Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

There is an old Chinese proverb that states, “One must find perfection through imperfection.” I believe this to be true, in that everything here seems to have a balance. To have nothing but good things all the time would mean that one ceases to appreciate how good those things are. One must have the negative to which one can compare and contrast the positive in order to better appreciate the positive. The reverse is also true—if one experiences nothing but the negative, one becomes desensitized towards all things negative, for one has nothing positive against which to compare it. This leads me to believe that variety is not the spice of life, but that variety is life; without variety, one’s existence becomes barren and dull, full of monotony.

That being said, if we take into account that Heaven and Hell are originally thought of as being unchanging states—one entirely good and one entirely bad—then as one approaches infinity within either state, the states become of equal value to the subjective being. Therefore, perhaps it becomes necessary to redefine what we perceive Heaven and Hell to truly be. Would Hell be a place where there is no variety—whether it is for good or for bad? Or would it be as a friend of mine suggested, where you see and know the good, are in the bad, and struggle towards getting out of the bad and into the good, only to be cast down again further into the bad, in an endless cycle?

What, then, would Heaven be? Would Heaven essentially be a life similar to the one on this world where we experience both good and bad, so that we can appreciate when we have the good that much more? If so, is it safe to assume that we currently live in Heaven? What if we are in Heaven right now, and didn’t know it?

Here is a possible theory: We all currently live in a Heaven where to appreciate the good, we must continue to be exposed to the bad. When we die here in this realm—since we are already dead (or did we even have a life outside of this Heaven to begin with?)—we are reincarnated into this world once more, so that we experience the cycle again, ad infinitum. But then, what of the ever-increasing world population? Does that mean that there are more people coming from the actual world of the living into our world, in addition to the ones who die and are born (or in this case, reborn) every second (a total average of 3 deaths and 5 births every second)? Would that, then, be potential “proof” of a life before this world, or could that mean that more and more people are being created into existence directly into our Heaven here for other reasons, such as solely to keep up appearances? And why would we not even know that this is Heaven? I would think that because we already have a preconceived notion of what Heaven is supposed to be (namely, an unchanging state of eternal bliss), then if we realized that we were in Heaven already, we would have much different expectations of the world around us, believing that we have inherent rights to eternal bliss as we see fit. We would thusly be thoroughly disappointed to find out that Heaven was not at all what we thought (and demanded) it to be, which would cause a whole heap of problems--potentially even an implosion of Heaven.

Now, then, the reader is probably asking “What of the poor souls who experience much more negative in this world than positive? Are they also considered to be in Heaven?” Perhaps, then, this is their Hell. Perhaps, with a revision of the last paragraph’s theory, this is simultaneously Heaven AND Hell—an afterlife for both people. After all, would not a part of Hell for an individual be seeing another individual who is in their Heaven, so close yet so far from the first individual that he or she becomes aggravated, jealous, scornful, and other emotions that may lead to a worse experience in that individual’s personal Hell? Are the ideas of Heaven and Hell perhaps, then, conjoined so that each exists simultaneously on the same plane, intermeshed and interactive with one another?

Or perhaps, to take it a step further, this deductive reasoning would lead one to believe that the ideas of Heaven and Hell are merely a creation of the collective Psyche of mankind—that no such literal states exist beyond what we personally experience in this, our current world and current life.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

That is very intriguing, very wll thought out. It really makes you think, your thoughts of how this is heaven and hell is ingenius. Whetehr it's true or not is a mystery, but it is interesting.

I agree with you, too, to know positive, you must know negative. I myself have had an experience where there was negativity, and someone in my situation then could've dwelled on the negative, but I was able to remain positive, for there were still things to be positive about, it wasn't completely negative, just more negative before, and I had a few hopes and wishes that kept me positive, and then when those hopes were fufilled, and my life became more positive than ever, or at least it seemed more positive than ever, I was a new person. Ever since I've been optimistic, I''ve been able to see all sides of an argument, and I appreciate things more, so the things mentioned in your introduction are defenitely experienced in life.

