any happiness there either! So are you saying there is no happiness or sadness in heaven?

Ken

 

[Freodin]

What if all your loved ones also chose eternal life because you showed them how to obtain it?

If "all your loved ones" chose eternal life... who would do all the eternal suffering?

 

[Chriliman]

What if they aren't getting eternal life (according to you) because they happen to follow the wrong religion or path?

In the real world, there exist families in which some members believe that they have found the key to eternal happiness, but other family members either believe that they have found a different key, or that there is no key to be found. Wishing this sort of thing away doesn't make it disappear from reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm just suggesting that if there is a purpose to life, it's most rational to believe there is only One purpose and One path to get to that purpose.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm just suggesting that if there is a purpose to life, it's most rational to believe there is only One purpose and One path to get to that purpose.

I find it just as rational to believe there are many paths to get to that purpose

K

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm just suggesting that if there is a purpose to life, it's most rational to believe there is only One purpose and One path to get to that purpose.

That doesn't follow logically. It's just a tenet of Christianity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

I find it just as rational to believe there are many paths to get to that purpose

K

When you finally get to that purpose and look back, isn't it logical to say you took one winding path to get to where you ended up? Rather than looking back and seeing multiple paths as if you somehow separated your journey into multiple journeys rather than one journey?

 

[quatona]

When you finally get to that purpose and look back, isn't it logical to say you took one winding path to get to where you ended up? Rather than looking back and seeing multiple paths as if you somehow separated your journey into multiple journeys rather than one journey?

Which wouldn´t be the same as saying that there is only "one path" to that purpose.

 

[Chriliman]

Which wouldn´t be the same as saying that there is only "one path" to that purpose.

I'm using the word path to define my existence in space and time. There isn't anything I can do to change space/time, although I can make choices that may effect the outcome of what happens in space/time, but after said things happen and I look back, I realize there is nothing I can do to change what happened. So before said things happened I had the belief that I can make a choice to effect my future, but when that future passes and becomes the past, I realize there is nothing I can do to change it.

The question is since I can't see the future I can't know for sure if there was anything I did that actually changed the future or if the future is already set to happen I just have to experience it to realize I'm on one unchangeable path in space/time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm using the word path to define my existence in space and time.

You might want to make that more clear up front, because that's not how anyone understands the idea of a "path" around here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

You might want to make that more clear up front, because that's not how anyone understands the idea of a "path" around here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear before, I guess the important thing is that I make myself clear. So am I making any sense now that I've made it more clear?

 

[brinny]

If you were creator

What KIND of creator?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm just suggesting that if there is a purpose to life, it's most rational to believe there is only One purpose and One path to get to that purpose.

Why?

Why can't each person define their own purpose in life?

 

[Chriliman]

Why?

Why can't each person define their own purpose in life?

I think many do define there own purpose in life. The trouble is what do we compare each definition of purpose to? A serial killer has defined his purpose in life to be a serial killer. Many view this purpose as wrong, but why? According to your view, a serial killer should be able to freely define his own purpose. According to my view, a serial killer should not define his own purpose, but should instead adhere to rightiouse morality, which is not defined by any single man, yet is made clear to all men. My question to you is, how is this possible?