Forever young???

[GEddie]

I doubt the Church has any position on this. But what would one would think about life after, say, having read every book in the library for the 30,000th time?

What makes you think that the world won’t produce books faster than you can read them?

And can we really be sure George Soros or perhaps Carlos Slim wouldn’t finally vanquish every other zillionaire on earth and own everything, including our boxer shorts and our next crop of hair?

Because a world looking after its own long-term wellbeing won’t tolerate that.

And what would George Soros want with your hair???!!!

I can’t prove it, of course, but I suspect there’s something about human nature that demands death at some point.

Not me; I hate the idea of death with everything that is in me.

If the technology OP alluded to were available, and could be had without mortal sin, I’d do it if only to improve the odds of being physically alive at our LORD’s return, and thereby not experience being dead at all.

I’ll add that it seems to me human nature, at some point, can only be satisfied with infinity, and we can’t be united with that here.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What makes you think that the world won’t produce books faster than you can read them?

Because a world looking after its own long-term wellbeing won’t tolerate that.

And what would George Soros want with your hair???!!!

Not me; I hate the idea of death with everything that is in me.

If the technology OP alluded to were available, and could be had without mortal sin, I’d do it if only to improve the odds of being physically alive at our LORD’s return, and thereby not experience being dead at all.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

I was indulging in hyperbole, of course.

But think about this. There does not seem to be any limit to the amount of knowledge we can absorb. We might forget something (though some say it’s there, we just can’t access it) but we never get to the point where, for example, we can’t absorb the fact that we’re walking on the street or typing in a web site. Nor, it seems, is there a point at which we can no longer perceive or appreciate beauty (in the absence of some abnormality) or at which we can no longer accept love.

If those things are true, and they seem to be, then clearly we are designed for infinity, at least in capacity. If we are, then this world is inherently incapable of being truly satisfying to our natures because, in many ways, it simply does not expand indefinitely. At a point, it repeats, and repeats and repeats. That was my point about reading all the books in the library 30,000 times. Sure, people can write another million books, but will they truly be anything new, or will they be similar (albeit in a more complex way) like old movie westerns. (Bad guys threaten. Hero arrives, nearly loses, wins, gets girl) If our natures really are designed for infinity, then union with God is the only answer for us.

I might be putting too much into that part of Genesis where Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden and God places an angel with a sword of flame at the gate of Eden. Is that angel still standing at the gate? Can we truly defeat him? Personally, I don’t think we can or will.

 

[smichhertz]

OK, so we avoid the asteroid, but then the Sun goes nova, or enters into the red giant stage through its normal life cycle!

I’ve watched Armageddon. As long as we have Bruce Willis, we’re safe. XD

 

[GEddie]

OK, so we avoid the asteroid, but then the Sun goes nova, or enters into the red giant stage through its normal life cycle!

What makes you think that long-lived man won’t find a practical means of space travel, or even dragging the Earth out to a safer orbit?

 

[GEddie]

I think you’re missing the most interesting aspect of this issue.

See my comments here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7993726&postcount=6

Christians, more or less by defintion, hold out faith and hope for eternal life. What the OP is proposing is merely a man-made version of that.

So the interesting question is: what distinguishes the two?

Simple. Eliminating natural death does not constitute immortal life.

An age–exempt human body still has a breakable neck; can still drown; can still crash off the highway, get shot, get poisoned, blow up, etc.

Only the Resurrectional Body (pneumatikon soma) demonstrated by our LORD gets around those fundamental limitations of our natural self. Human flesh is too flimsy for life everlasting. You can’t pour endless life into an old human skin. You need a new skin, new soma, for new life.

The most you can hope for is to keep your old self breath-filled and open eyed long enough to see our LORD’s return. That is worth it in itself. Eternal life to follow.

Many posters have offered various examples in this thread so far but I am unpersuaded by them as I am unpersuaded that, generally, people don’t want to live forever.

I’d rather spend eternity in God’s salt mines than die (in the atheist sense of the word).

Indeed. ICXC NIKA.

 

[JimG]

What makes you think that long-lived man won’t find a practical means of space travel, or even dragging the Earth out to a safer orbit?

There’s no safe orbit for a planet of a star that’s dying of old age. But space travel is certainly a possibility. Actually, we ought to have made a lot more progress on that by now.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Simple. Eliminating natural death does not constitute immortal life.