As I said before, that is an ingenious way of looking at life.

As Strong Bad would say...

"Positate the negative."

Being somewhat serious, you really have to do that sometimes.

Heaven, to me, is a place of eternal happiness, good, and paradise. I believe it to be just outside the universe as we perceive it, and it requires no logical explanation for it's ability to provide room for an ever-growing population. It needs not any explanation for it's peoples ability to live, for it goes beyond logistics. I believe it may be misty and cloudy, with eternal blue and bright light from nowhere and everywhere. It is walled with bejeweled Perl and gold and metals conceived only by God himself. It's gated made of the legendary oricalcose, guarded by cherubim (warrior elite angels) and posted by St. Peter himself. The streets are gold, going far, far beyond the eye's sight. Beyond the gates lies a city of unconceivable splendor. Homes of Pearl, and countless other materials, rest upon a ground that is seemingly fine -fine- sand and a mist-like substance. In the city center, where countless angels, of all ranks, flew minute after minute, was a great palace: so great, that I cannot even begin to attempt to describe it, to do so would be sinful. Surrounding the city of heaven is a great and vast Forest. Here, countless beasts of immortal life roam and guard the walls of the city. Heaven is of grand appearance, and this description isn't even good enough.

But wouldn't an unchanging eternal state of bliss eventually be as boring and pointless as an unchanging eternal state of torture?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

here's the thing, though. In heaven, worldly thought is transcended. At least, this is what I believe. So, in truth, I guess you wouldn't notice. You see, when you reach the state where your existence is Solly in your spirit form, you reach a state where all worldly thought (such as boredom) does not apply to you. This explains why ghosts repeat the same cycle of activities and never recycle.

Except that pure spirit is not the final state of humanity. On the last day, the dead will be raised to new life, and once judged, then they will experience the final state as complete human beings, body and soul.

_________________

Here is my thought. Without evil good can not exist. If there is no such thing as evil then good will become meaningless and will no longer be good but simply average. This comes to the theory: Good and evil are a never ending cycle of counter action. If good lasts too long evil will arrive and destroy it. Evil cannot exist too long because good will eventually destroy it. They are attracted to eachother and neither can be destroyed. Heaven and Hell counteract each other. The thing is that purgatory counteracts both from messing each other up. Purgatory is in a flux because heaven and hell act on it making it be a place of good and evil, thats why it's purgatory.

_________________
http://s3.bitefight.org/c.php?uid=34919

Essentially, what really bores me about Christianity, is that it paints a completely black and white picture world.

God is good and perfect, and the Devil is evil and fallible.

Heaven is bliss, Hell is agony.

I'd take greek myths over it anyday.

To relay something i've heard in the past, many bible scholars say that hell isn't actually a place where people go, and that when you read the word hell in an English bible, its translated from something in Hebrew that means perguntory.

Not sure if I can verify that, but that was a refutation I got when I posted a thread in a religious forum, pointing out that common Christian belief has the mass majority of humanity (10-20 billion people) going to hell for no other reason then ignorance.

Actually, that's a very astute observation. Most Western religions (as in, religions prevalent in the Western hemisphere) usually deal with extreme good and evil, with very little grey area, while Eastern religions tend to have very few extremes and are mostly varying degrees of the concepts of good and evil.

As for me? I believe in Heaven, because I know that I worship a God that loves all of His creation. I'm not sure about Hell, though. It's a hard concept for me to grasp. Like I said, I like to think that God is loving and forgiving to all of His people. I'll have to give it more thought, I guess.

The term "hell" in English is from a number of different terms in Greek and Hebrew. The term sheol in Hebrew means something similar to "place of the dead." It can be understood as death itself, a grave, a pit, or a place where disembodied souls of the dead are kept.

There is another Hebrew term, gehinnon, literally the Valley of Hinnon, a place where it is believed ancient pagan sacrifices were made. These sacrifices were believed to involve the burning alive of the victims*, and so the valley itself took the reputation of being a place of tortured souls of the damned.

