An Interesting Little Contradiction I Noticed...

[Ouroboros]

So you're saying that theoretically humans could reject Heaven when they're there, but they won't because they're so incredible happy and satisfied? Why can't God give that to humans right now? And what about evil? Why is free will so important now, especially in contrast with evil? Do the "winners" of the Heavenly ticket really deserve to go there? And why?

 

No, the "winners" of the Heavenly ticket don't deserve Heaven, that would fall into a sort of Pelagian heresy. Man cannot earn his way to Heaven on his own merit. I am still unsure of the question at hand.

 

-Kerplunk

I guess the real question is, why did God create a Heaven and did not put humans there? Why did God place us here in this world, and then only some will go to Heaven for an eternal bliss? If no one wishes to do harm or evil in Heaven because it is so wonderful, then it would have been easy for God to place us all there, and no one would have ever sinned.

 

If the people who goes to Heaven aren't the lucky winners, then what are they? Where they picked at random, or where they picked because they happened to pick the specific and correct version of Christianity?

[Kerplunk]

Since when is there no free will in Heaven? I think there is a confusion about free will and license. At least within the Thomistic-Franciscan dialogue there has been a question whether happiness once attained could be lost. Francis, having such a deep respect for human free will, maintained that it was possible for a person to enjoy the splendors of Heaven and subsequently reject it. Thomas, however, stated that the joy experienced in Heaven would be so great that it would not be possible for a person to imagine rejecting said happiness. Nevertheless, they both maintained that free will exists in Heaven.

Okay. I guess I have been misinformed then.

 

So you're saying that theoretically humans could reject Heaven when they're there, but they won't because they're so incredible happy and satisfied? Why can't God give that to humans right now? And what about evil? Why is free will so important now, especially in contrast with evil? Do the "winners" of the Heavenly ticket really deserve to go there? And why?

I wonder if Kerplunk envisions a heaven where someone could sin. Perhaps fondle some angel's wings, or get bored and wander off to see what the heck God meant when he said to stay away from some fruit tree...

 

Or rebel, as Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels did...

 

Would a person in heaven be liable to be sent to hell? If so, then wouldn't fear be the only motive for "behaving" in heaven? Just like Christians want to instill fear of Hell while people are alive?

 

May as well get it over with now.

 

Kerplunk said, "Thomas, however, stated that the joy experienced in Heaven would be so great that it would not be possible for a person to imagine rejecting said happiness." How does Thomas know, I wonder?

 

Did he, perhaps, read that in a book somewhere? Or did he just pull that out of his ass?

 

I wasn't stating Thomas or Francis as authorities, but rather as reflective of what the tradition states, which was meant to contrast the idea that there is no free will in Heaven. I would imagine if a person were liable to be sent to Hell, behaving only out of fear rather than love, then they probably wouldn't be in Heaven in the first place. As for the angels, doctrine states that they act eternally. That is to say, the fallen angels were not hanging around in Heaven for a long time and then decided to disobey.

 

I suppose that one could sin in Heaven, that is to say, that free will remains, but one would not sin.

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

I wasn't stating Thomas or Francis as authorities, but rather as reflective of what the tradition states, which was meant to contrast the idea that there is no free will in Heaven. I would imagine if a person were liable to be sent to Hell, behaving only out of fear rather than love, then they probably wouldn't be in Heaven in the first place. As for the angels, doctrine states that they act eternally. That is to say, the fallen angels were not hanging around in Heaven for a long time and then decided to disobey.

 

I suppose that one could sin in Heaven, that is to say, that free will remains, but one would not sin.

 

-Kerplunk

The point I was making is that no one knows; not Thomas, not Francis. Nor you.

 

You have a "picture" of heaven colored by tales you have heard told to you by people (written or spoken).

 

Since there is no evidence for any type of ethereal transcendent beings, or even the supernatural, it is clear that the visions of sugar plums, golden streets, mansions and 72 virgins are all the inventions of men.

 

When you start mentally decorating your bedroom in heaven, remember that it's all in your mind.

[Ouroboros]

I wasn't stating Thomas or Francis as authorities, but rather as reflective of what the tradition states, which was meant to contrast the idea that there is no free will in Heaven. I would imagine if a person were liable to be sent to Hell, behaving only out of fear rather than love, then they probably wouldn't be in Heaven in the first place.

And it would also mean that a lot of people who are not necessarily religious have a shot at Heaven as well.

 

As for the angels, doctrine states that they act eternally. That is to say, the fallen angels were not hanging around in Heaven for a long time and then decided to disobey.

Hmm... where would they have gone? And how long is a long time in the nontemporal and infinite realm?

 

I suppose that one could sin in Heaven, that is to say, that free will remains, but one would not sin.

Because they would be forced to stay in Maxi-awesomeness Heaven.

[The-Captain]

And it would also mean that a lot of people who are not necessarily religious have a shot at Heaven as well.

 

I believe this is what Catholic tradition states. That those that die with no mortal sins upon them go through purgatory.

