Is Heaven a Utopia?

[ToHoldNothing]

After listening to a podcast concerning various religious/skeptical podcasts in the running for an award, the thought brought up by the hosts on a Christian movie critic's review of WALL-E made me think. The issue they brought up was that the critic says that WALL-E is suggesting a potential future for America of becoming too dependent on technology and thus resulting in a "utopia" where we are reduced to helpless children.

A question resulted: Isn't the Christian idea of heaven basically a permutation of what WALL-E actually criticizes in the end? A place where, in basic terms, you don't have to worry about anything, all the work is done for you and all you have to do is enjoy yourself in the presence of God, presumably praising it with no difficulties or problems of your sinful nature from before.

The major difference is that the space station utopia has the potential to occur in reality, whereas Heaven is more speculative and based in a reality believers commonly say we cannot speak of in details, but only generalities about what scripture supposedly tells us about the nature of heaven.

I understand there might be differing ideas about the exact nature of heaven, but if we take this general idea to be true: that is, heaven is a place where humans basically have all their troubles and difficulties in the physical world taken care of by some benevolent source, in this case, God and therefore become as little children again in a dual sense of dependence and deference to God in a sense that would parallel WALL-E in a loose sense of not being able to assert your individuality or do things on your own as an individual.

So my question remains in the title in short format: Is Heaven a utopia? If so, why is it superior to other utopias in literature, such that have been shown to be fruitless and unsuccessful? Do you think there are advocates for this in Christianity of a utopia in any form?

 

[DeaneRenata]

After listening to a podcast concerning various religious/skeptical podcasts in the running for an award, the thought brought up by the hosts on a Christian movie critic's review of WALL-E made me think. The issue they brought up was that the critic says that WALL-E is suggesting a potential future for America of becoming too dependent on technology and thus resulting in a "utopia" where we are reduced to helpless children.

A question resulted: Isn't the Christian idea of heaven basically a permutation of what WALL-E actually criticizes in the end? A place where, in basic terms, you don't have to worry about anything, all the work is done for you and all you have to do is enjoy yourself in the presence of God, presumably praising it with no difficulties or problems of your sinful nature from before.

The major difference is that the space station utopia has the potential to occur in reality, whereas Heaven is more speculative and based in a reality believers commonly say we cannot speak of in details, but only generalities about what scripture supposedly tells us about the nature of heaven.

I understand there might be differing ideas about the exact nature of heaven, but if we take this general idea to be true: that is, heaven is a place where humans basically have all their troubles and difficulties in the physical world taken care of by some benevolent source, in this case, God and therefore become as little children again in a dual sense of dependence and deference to God in a sense that would parallel WALL-E in a loose sense of not being able to assert your individuality or do things on your own as an individual.

So my question remains in the title in short format: Is Heaven a utopia? If so, why is it superior to other utopias in literature, such that have been shown to be fruitless and unsuccessful? Do you think there are advocates for this in Christianity of a utopia in any form?

There is a verse which says it is love, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

No food. So I guess we will not need to eat, or starve, or experience hunger in Heaven.

Romans 14:17 (Whole Chapter)
For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

 

[DeaneRenata]

Bobby used to teach Sunday School at several churches it seems like he is better at Scriptural expounds than I am yet.

 

[drich0150]

Heaven is not about living in a gated community with Gold lined streets, and a place where everyone gets their own castle.

Heaven is where God is. Those who choose Heaven Choose to be with God for an eternity. "Heaven" is simply the place where that happens. Some will say that we will not actually live in the city of Heaven, that the bible tells us we will live on a "new earth." But in the end the premise I outlined still stands. Heaven is being with God no matter what it may look like.

If for some reason the description of Heaven and Hell were some how switched in our past and Hell is what we know to be 'Utopia" but no God. Heaven was a fiery pit but God lived there, would Heaven still be Heaven? (the Fiery pit?) To you?

If you only know heaven to be utopia then your concerns are well founded. However if your definition of Heaven is being with God no matter what that looks like, then your surroundings will not define you or your dependence on what Heaven will ultimately provide.

To those who can see past the allure of heaven, we are told there will be jobs for the faithful to have. we will continue to grow in our faith/Love as eternity progresses

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There is a verse which says it is love, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

No food. So I guess we will not need to eat, or starve, or experience hunger in Heaven.

Romans 14:17 (Whole Chapter)
For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

I don't think I'm suggesting that Christians believe heaven will be like Eden where there was lots of food and drink as well as eternal youth or something to that effect. But I wonder why eating and experiencing hunger are bad things. Life would be boring without experiencing things in the world as a whole, like good food and drink.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Heaven is not about living in a gated community with Gold lined streets, and a place where everyone gets their own castle.

You're putting words in my mouth. I gave a general notion of heaven that in no way implied such elaborate descriptions.

Heaven is where God is. Those who choose Heaven Choose to be with God for an eternity. "Heaven" is simply the place where that happens. Some will say that we will not actually live in the city of Heaven, that the bible tells us we will live on a "new earth." But in the end the premise I outlined still stands. Heaven is being with God no matter what it may look like.