An age–exempt human body still has a breakable neck; can still drown; can still crash off the highway, get shot, get poisoned, blow up, etc.

Only the Resurrectional Body (pneumatikon soma) demonstrated by our LORD gets around those fundamental limitations of our natural self. Human flesh is too flimsy for life everlasting. You can’t pour endless life into an old human skin. You need a new skin, new soma, for new life.

The most you can hope for is to keep your old self breath-filled and open eyed long enough to see our LORD’s return. That is worth it in itself. Eternal life to follow.

You are referring to the practical problem of avoiding death (and sickness, etc.). While I agree that the problems of avoiding death are seemingly insurmountable one must consider two things: First, there is a theory that claims human technology will reach a point of singularity (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) at which point technology advances faster than our physical limitations. If you can postpone death by one cause (e.g. heart disease) it gives you longer to live to see the resolution of death by another (e.g. cancer). It’s at least plausible. There is the challenge of accidents, which several have mentioned but this too can be mitigated by caution. Imagine, in the most extreme case, a Matrix-like existence in which our bodies are maintained by machines while our minds wander through an artificial reality.

Second, and contrarywise, I think the real limitation is mankind’s bent for war. Any technology that can be used to prolong life can be used to destroy it. And, as I noted previously, the univerise itself seems designed to die. There is, therefore, no avoiding death even if we get very good at extending life indefinitely.

But I was more interested in the various comments that we all will want death. I just don’t buy that. My question about difference was with respect to the desire for eternal life in this world vs. in the kingdom of God.

If mankind was created for work, as some have claimed, we may find ourselves assigned jobs in the kingdom of God.

 

[GEddie]

I was more interested in the various comments that we all will want death. I just don’t buy that. My question about difference was with respect to the desire for eternal life in this world vs. in the kingdom of God.

Got it.

I believe those who say that are coming from the Augustinian perspective that only Heavenly life in union with God is ultimately satisfactory. In this perspective, human physical life is unsatisfactory, and finally needs to be laid down, to achieve the Heavenly life.

Those who hold this position do not see human death in the classical way, as an ending or diminution of our being; but as a temporary transition to the presence of God. Someone genuinely holding this position would be unwilling to cling to human life. They want the Heavenly life.

But this position neglects that our LORD is coming back, and if we hang on long enough, we will see HIM with our human eyes, anyhow.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Got it.

I believe those who say that are coming from the Augustinian perspective that only Heavenly life in union with God is ultimately satisfactory. In this perspective, human physical life is unsatisfactory, and finally needs to be laid down, to achieve the Heavenly life.

Those who hold this position do not see human death in the classical way, as an ending or diminution of our being; but as a temporary transition to the presence of God. Someone genuinely holding this position would be unwilling to cling to human life. They want the Heavenly life.

But this position neglects that our LORD is coming back, and if we hang on long enough, we will see HIM with our human eyes, anyhow.

This is reasonable, of course, but I still disagree. And the fundamental reason is not that I think God is unable to this or that but that man, by his very nature, wants to want and that, therefore, any satisfying existence would not be satisfying. And, of course, if this is the case then God knows it very well and the kingdom of God will reflect that reality.

I admit this is highly conjectural but my most grounded argument is this: the saints are in heaven and they desire the salvation of mankind which, of course, they can influence but not control.

So it may be that there is not such a huge difference between this world and the kingdom of God as many suppose.

 

[Bookcat]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

Benedict XVI Spe Salvi …article 10

 

[GEddie]

This is reasonable, of course, but I still disagree. And the fundamental reason is not that I think God is unable to this or that but that man, by his very nature, wants to want and that, therefore, any satisfying existence would not be satisfying. And, of course, if this is the case then God knows it very well and the kingdom of God will reflect that reality.

I admit this is highly conjectural but my most grounded argument is this: the saints are in heaven and they desire the salvation of mankind which, of course, they can influence but not control.

So it may be that there is not such a huge difference between this world and the kingdom of God as many suppose.

“Wants to want”? Or, wants what cannot be fulfilled?

Of course the saints in Heaven cannot “control” world salvation. Ultimately, we can’t control anything. Try willing your skin NOT to itch when it does.