[Kerplunk]

 

The point I was making is that no one knows; not Thomas, not Francis. Nor you.

 

You have a "picture" of heaven colored by tales you have heard told to you by people (written or spoken).

 

Since there is no evidence for any type of ethereal transcendent beings, or even the supernatural, it is clear that the visions of sugar plums, golden streets, mansions and 72 virgins are all the inventions of men.

 

When you start mentally decorating your bedroom in heaven, remember that it's all in your mind.

 

All speculative theology which relies upon revelation can be cast aside with some form of doubt. However, it seems that if you accept certain rules to play by, (i.e. the preliminary truth of revelation), then certain implications can be reasonably teased out. When theologians rely upon revelation, they will be useless to persuade those who do not already accept said revelation. However, when atheists or skeptics critique Christianity, from within Christianity, they are acting as if, for the moment, they believe in the truth of revelation. By invoking Thomas or Francis, I was merely contending that those criticisms are unfounded within Christianity.

 

-Kerplunk

[Franko47]

If God gave us the ability, drive and desire to question, discover, and learn - gave us this hunger for knowledge - why would he then put us in an afterlife where there's nothing to learn, no mysteries, and no challenges?

 

 

That doesn't seem to be a contradiction at all. All these desires have a final end in the satisfaction of those desires. The desires are only good insofar as they direct us to an end. Heaven wouldn't be that heavenly, if those desires remained unsatisfied.

 

-Kerplunk

 

 

Disagree. (and partly because you're an interesting thinker)

 

 

Desire doesn't necessarily have to have an end. Desire can be temporarily satisfied, but there are some aspirations within the human psyche that are "ongoing". A desire that reaches an end can often open up a new desire, and so on. But, in all of this, my main objection to the "heavenly bliss" scenario is that it does not address "limitations". A limitation can be accepted, or rebelled against. The idea that in heaven we exist in a state of total satisfaction strikes me as kind of questionable, perhaps even decadent.

 

Some of that extends from my theory that "perfection" is impossible; it's kind of complicated.

[chefranden]

[quote name='Kerplunk' date='18 March 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1268948880'

Since when is there no free will in Heaven? I think there is a confusion about free will and license. At least within the Thomistic-Franciscan dialogue there has been a question whether happiness once attained could be lost. Francis, having such a deep respect for human free will, maintained that it was possible for a person to enjoy the splendors of Heaven and subsequently reject it. Thomas, however, stated that the joy experienced in Heaven would be so great that it would not be possible for a person to imagine rejecting said happiness. Nevertheless, they both maintained that free will exists in Heaven.

 

-Kerplunk

 

Any prolonged state in a human will produce fatigue including ecstasy. This is why even the most delighted lovers will eventually get up and take a piss.

 

Unless human nature changes upon arrival in heaven the splendor will eventually be rejected as boring. Thomas clearly did not know what a human is and Francis was closer to the mark.

[Kerplunk]

 

Any prolonged state in a human will produce fatigue including ecstasy. This is why even the most delighted lovers will eventually get up and take a piss.

 

Unless human nature changes upon arrival in heaven the splendor will eventually be rejected as boring. Thomas clearly did not know what a human is and Francis was closer to the mark.

 

 

I'm not even sure the word "prolonged" makes sense when talking about Heaven and entering eternity. This idea of time even passing seems to denote the eternal as merely being really, really, really, long, extending indefinitely. Although there may be the equally difficult conceptualization, I would think in eternity of simply "being".

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

 

Any prolonged state in a human will produce fatigue including ecstasy. This is why even the most delighted lovers will eventually get up and take a piss.

 

Unless human nature changes upon arrival in heaven the splendor will eventually be rejected as boring. Thomas clearly did not know what a human is and Francis was closer to the mark.

 

 

I'm not even sure the word "prolonged" makes sense when talking about Heaven and entering eternity. This idea of time even passing seems to denote the eternal as merely being really, really, really, long, extending indefinitely. Although there may be the equally difficult conceptualization, I would think in eternity of simply "being".

 

-Kerplunk

Assuming you do not consider heavenly existence to be a continuation of earthly life, I wonder if you think it will have any bearing at all on earthly existence.

 

If we have our ancestors in heaven, how far back do they go? Back to Australopithicus? Fish? Primordial ooze?

 

If we are some kind of disembodied immaterial "essence" do we all blend together into one being, kind of like a room full of farts melds together?

 

I guess there is no point is wondering if there are good restaurants in heaven. No mouth, no nose, no stomach, no guts, no anus. No shit.

 

One has to wonder, with no penis, what is one to do with 72 virgins?

[Kerplunk]

 

Any prolonged state in a human will produce fatigue including ecstasy. This is why even the most delighted lovers will eventually get up and take a piss.

 

Unless human nature changes upon arrival in heaven the splendor will eventually be rejected as boring. Thomas clearly did not know what a human is and Francis was closer to the mark.

 

 

I'm not even sure the word "prolonged" makes sense when talking about Heaven and entering eternity. This idea of time even passing seems to denote the eternal as merely being really, really, really, long, extending indefinitely. Although there may be the equally difficult conceptualization, I would think in eternity of simply "being".