So the ambiguity exists as to whether it is material or not. But then that suggests God could be material as well unless you qualify God's distinct separation in essence from the earthly kingdom of heaven if indeed it happens to be such in reality. Unless you mean Jesus incarnating as God is how that might occur, in which case, I remove myself from the issue that arises from a god-man.

If for some reason the description of Heaven and Hell were some how switched in our past and Hell is what we know to be 'Utopia" but no God. Heaven was a fiery pit but God lived there, would Heaven still be Heaven? (the Fiery pit?) To you?

Problem is you're avoiding the connections that can be made with the concept of utopia in etymology at the very least; eu topia, good place, and in Greek roughly translated as no place, so we have at least that connection. Even if there is the distinction between human ideas of political or religious utopia, the general concept of utopia does not have a dissonance with the description you give, since it is a good place, if not the absolute best place ever, in the presence of God/with God.

If you only know heaven to be utopia then your concerns are well founded. However if your definition of Heaven is being with God no matter what that looks like, then your surroundings will not define you or your dependence on what Heaven will ultimately provide

I understand there is a connection to be made between the concept of utopia and the concept of Heaven, though you deny it on the grounds that Heaven is somehow categorically different and not able to have the term utopia applied to it, am I wrong? I wasn't reducing utopia to surroundings, but more to the perception a person has of the place itself, regardless of surroundings in general, more the ideal it represents and the hope of a future, kind of the impression Christians give, including those speaking of the end times, whenever those might happen. They look forward to it, do they not?

I think part of the problem here is our understandings of what a utopia is.

To those who can see past the allure of heaven, we are told there will be jobs for the faithful to have. we will continue to grow in our faith/Love as eternity progresses

A problem seems to exist in that you seem to make heaven something lesser than God, so a second difficulty exists in what you understand heaven to be. If it is not presence and communion with God, then what is it?

And even if there was still possibility for growth, it would be argued to be highly limited, even if there was potential to eternity, it would not be as if you had eternal potential in the present earth, where there is such a wide array of things. If you don't specify the scope of what growth in faith/love can consist in with God and what those jobs might be, then it becomes speculative at best.

 

[drich0150]

You're putting words in my mouth. I gave a general notion of heaven that in no way implied such elaborate descriptions.

Why are you so defensive over a non issue? This is a general understanding of Heaven. The "utopia" the church has endorsed at some point.

So the ambiguity exists as to whether it is material or not. But then that suggests God could be material as well unless you qualify God's distinct separation in essence from the earthly kingdom of heaven if indeed it happens to be such in reality.

Actually you can suggest anything, it does not means their is evidence to support this suggestion. For example if one decides to be with God for an eternity, then the window dressings of utopia are not the primary reasons for one's residency in Heaven. Unlike Wall-E where the facilities aboard ship were why people lived. we being in a Relationship (Which like any relationship requires effort from both parties) Keeps one party/God from being "material as well."

Problem is you're avoiding the connections that can be made with the concept of utopia in etymology at the very least; eu topia, good place, and in Greek roughly translated as no place, so we have at least that connection. Even if there is the distinction between human ideas of political or religious utopia, the general concept of utopia does not have a dissonance with the description you give, since it is a good place, if not the absolute best place ever, in the presence of God/with God.

Why do you perceive a dissonance with My description of Heaven?
I simply removed the self serving aspects of our understanding of it.This is why to my understanding of Heaven, can never be confused with Utopia. Because Heaven is not about God serving us or a place that centers around our wants and desires. Perhaps you could more easily apply your idea of utopia to the paradise offered by Islam. Where it seems that Paradise (not Allah) is the ultimate goal.

I understand there is a connection to be made between the concept of utopia and the concept of Heaven, though you deny it on the grounds that Heaven is somehow categorically different and not able to have the term utopia applied to it, am I wrong?

You have denied any explanation of Heaven I have given, and dissociated yourself from any definition of utopia i have presented, so how could you possible be wrong or right, if you will not stand behind what you are actually peddling? If one retains the luxury of not binding his ideology to a specific understanding or definition then one can simply associate whatever he wills with whatever he wants. You could even say "you understand there is a connection to be made between the concept of Heaven and Hell." If you will not identify the connection you are making, or define the two places you are comparing. then from the POV of your argument, you could be describing anything you like.

Do I disagree with your assessment so far? Yes at least until you clear up what it is you are talking about.

I wasn't reducing utopia to surroundings, but more to the perception a person has of the place itself, regardless of surroundings in general, more the ideal it represents and the hope of a future, kind of the impression Christians give, including those speaking of the end times, whenever those might happen.

This still is not a solid definition with the parameters I asked for. My opening comment was more informative than this.

They look forward to it, do they not?

Most look forward to being with God. The trappings of "Heaven" are not usually a concern. So to look forward ti "It" would imply someone looking forward to the place of Heaven rather than the presents of God. So no.