The most common Greek term used is Hades, which again, is the place in Greek mythology where the souls of the dead were gathered. In the New Testament, it seems essentially synonymous with the last definition of sheol and the basic idea of gehinnon.

Hell is also described as a pit, as an outer darkness (where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth), as a prison, and as an unquenchable lake of fire.

I would also be quick to point out that one should not choose ideas based on whether they appeal to one's sense of aesthetics, but whether there is any basis of truth in them. The reason we Christians believe in hell is because Jesus Christ, the one who went there and rose again from the dead, testifies to its existence. If there was any historical basis for faith in Zeus or Apollo (for example, any biographies of them written by people who knew them personally), then there might be some merit to believing in Greek mythology.


Actually, I would contend that, at least for us Christians, we ARE that middle ground between good and evil. We are, in fact, the battlefield upon which they war. But see my comments on the Philosophy thread for more information.

*Dr. Stephen Hooks, professor of Hebrew studies at Atlanta Christian College, has made a rather strong case that these were not human sacrifices involving killing, but rather a ritual that involved a sort of "baptism" through fire. According to him, the ritual did not result in permanent damage to the candidate. This opinion, however, is not the concensus of scholarly opinion.

_________________

Actually, if you really think about it, evil itself is the incorrect or excessive pursuit of good. Nobody in this world (or out of it) ever pursues evil for evil's sake; they always want power, pleasure, etc., which are all good things in and of themselves. I'm pretty sure that even Satan is pursuing power, rather than just doing evil for evil's sake. This is where the whole fallen archangel thing really starts to make sense.



Well, if God weren't good and perfect, why should He even matter? I don't know about you, but I could never think of obeying a god that wasn't perfect; otherwise, I might have the potential to become more moral than him.

And by examining our own morals, we can see that God must be purely good. Why else should he instill in humanity a desire to be good?

Concerning the main point of the thread, I too have often wondered what Heaven would be like, and found the idea of eternal happiness to be actually somewhat unpleasant. If Heaven were simply eternal happiness, it'd be about equivalent to eternal drugging. Except without all the bodily damage. I should hope by that time we might realize the triviality of 'happiness' and other emotions.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Well, if God weren't good and perfect, why should He even matter?

Hmm, perhaps because hes all powerful and can condemn you to eternal unbearable suffering?

And by examining our own morals, we can see that God must be purely good. Why else should he instill in humanity a desire to be good?

And why should he instill in humanity a desire to be bad? Maliciousness is within our repretoire, and if we are made in gods image, then god must be (like us) a hybrid of good and evil.

Well, actually, that was our own doing. Originally, humanity was intrinsically perfect, but after the fall man had in himself the tendancy towards evil (when outside of God's will, at least). Us being made in God's image has to do instead with our ability to reason (our intellect, etc.) have free will, be spiritual, have souls, and things along those lines. We still have those, only now we are born with a sinful nature hardwired in ourselves as opposed to a nature alligned with God's intent for lives.

_________________

As long as I retained my free will, I would pretty much refuse to serve/accept an imperfect god no matter their wrath. The point is that if he weren't good and perfect then there would be no reason to heed him at all.

God gave us the ability to be evil and disobey him because there would be no other way to have free will. And it's not so much a desire to be bad as it is an unhealthy desire for what would normally be good things. Like I said, evil is the incorrect pursuit of good. Not to mention that our ability to act against God's will is also aggravated by Satan's antics.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Originally, humanity was intrinsically perfect

Then why did we eat the apple? And being that the apple was merely knowledge, how could it have done anything other then make us aware of the evil that was already inside of us?

The point is that if he weren't good and perfect then there would be no reason to heed him at all.

I would call dodging an eternity of suffering a reason, but to each his own.

By the way, he could probably perform mind control on you, so you might not even get a choice.

it's not so much a desire to be bad as it is an unhealthy desire for what would normally be good things.

Selfishness is inherent, evil, and often concious.