 

-Kerplunk

Assuming you do not consider heavenly existence to be a continuation of earthly life, I wonder if you think it will have any bearing at all on earthly existence.

 

If we have our ancestors in heaven, how far back do they go? Back to Australopithicus? Fish? Primordial ooze?

 

If we are some kind of disembodied immaterial "essence" do we all blend together into one being, kind of like a room full of farts melds together?

 

I guess there is no point is wondering if there are good restaurants in heaven. No mouth, no nose, no stomach, no guts, no anus. No shit.

 

One has to wonder, with no penis, what is one to do with 72 virgins?

 

Well, Christianity teaches that after death there is the resurrection of the body, whether this happens at our particular judgement or at the last judgement seems to be up for doctrinal debate. However, the idea of a disembodied soul continuing to exist does not make much sense, considering that the form cannot be abstracted from the matter. I would imagine that our ancestors would go as far back as moral agency goes back, I do not know where those divisions arrive in the species, but I don't think that primordial ooze is going to make it into Heaven.

 

Aristotle believed that our souls may have been eternal, but he believed that all humans have the same soul. And therefore, he conceded that if there were to be an afterlife (he was skeptical that there would even be one), he thought it would a sort of unity of soul (this would probably spell the annihilation of the self).

 

Doctrinally speaking, I can admit that the afterlife is pretty difficult to grasp, particularly because of the blend of legend and doctrine. While I would like to be able to defend, or at least clearly articulate what Heaven is, I am still working on my own understanding.

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

 

Any prolonged state in a human will produce fatigue including ecstasy. This is why even the most delighted lovers will eventually get up and take a piss.

 

Unless human nature changes upon arrival in heaven the splendor will eventually be rejected as boring. Thomas clearly did not know what a human is and Francis was closer to the mark.

 

 

I'm not even sure the word "prolonged" makes sense when talking about Heaven and entering eternity. This idea of time even passing seems to denote the eternal as merely being really, really, really, long, extending indefinitely. Although there may be the equally difficult conceptualization, I would think in eternity of simply "being".

 

-Kerplunk

Assuming you do not consider heavenly existence to be a continuation of earthly life, I wonder if you think it will have any bearing at all on earthly existence.

 

If we have our ancestors in heaven, how far back do they go? Back to Australopithicus? Fish? Primordial ooze?

 

If we are some kind of disembodied immaterial "essence" do we all blend together into one being, kind of like a room full of farts melds together?

 

I guess there is no point is wondering if there are good restaurants in heaven. No mouth, no nose, no stomach, no guts, no anus. No shit.

 

One has to wonder, with no penis, what is one to do with 72 virgins?

 

Well, Christianity teaches that after death there is the resurrection of the body, whether this happens at our particular judgement or at the last judgement seems to be up for doctrinal debate. However, the idea of a disembodied soul continuing to exist does not make much sense, considering that the form cannot be abstracted from the matter. I would imagine that our ancestors would go as far back as moral agency goes back, I do not know where those divisions arrive in the species, but I don't think that primordial ooze is going to make it into Heaven.

 

Aristotle believed that our souls may have been eternal, but he believed that all humans have the same soul. And therefore, he conceded that if there were to be an afterlife (he was skeptical that there would even be one), he thought it would a sort of unity of soul (this would probably spell the annihilation of the self).

 

Doctrinally speaking, I can admit that the afterlife is pretty difficult to grasp, particularly because of the blend of legend and doctrine. While I would like to be able to defend, or at least clearly articulate what Heaven is, I am still working on my own understanding.

 

-Kerplunk

Well, the fact is that it's all speculation, even Aristotle.

 

I'm currently reading a book by Dawkins, The Greatest Show On Earth. He points out something very interesting about evolution: The parents and children are never more different than the greatest variation within a species. IOW, Homo Erectus did not give birth to Homo Sapiens. The tranformation from generation to generation was by minute degrees, and the parents and children would never have perceived themselves as belonging to a different species.

 

There was no "cutoff." You wouldn't say that your grandparents don't belong in heaven because they are of a different species or that they had a "defective moral agency." The same is true for your grandparents - and their grandparents - all the way back to the primordial ooze.

 

That slow transformation by generations, millions and millions of generations, is the key to understanding that we are not as distinct as we like to think we are. There is no place to draw a sharp line. Any child that would be admitted to heaven would want his parents to go with him.

 

Bark, bark!

 

As for bodily resurrection, that idea might have sufficed if there were some realm where a real physical body could exist outside of the atmosphere, but unless we are reincarnated on another planet, the idea seems preposterous. Consider the billions of people on this planet...

 

No, the resurrection of the body is a fantasy. Imagine the effects of low atmospheric pressure on the body of Jesus. KerBLOOey!

[chefranden]

..If we are some kind of disembodied immaterial "essence" do we all blend together into one being, kind of like a room full of farts melds together?...

 

You owe me a keyboard!