I think part of the problem here is our understandings of what a utopia is.

I have a defined version of if As I said it is you who is being evasive. So yes I would agree.

A problem seems to exist in that you seem to make heaven something lesser than God, so a second difficulty exists in what you understand heaven to be. If it is not presence and communion with God, then what is it?

This is another example that is adding to my frustration with speaking to you on this topic. Utopia has always been represented as a place, and so has Heaven. Because you will not define either with any certainty, you are free to move from one definition to another. or are free to take small portions of the existing definitions and compiling your own.

I have from the beginning described Heaven as only being an eternal communion with God/in His presents.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Why are you so defensive over a non issue? This is a general understanding of Heaven. The "utopia" the church has endorsed at some point.

It is an issue because I never claimed that description was representative of every Christian. I understand there are many views on heaven and you are an example of that already. If by church, you mean popular Christianity,then perhaps you'd be justified, but of course, the church in Christianity is more than just that, am I wrong?

Actually you can suggest anything, it does not means their is evidence to support this suggestion. For example if one decides to be with God for an eternity, then the window dressings of utopia are not the primary reasons for one's residency in Heaven. Unlike Wall-E where the facilities aboard ship were why people lived. we being in a Relationship (Which like any relationship requires effort from both parties) Keeps one party/God from being "material as well."

So basically, the end of being with god is your primary concern, not any actual specifics about the nature of heaven? that seems a more practical way of looking at things, which I can respect, but disagree with in general principle concerning God.

Why do you perceive a dissonance with My description of Heaven?
I simply removed the self serving aspects of our understanding of it.This is why to my understanding of Heaven, can never be confused with Utopia. Because Heaven is not about God serving us or a place that centers around our wants and desires. Perhaps you could more easily apply your idea of utopia to the paradise offered by Islam. Where it seems that Paradise (not Allah) is the ultimate goal.

Problem is, isn't it our desire to be with God if we are truly complete people in the Christian worldview? So even if heaven is merely being with God, that fulfills a fundamental desire in a way that is different than communion with God in a fleshly state that you are in now, am I wrong? One can compare the utopia concept to Eden moreso than even Heaven in Islam, which admittedly is only popularized by the 72 virgins, but I'd imagine is more complex than you're unfairly simplifying it to be.

You have denied any explanation of Heaven I have given, and dissociated yourself from any definition of utopia i have presented, so how could you possible be wrong or right, if you will not stand behind what you are actually peddling? If one retains the luxury of not binding his ideology to a specific understanding or definition then one can simply associate whatever he wills with whatever he wants. You could even say "you understand there is a connection to be made between the concept of Heaven and Hell." If you will not identify the connection you are making, or define the two places you are comparing. then from the POV of your argument, you could be describing anything you like.
Do I disagree with your assessment so far? Yes at least until you clear up what it is you are talking about.

I have not denied them. You have a right to believe in them, but you seem to be at an impasse with me on a comprehensive or specific definition of what utopia is. If we agreed or discussed what that is, perhaps we wouldn't have this problem.

I'm identifying Heaven as a place where human wants are fulfilled, but more importantly, humans are in the presence of the greatest good. Is that sufficient? And I define utopia as a place where all our wants and needs are met and the greatest good is achieved in a community. The parallel might seem contrived, but am I wrong in those definitions of heaven and utopia?

If so, by all means try to correct me without being unfairly harsh about things that I was not doing. I was not arbitrarily connecting heaven and utopia, since from my understanding, they seemed at least relatively connected on the grounds of fulfilling human needs, even if that was an incidental relation.

This still is not a solid definition with the parameters I asked for. My opening comment was more informative than this.

What parameters are you asking for? My definition of heaven, of utopia, or both?

Most look forward to being with God. The trappings of "Heaven" are not usually a concern. So to look forward ti "It" would imply someone looking forward to the place of Heaven rather than the presents of God. So no.

Then Heaven is merely the means to that end in some sense, one might say, am I wrong?

I have a defined version of if As I said it is you who is being evasive. So yes I would agree

.

Your defined version of it (if?) has not been presented to my understanding. Perhaps that would be best; present your definitions of both heaven and utopia and then demonstrate why the comparison fails.

This is another example that is adding to my frustration with speaking to you on this topic. Utopia has always been represented as a place, and so has Heaven. Because you will not define either with any certainty, you are free to move from one definition to another. or are free to take small portions of the existing definitions and compiling your own.

The reason I'm not being certain is because the definition varies depending on the specific concern. We'd need to say that our concern is of a religious nature, not a political one, for example. Once we specify those parameters, we can get to a more certain, though not absolutely certain, definition of utopia. If that disappoints you, by all means explain why.

I have from the beginning described Heaven as only being an eternal communion with God/in His presents.

So heaven is more of a state of mind than a state of being? If it's not a state of being at all, then you'd seem justified in saying it's not a place, but if it is a state of being in any general sense, it ceases to not be a place, but is admittedly a very narrow definition of place, regardless.