Really, perhaps the only difference between good and evil is the definition of good. Looked at that way however, neither good nor evil exist, as they are both subjective. If god made us in his image, then he shares our definitions, which are at times selfish.

The eating of the apple was also the disobedience of God. Which was available because we have free will. So I don't know that we've ever been perfect. We have always been capable of doing evil since we have free will, but as time goes on, humanity gains more power, via technology, or knowledge (such as that gained by the apple) thus making us able to be either more evil or more good. An archangel can be extremely good or extremely evil, and a cow can't be very much of either, because of the difference in power. Over time, as well, our nature and society have been corrupted by Satan's wiles.



About the mind control, that's what I meant when I said 'as long as I retained my free will.' But what I'm saying that is if God isn't purely good, then we're pretty much screwed either way. Making our existence entirely pointless. And, personally, I would rather be driven mad by an eternity of suffering than falsely cater to an ignoble god. Not that he wouldn't be able see through it.



But, you see, that's what selfishness is– the incorrect pursuit of good. Nobody does evil for evil's sake, though there are those who do good for goodness' sake. Which proves good's inherent superiority and disproves Dualism. But that's a topic for another day.

Not sure what you mean by the definition of good. Or why you say good and evil are subjective. That infers that there is no actual good or evil, no real right and wrong. Which is incorrect. You can see that by examining humanity's behavior. That would make Nazis no more to blame for their views than for their hair color. And it's not just that things are inconvenient that makes us oppose them – I, and everyone else, would be angrier at someone who purposely tries to trip me and fails than someone who accidentally did so and succeeded.

You might say that people have different morals – and it certainly might seem so at first glance. But this 'difference' is only because humans often subdue (or have subdued by their environment) their moral impulses until they've convinced themselves that it isn't wrong.

Examining this discussion overall, I think I would say that we are indeed partly evil in nature. But I would say this is due to our free will and to Satan's perversion. Merely 'being made in God's image' does not mean humans and God are exactly alike – it refers to our ability to choose, think, and feel. To say that since we are evil, God must be, is not very far from saying that since we are weak, God must be. Which he certainly isn't if he could create this universe.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Just an off-topic point...the Bible never says what type of fruit comes from the Tree of Knowledge, so we can't say for sure that it was an apple...>>

Anyways, time for painted toast (preferrably orange).

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Over the past year or so, I have really come to understand the Christian faith in terms of following Christ. This isn't a "works salvation" idea, but I think it does help us to understand why it is that those who neither trust in Christ nor follow him will never inherit his promises.

To find the green pastures and still waters, we must follow. This means trusting, listening to his voice, and obeying his Word. Like sheep following a shepherd. Yes, there will be times when we go astray; yes, there will be times when we face dangers; and yes, there will be times when we have to walk through some dark valleys. But that is why we need the Good Shepherd, to find us when we are lost, to defend us against those dangers, and to guide us as we journey through this dark valley of shadows. And when we are wounded by predators and obstacles, he is there to bind up those wounds, and to carry us until we get better.

But if we do not follow, if we do not hear his voice, then we never find those green pastures or still waters. Not ultimately, anyway, because only the Good Shepherd can lead us there. And unless we follow, all we will inherit is an empty, barren wasteland.

Sorry to be using sheep and shepherd metaphors here, but the text for yesterday was Christ the Good Shepherd (John 10). For more info, click my "Got Milk?" banner.

_________________

That was beautiful and knowledgable, Didy, but I'm not sure I follow the connection betwixt this and the topic of discussion.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Making our existence entirely pointless.

Our purpose, or general percieved purpose (live well, have kids, care for your family, etc) is biologically built in. A lack of a god, or a lack of a good one does not change that.

And, personally, I would rather be driven mad by an eternity of suffering than falsely cater to an ignoble god.

You wouldn't stick by that assertion if you were given a choice to change your mind in hell.

Nobody does evil for evil's sake

If you know what your doing is wrong, and you do it anyways, and get pleasure out of it, how are you not doing evil for evil's sake?