But one day, the story of salvation will be complete, fulfilled.

By the way, what is a Zen Catholic, anyway???

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

Benedict XVI Spe Salvi …article 10

Yeah, interesting and relevant. Your thoughts on Art 10?

It’s a good read overall.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

“Wants to want”? Or, wants what cannot be fulfilled?

I was thinking of the former but the later is worth noting. It is easy enough to imagine contradictory wants that cannot be fulfilled. If I want the sky to be blue and you want it to be red then one (or both) of us will be disappointed.

But regarding wanting to want, this is something that seems inherent to the nature of man, at least from my own observations. There is a great line in Matrix in this regard:

Agent Smith: Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization.

 

[GEddie]

I was thinking of the former but the later is worth noting. It is easy enough to imagine contradictory wants that cannot be fulfilled. If I want the sky to be blue and you want it to be red then one (or both) of us will be disappointed.

But regarding wanting to want, this is something that seems inherent to the nature of man, at least from my own observations. There is a great line in Matrix in this regard:

Ok, I understand, but we need to disagree amicably. I reject that “wanting to want” is a factor. We cotinue wanting, AIUI, because no permanent fulfillment can be had in human life, but not because “wanting” is itself desirable.

Have you any better sources than the Matrix?

And having 2 human beings with contradictory wants, or needs, is irrelevant to your point. This doesn’t mean that wanting is itself desirable. It just means you have 2 human wills at cross purposes.

Wanting makes no sense if no fulfillment is possible. In The Great Divorce, CS Lewis has a character say that “it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive,” to which the answer comes, “If that were true and known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be nothing to hope for.”

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Ok, I understand, but we need to disagree amicably. I reject that “wanting to want” is a factor. We cotinue wanting, AIUI, because no permanent fulfillment can be had in human life, but not because “wanting” is itself desirable.

So let’s be more precise before we decide to disagree amicably to be sure we really are disagreeing. This is not a simple subject to discuss or think about.

We do agree about the limitations of fulfillment in this life. What I mean by “wanting to want” is that there is a positive quality to desire in and of itself, a joy in anticipation or working toward something.

Have you any better sources than the Matrix?

It does seem consistent with what I have read about happiness (e.g. momentary pleasure vs. enduring fulfillment). People who are happiest in the long term tend to be those who are always chasing after something, working for something, accomplishing things for themselvs and others, not those who are given what they want.

And having 2 human beings with contradictory wants, or needs, is irrelevant to your point. This doesn’t mean that wanting is itself desirable. It just means you have 2 human wills at cross purposes.

I meant here simply to suggest that arbitrary fulfillment is nontrivial. I picked an inocuous example but we see, more generally, that there is an important element of getting along that would presumably be element of the kingdom of God.

Wanting makes no sense if no fulfillment is possible. In The Great Divorce, CS Lewis has a character say that “it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive,” to which the answer comes, “If that were true and known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be nothing to hope for.”

The problem I have with this analogy is the notion that there are two independent states: traveling and arriving. If we look at the human condition then we see, instead, a continual cycle of traveling and arriving. So to use your analogy, the question really boils down to this: is heaven a final arrival or a perfected cycle of traveling and arriving?

 

[puzzleannie]

I read in a magazine recently that in the future it might be possible by using nanotechnology to fix all damage to the cells and thus reverse the aging process.
…
. Any thoughts?

If I thought I had to be young again I might stand in front of a bus.:bigyikes: Once being young was enough, I can’t live through that again. I’ll take old. I earned it.

 

[jmcrae]

If I thought I had to be young again I might stand in front of a bus.:bigyikes: Once being young was enough, I can’t live through that again. I’ll take old. I earned it.

Yes, being old certainly has advantages - for one thing, you can get away with a lot more - nobody gets in your business; they just assume that you know what you’re doing.

 

[GEddie]

Yes, being old certainly has advantages - for one thing, you can get away with a lot more - nobody gets in your business; they just assume that you know what you’re doing.

You wouldn’t be ‘young’ again in any case. No one is going to give you back growth-spurts, awkward body, hormonal surges or innocence/ignorance (take your pick). All science MIGHT do is allow you to live longer in a human body whose powers remain undiminshed by the aging process. ICXC NIKA.