 

[drich0150]

It is an issue because I never claimed that description was representative of every Christian. I understand there are many views on heaven and you are an example of that already.

That is the problem I have identified in your efforts. you do not wish to be associated with any view of anything, yet you do not take issue with dissecting whatever is in front of you.

If by church, you mean popular Christianity,then perhaps you'd be justified, but of course, the church in Christianity is more than just that, am I wrong?

Popular christianity is usually denoted with a small "c" and the "Church" as the bible describes gets a capitol "C".

As for the rest of your observation, it was apart of a the larger point I was originally trying to make. you get an (A+ for perceiving content)

So basically, the end of being with god is your primary concern, not any actual specifics about the nature of heaven? that seems a more practical way of looking at things, which I can respect, but disagree with in general principle concerning God.

How so?

Problem is, isn't it our desire to be with God if we are truly complete people in the Christian worldview?

How are we complete in the Christian World view? i have alway been told we were incomplete.

So even if heaven is merely being with God, that fulfills a fundamental desire in a way that is different than communion with God in a fleshly state that you are in now, am I wrong?

It depends on what you mean by communion with God, and "different."

One can compare the utopia concept to Eden moreso than even Heaven in Islam

Maybe, but Eden is not an obtainable goal for the Christian. "Paradise" on the other hand is the end goal for all Muslims.

, which admittedly is only popularized by the 72 virgins, but I'd imagine is more complex than you're unfairly simplifying it to be.

You brought "Wall-E" into the discussion to illustrate a very simple point. apparently deceptively so, if you believe my statement reduces the end goal of all Muslims as unfairly simple. My responses take their ques from the OP or the one who questions a post. Granted i do have limits, but more often than not, if you wish to have a more in depth discussion then I am more than willing to facilitate you any way i can.

I have not denied them. You have a right to believe in them, but you seem to be at an impasse with me on a comprehensive or specific definition of what utopia is. If we agreed or discussed what that is, perhaps we wouldn't have this problem.

I have outlined what both utopia and heaven are. If you wanted to have this discussion the material is there. Also note, I have pointed out your deficiency in the lack of a simple definition for either heaven or utopia numerous times. Again if this is something you wanted to pursue the opportunity is there.

I'm identifying Heaven as a place where human wants are fulfilled, but more importantly, humans are in the presence of the greatest good. Is that sufficient?

It is an adequate personal definition of Heaven.

And I define utopia as a place where all our wants and needs are met and the greatest good is achieved in a community. The parallel might seem contrived, but am I wrong in those definitions of heaven and utopia?

So the Utopia would be a more socialist orientated version of "heaven?"

If so, by all means try to correct me without being unfairly harsh about things that I was not doing. I was not arbitrarily connecting heaven and utopia, since from my understanding, they seemed at least relatively connected on the grounds of fulfilling human needs, even if that was an incidental relation.

I have said Utopia serves humanities wants and desires for what ever ails you personally. As I pointed our the "church" (Small "c") has aligned their definition of heaven with this aspect of utopia. When in fact Heaven is not a place we could recognize. We can not be certain what heaven is exactly because the bible's best description of it was in an interpretive vision.

What we can say for certain is that it is not on a map, star Chart or alternate universe that we are aware of, nor can we be sure it is in some sort of Spirit realm. So it is foolish to concentrate on the "Physical" aspects of Heaven when as far as we know none truly exist. What we do know is what the bible tells us over and over again. That Heaven is being present with God. What ever that may look like or where ever that may take place. That is the definition of Heaven.

Being present with God is different from utopia in that God is not there to serve us. We have been given the example of the prodigal son in that we are returning back to our father's house. In the story, Upon our return our father runs out to greet us. which is significant in that culture because once a son or heir asking for their inheritance from a living Patriarch is like telling your father you wish death upon Him, to the point you are not willing to spare his feelings, for your divide of the money that you feel is owed to you. It is the worst way a son can leave his father. Yet the forgiveness is so complete that the father removes himself from a place of prominence and power to run out and greet the son with a kiss before true repentance can be made.

After the the initial greet and words were exchanged the father returned the wayward son to a position of prominence and power signified by the father's cloak and ring that was put on his finger. This is important because it gives the son a job of power and position back into the father's house. You may think this to be "speculation" but if you look deeper in the lives of the culture of that day (a culture that was modeled off of the way God wanted the family structure to be run) it was all for a reason. He modeled our relationships with out children with the relationship we are to have with him so these concepts would not be completely foreign to us. That is why He is our Father and we are His children. (so you can know your role)

In short Heaven is less about us and what can be provided for us and more about being with and serving along side God. If you want an Idea of what kinda jobs offered to a "son" just look at the culture.

What parameters are you asking for? My definition of heaven, of utopia, or both?

answered

Then Heaven is merely the means to that end in some sense, one might say, am I wrong?

to what end?
.