Being that you would care if you hadn't desensitized your self doesn't change the fact that you are inherently gaining joy out of anothers pain.

But this 'difference' is only because humans often subdue (or have subdued by their environment) their moral impulses until they've convinced themselves that it isn't wrong.

The invalidity of that assertion is why communism failed. Humans are born with selfish impulses, and I would challenge you to give me any proof that disproves that.

We are born with impulses to help others, but we are also born with impulses to help ourselves, and the latter impulses nearly always wins in dealing with strangers.

Our biological purpose is to continue our species, yes. But to what end?



I know. I'm far too weak to resist such suffering, but were I given the choice (and weren't able to cop out afterwards) I would choose hell.



That's not evil for evil's sake. That's evil for pleasure's sake. Pleasure and joy are themselves good things.



I never said that humans don't have selfish impulses. I was explaining why people's morals appear to vary.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

When people go to Heaven, it means that they did something very good and fortunate. Hell, on the other hand is when people go over there if they commited a sin.

_________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again.

And what of forgiveness? Jesus' disciple Paul was a terrible man before he met Jesus, as were many of his other followers. Everyone is a sinner.

Actually, going to heaven isn't achieved by doing good deeds (Ephesians 2:8-9). It's done by the cross of Jesus Christ, through his suffering and dying. It's done by the Good Shepherd who came down here to seek us, his sheep, who were lost in this wilderness. It's done by that same Good Shepherd laying his life down for us, his sheep, and taking it up again (John 10:1-18 - click my "Got Milk" banner for more details). Without that, none of us would stand a chance.

_________________

I think now would be a good time to refer you to Didymus' post that I earlier thought irrelevant.

The point is that our salvation isn't based on works, but on faith. (And contrary to popular belief, faith isn't believing things blindly. It's about believing what is true, which is oftentimes a lot harder to do.)

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Why do you need an end? Is it really so difficult to conceptualize that we are just another rung on the evolutionary ladder? Just another species here to reproduce and continue our species for the same instinctual survivalist reason that other forms of life have?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Our biological purpose is to continue our species, yes. But to what end?

Need it be more complicated then that? Can you ever get to the point, where you can't ask what the point was? Even in Heaven?

That's not evil for evil's sake. That's evil for pleasure's sake. Pleasure and joy are themselves good things.

The LORD (N)smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again (O)curse the ground on account of man, for (P) the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; (Q)and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
-Genesis 8:21

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passage ... version=49

Our purpose is to love God; hence, the free will. Because one can't truly love without a will of their own. I doubt that'll get old in Heaven. But you can view humanity as merely a stepping stone in evolution, if you'd like, though I find that survival for survival's sake is pointless. (Especially since we will inevitably fail.) I don't know if I can express that to you; it just seems like common sense to me.



That could easily be interpreted to mean that man intends to do evil by going about getting good things in the wrong way. That is a matter of wording. Don't mistake my saying that evil is the incorrect pursuit of good as an excuse for mankind – we are still evil in nature. The point is that evil is perversion of good, not something all its own.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

And what is free will? What is choice?

It can all be pre-determined by god, so in what way can we not be defined as automatic?

What are joy and despair, except proven chemical reactions in the brain?

Religion can only answer questions like these through citation of the existence of axioms, which seem unfathomable, and which are therefore just said to exist, rather then explained.

While in the end, our biological purpose may be the survival of the species, that involves love. Maybe in essence love is meaningless, but that doesn't matter, because our attachement to it is instinctual, and requires no intellectual vindication.

Yes, the extropolated atheist does not believe in absolutes, but it is perception, not reality that spurs emotion, and subjectivity therefore does not deny the effectual existence of meaning and purpose.

That could easily be interpreted to mean that man intends to do evil by going about getting good things in the wrong way. That is a matter of wording. Don't mistake my saying that evil is the incorrect pursuit of good as an excuse for mankind – we are still evil in nature. The point is that evil is perversion of good, not something all its own.

So in other words evil is the result of a misdefinition of good, or an irreverence to the consequences of its achievement?