Your defined version of it (if?) has not been presented to my understanding. Perhaps that would be best; present your definitions of both heaven and utopia and then demonstrate why the comparison fails.

answered above

The reason I'm not being certain is because the definition varies depending on the specific concern. We'd need to say that our concern is of a religious nature, not a political one, for example. Once we specify those parameters, we can get to a more certain, though not absolutely certain, definition of utopia. If that disappoints you, by all means explain why.

No it does not, as my definition of "utopia" covers this aspect of it as well as the political example.. In that the Utopian ideal is all center around serving or providing for man.

So heaven is more of a state of mind than a state of being? If it's not a state of being at all, then you'd seem justified in saying it's not a place,

Heaven is a place, because it was described as a place. just nothing we could ever hope to know in this life. So Why worship the "place" of Heaven? when we can worship the reason there is a Heaven?

 

[razeontherock]

heaven is a place where humans ... not being able to assert your individuality or do things on your own as an individual.

I believe the Bible tells us enough that we can know this is not the case. If you remove these items do your concerns vanish?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That is the problem I have identified in your efforts. you do not wish to be associated with any view of anything, yet you do not take issue with dissecting whatever is in front of you.

I cannot be associated with any view of heaven, since I don't believe in heaven myself. And I dissect things in front of me because it is not clear through a forum discussion what we are talking about without analysis. Is that a bad thing somehow?

Popular christianity is usually denoted with a small "c" and the "Church" as the bible describes gets a capitol "C".

As for the rest of your observation, it was apart of a the larger point I was originally trying to make. you get an (A+ for perceiving content)

Meh, nitpicking aside, I suppose you at least tried to give me a compliment.

How so?

You are boiling down what Heaven is in relation to the end, not the means, but I personally don't find the end of God fulfilling. There's the disagreement, really.

How are we complete in the Christian World view? i have alway been told we were incomplete.

*facepalm* I think I misworded that statement. You will be complete when you are with God. Is that a better expression of the Christian worldview's goal and notion of personhood completion?

It depends on what you mean by communion with God, and "different."

There would be an indirect communion through prayer and such, and there would be a direct communion in heaven as you describe it. Is that wrong? The difference is in the direct and indirect approaches, since one is spiritual/physical hybrid perfected resurrected body and the other is spiritual/physical hybrid fleshly sinful body before resurrection.

Maybe, but Eden is not an obtainable goal for the Christian. "Paradise" on the other hand is the end goal for all Muslims.

Is this actually what Muslims have told you or is this your perception through readings associated with Muslim views on heaven? Or perhaps a combination thereof somehow. I don't think I ever said Eden was an attainable goal for Christians, did I?

You brought "Wall-E" into the discussion to illustrate a very simple point. apparently deceptively so, if you believe my statement reduces the end goal of all Muslims as unfairly simple. My responses take their ques from the OP or the one who questions a post. Granted i do have limits, but more often than not, if you wish to have a more in depth discussion then I am more than willing to facilitate you any way i can.

This wasn't my idea, it was another person commenting that Christians seem to be more than willing to criticize utopia by human efforts (such as in WALL-E), but then believe in something of a utopian ideal in some "place" where things are much better than they are now. Perhaps idealistic is a better term?

I have outlined what both utopia and heaven are. If you wanted to have this discussion the material is there. Also note, I have pointed out your deficiency in the lack of a simple definition for either heaven or utopia numerous times. Again if this is something you wanted to pursue the opportunity is there.

You have defined what you personally believe they are. One can turn your future accusation of my "personal" view of Heaven back on you, it would seem.

It is an adequate personal definition of Heaven.

Like noted above, how is your definition of Heaven any less personal?

So the Utopia would be a more socialist orientated version of "heaven?"

I would hesitate to use politically charged terms like socialist. It is more a general goal in terms of a view for an improved world, though this implies a heaven on earth, so admittedly the comparison would seem to fall flat.

I have said Utopia serves humanities wants and desires for what ever ails you personally. As I pointed our the "church" (Small "c") has aligned their definition of heaven with this aspect of utopia. When in fact Heaven is not a place we could recognize. We can not be certain what heaven is exactly because the bible's best description of it was in an interpretive vision.

Then the whole conversation seems to be a matter of a critique of what people initially beleive heaven to be, a mistaken association of that belief with the general idea of utopia and then the compartmentalization of forgetting that while you can critique utopia, you yourself believe in a utopia as well (mistakenly by "orthodox Christian standards," of course)

What we can say for certain is that it is not on a map, star Chart or alternate universe that we are aware of, nor can we be sure it is in some sort of Spirit realm. So it is foolish to concentrate on the "Physical" aspects of Heaven when as far as we know none truly exist. What we do know is what the bible tells us over and over again. That Heaven is being present with God. What ever that may look like or where ever that may take place. That is the definition of Heaven.

So Heaven seems terribly vague to the point that speculation is the only solution to the problem, if there indeed exists one.

Being present with God is different from utopia in that God is not there to serve us. We have been given the example of the prodigal son in that we are returning back to our father's house. In the story, Upon our return our father runs out to greet us. which is significant in that culture because once a son or heir asking for their inheritance from a living Patriarch is like telling your father you wish death upon Him, to the point you are not willing to spare his feelings, for your divide of the money that you feel is owed to you. It is the worst way a son can leave his father. Yet the forgiveness is so complete that the father removes himself from a place of prominence and power to run out and greet the son with a kiss before true repentance can be made.

I don't believe utopia has to imply that there are people serving us. It could imply something like a commune where everyone shares everything and there is no need to serve, since everyone serves everyone in some sense, which aligns well enough with the Christian ideal, am I wrong?

After the the initial greet and words were exchanged the father returned the wayward son to a position of prominence and power signified by the father's cloak and ring that was put on his finger. This is important because it gives the son a job of power and position back into the father's house. You may think this to be "speculation" but if you look deeper in the lives of the culture of that day (a culture that was modeled off of the way God wanted the family structure to be run) it was all for a reason. He modeled our relationships with out children with the relationship we are to have with him so these concepts would not be completely foreign to us. That is why He is our Father and we are His children. (so you can know your role)

I wouldn't view it as speculation so much as a specious link of a parable to Heaven when the parable could just as easily be a simple lesson of the great degree of forgiveness expected of a follower of Jesus. Am I wrong in that interpretation? Could there be multiple correct interpretations of a single parable?

My role in your belief system is irrelevant except as we discuss the general tenets of your belief system, so I hope you aren't trying to swerve this in such a way that you think I'm forgetting my "place" or something like that.

In short Heaven is less about us and what can be provided for us and more about being with and serving along side God. If you want an Idea of what kinda jobs offered to a "son" just look at the culture.

I didn't say Heaven had to be a focus on what can be provided for us, but you can't deny that this could be argued to be part of a human's concern, even if it is secondary.

to what end?

I think I made this clear enough; the end of being with God.
.

No it does not, as my definition of "utopia" covers this aspect of it as well as the political example.. In that the Utopian ideal is all center around serving or providing for man.

Your definition is more a concept of the nature of utopia, not a strict definition. By Utopia, do you meant some place where service and providing for humans is the main focus?

Heaven is a place, because it was described as a place. just nothing we could ever hope to know in this life. So Why worship the "place" of Heaven? when we can worship the reason there is a Heaven?

I doubt people worship the place of Heaven, except perhaps in the unrealistic notion that Heaven is a place on earth or a place, as you put it in Utopian terms, for human satisfaction and providing for their needs. Again, Heaven has been reduced to the means, which I suppose makes more sense. It's moreso the source of this discussion is what you believe to be a mistaken idea of Heaven by Christians in name only who focus on their own needs in the future instead of on God. Am I wrong?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I believe the Bible tells us enough that we can know this is not the case. If you remove these items do your concerns vanish?

Nice quote mining there. The full quote is a bit more complex than just a place where we lose our individuality

heaven is a place where humans basically have all their troubles and difficulties in the physical world taken care of by some benevolent source, in this case, God and therefore become as little children again in a dual sense of dependence and deference to God in a sense that would parallel WALL-E in a loose sense of not being able to assert your individuality or do things on your own as an individual.

The loss of individuality was a result of the utopian state where our needs are provided. Of course, we seem to have established this isn't the case from "authorities" so my answer would still be no. Why? Because I'd still be immortal and eternally living, which is torturous in its own way, which I've tried to discuss in another topic in this very sub-forum.

 

[drich0150]

You are boiling down what Heaven is in relation to the end, not the means, but I personally don't find the end of God fulfilling. There's the disagreement, really.

Whether we can identify personal fulfillment from a process or a particular relationship should not be the determining factor in the true discernment of fulfillment. It's Just like someone saying I don't think i would like sea world because I'm not a big fan of the killer whale. Because in the end there is much more to "Sea world" than your perception of it.

Perhaps it would be better stated if one said I simply do not understand the allure of sea world..

*facepalm* I think I mis worded that statement. You will be complete when you are with God. Is that a better expression of the Christian worldviews goal and notion of person hood completion?

yes

There would be an indirect communion through prayer and such, and there would be a direct communion in heaven as you describe it. Is that wrong?

no

Is this actually what Muslims have told you or is this your perception through readings associated with Muslim views on heaven?

I have several copies of the Koran and have employed a Muslim believer for a time and we would have fairly deep discussions about his faith. (Before Iraq war 2 they lived next to a mosque and he studied daily)

Or perhaps a combination thereof somehow. I don't think I ever said Eden was an attainable goal for Christians, did I?

When you compared Eden to Paradise it was implied.

You have defined what you personally believe they are. One can turn your future accusation of my "personal" view of Heaven back on you, it would seem.



Like noted above, how is your definition of Heaven any less personal?

Only if you discount what was said in scripture about the bible.

I would hesitate to use politically charged terms like socialist. It is more a general goal in terms of a view for an improved world, though this implies a heaven on earth, so admittedly the comparison would seem to fall flat.

then take away the negative association of socialism. What you described is the ideal version of it. Bottom line Man's well being and well fair is sustained by a perfect communal effort is it not?

Then the whole conversation seems to be a matter of a critique of what people initially believe heaven to be, a mistaken association of that belief with the general idea of utopia and then the compartmentalization of forgetting that while you can critique utopia, you yourself believe in a utopia as well (mistakenly by "orthodox Christian standards," of course)

Minus the self involvement associated with utopia yes.

I want for a theocratic utopia while you are looking for the "social" version of it is that correct?

So Heaven seems terribly vague to the point that speculation is the only solution to the problem, if there indeed exists one.

I don't believe utopia has to imply that there are people serving us.

Neither do i. What was meant is that the needs of man are being served. I did not imply that mean each one of us has a servant.

It could imply something like a commune where everyone shares everything and there is no need to serve, since everyone serves everyone in some sense, which aligns well enough with the Christian ideal, am I wrong?

But in the sharing are you needs not being met? Are you not a fair representation of "Man" in this scenario? Whether or not we are waited on our want/desires are still being meet in utopia.

I wouldn't view it as speculation so much as a specious link of a parable to Heaven when the parable could just as easily be a simple lesson of the great degree of forgiveness expected of a follower of Jesus. Am I wrong in that interpretation? Could there be multiple correct interpretations of a single parable?

Absolutely there are multiple interpretations to every parable. what makes this work with "my" interpretation is the last couples of verses When the Father welcomes the son home and tells him that he will Share all that He has with him. This implies a story that goes beyond simple forgiveness. Because as it is Forgiveness is established when the son returned Home. There are 8 more chapters that describe "Life after the return."

My role in your belief system is irrelevant except as we discuss the general tenets of your belief system, so I hope you aren't trying to swerve this in such a way that you think I'm forgetting my "place" or something like that.

You belief does not factor into my response. I see a question and provide an answer. You are reading too far into this. I can assure you my answer would be close if not the same no matter who asked it.

I didn't say Heaven had to be a focus on what can be provided for us, but you can't deny that this could be argued to be part of a humans concern, even if it is secondary.

I am sure it is the primary for all new believers. as we are taught as Children of the Gold streets and pearly gates etc.. But this elementary/Sunday school understanding of a medieval doctrine and art work, actually represents a small portion of what the scripture provides.

If we grow spiritually our understandings grow. Truthfully what solid relationship looks the same, and has the same defining qualities as when you were a child? As we grow so should our understanding.

Your definition is more a concept of the nature of utopia, not a strict definition. By Utopia, do you meant some place where service and providing for humans is the main focus?

more or less yes.

I doubt people worship the place of Heaven, except perhaps in the unrealistic notion that Heaven is a place on earth or a place, as you put it in Utopian terms, for human satisfaction and providing for their needs. Again, Heaven has been reduced to the means, which I suppose makes more sense. It's moreso the source of this discussion is what you believe to be a mistaken idea of Heaven by Christians in name only who focus on their own needs in the future instead of on God.

This is what the worship of Heaven/utopia looks like.

 

[Dorothea]

After listening to a podcast concerning various religious/skeptical podcasts in the running for an award, the thought brought up by the hosts on a Christian movie critic's review of WALL-E made me think. The issue they brought up was that the critic says that WALL-E is suggesting a potential future for America of becoming too dependent on technology and thus resulting in a "utopia" where we are reduced to helpless children.

A question resulted: Isn't the Christian idea of heaven basically a permutation of what WALL-E actually criticizes in the end? A place where, in basic terms, you don't have to worry about anything, all the work is done for you and all you have to do is enjoy yourself in the presence of God, presumably praising it with no difficulties or problems of your sinful nature from before.

WALL-E was a cool movie. It does make you think about our planet and how people treat it and others. That's what I got out of it.

As far as heaven being a place where all the work is done for you. This is an interesting view. Well, while we're here on this earth, we are to strive toward becoming one with Him (which I explained in another thread), so we must deny ourselves and follow Him, and to do this, there is work involved. Because the Christian life is not the life of sitting back and having the Spirit work in you. If He's working in you, you'll be doing something, many things! There is the ascetic struggle we all go through (well, at least the Orthodox) in growing in His presence and what we'd call spiritual maturity.

There will be no more sorrows or pain. Tru dat. But, we will not cease growing spiritually. We will contiue to do so in His presence.

I understand there might be differing ideas about the exact nature of heaven, but if we take this general idea to be true: that is, heaven is a place where humans basically have all their troubles and difficulties in the physical world taken care of by some benevolent source, in this case, God and therefore become as little children again in a dual sense of dependence and deference to God in a sense that would parallel WALL-E in a loose sense of not being able to assert your individuality or do things on your own as an individual.

I don't believe so. First off, once we've run the race in this life - the marathon, as St. Paul talks about us being atheletes and finishing the race and earning our crown of salvation - we do go on receiving this "reward" for finishing the race. Not falling away, or turning away from God, but staying stedfast and obedient in our spiritual lives on earth. I'm not sure I'd use the words "taken care of" by God. We do share in His Divine energies, and we continue to grow in His presence. And we are still forever created beings, but beings glorified - His Saints.

So my question remains in the title in short format: Is Heaven a utopia? If so, why is it superior to other utopias in literature, such that have been shown to be fruitless and unsuccessful? Do you think there are advocates for this in Christianity of a utopia in any form?

The utopias thought up by philosophers in opposition to being in the presence of God eternally, is these earthly ideas of utopia are something that is truly unsuccessful. Human's capacity to understand heaven can be quite hard to grasp, and some think they can have utopia or their idea of "heaven" here on earth. But Earth is not of His Kingdom, so it can never be.

Heaven is superior because we're in the presence of an all-loving God eternally, where we share in the life of the perfect love of the Trinity and grow in His presence.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Whether we can identify personal fulfillment from a process or a particular relationship should not be the determining factor in the true discernment of fulfillment. It's Just like someone saying I don't think i would like sea world because I'm not a big fan of the killer whale. Because in the end there is much more to "Sea world" than your perception of it.

Then how would you suggest we determine some relatively objective standard for personal fulfillment? What if I don't see any real meaning to believing in God to work towards goals or help people? What does it indicate in terms of the standard of personal fulfillment?

Perhaps it would be better stated if one said I simply do not understand the allure of sea world..

As a religious studies major, it's not as if I haven't tried to understand the perspectives of a believer in God and Jesus, but I honestly cannot say I see any reason to pursue anything regarding their spiritual practices, especially as related to communion with God, since, imho, it distracts from an already complex spiritual/psychological/experiential/phenomenological world we live in.

yes

Yay...

no

So we have that distinction settled?

I have several copies of the Koran and have employed a Muslim believer for a time and we would have fairly deep discussions about his faith. (Before Iraq war 2 they lived next to a mosque and he studied daily)

Admittedly one Muslim does not speak for all Muslims or Islam, no more than you speak for all Christians. You might not believe as other Christians seem to that the soul will only gain eternal life through God and otherwise will be annihilated, as in annihilationism as I understand it.

When you compared Eden to Paradise it was implied.

There are different understandings of Paradise apart from Eden, however. I imagine we could agree on that. Eden is merely one popularized understanding of paradise as a concept, similar to utopia realized in various different theories and models.

Only if you discount what was said in scripture about the bible.

Do you mean what was said in scripture about Heaven? Because what scripture says about itself seems circular in logic.

then take away the negative association of socialism. What you described is the ideal version of it. Bottom line Man's well being and well fair is sustained by a perfect communal effort is it not?

A communal effort, not a perfect communal effort. Humans don't think that they'll necessarily succeed in these endeavors, they hope and believe they will. It's where we get the notion of idealism, seems to me. Man's well being and welfare are sustained ideally, not actually. The difficulty with Utopia by human affairs is that we cannot predict that far. It seems to me a comparison of some idea of utopia as a good world might be justified IF it is managed by God. Considering God knows human welfare and what is good for humans better than humans, correct?

Minus the self involvement associated with utopia yes.

I want for a theocratic utopia while you are looking for the "social" version of it is that correct?

I want no utopia, since it is idealistic and unrealistic. If you admit you want a theocratic utopia, then we have to clarify what this theocratic utopia consists in. The secular utopia is something we can both critique, though for drastically different reasons, I imagine. But that you want the theocratic utopia, while I want neither a theocratic nor secular utopia is something we have just discovered now, it seems. A great progress!

Neither do i. What was meant is that the needs of man are being served. I did not imply that mean each one of us has a servant.

So in your utopia, men's needs are served by being servants to God? Is that a fair assessment?

But in the sharing are you needs not being met? Are you not a fair representation of "Man" in this scenario? Whether or not we are waited on our want/desires are still being meet in utopia.

Then our discussion has concluded or at least clarified that utopia at its basis only meets humans' needs, but not necessarily in a form that involves servitude or anything as selfish and elitist as what might be implied.

Absolutely there are multiple interpretations to every parable. what makes this work with "my" interpretation is the last couples of verses When the Father welcomes the son home and tells him that he will Share all that He has with him. This implies a story that goes beyond simple forgiveness. Because as it is Forgiveness is established when the son returned Home. There are 8 more chapters that describe "Life after the return."

So in the full context, you argue that this is primarily about heaven? What about the interpretation I recall more clearly about the parable's focus on forgiveness in a general interpersonal context?

You belief does not factor into my response. I see a question and provide an answer. You are reading too far into this. I can assure you my answer would be close if not the same no matter who asked it.

Just to clarify the Christian context of the roles in that context?

I am sure it is the primary for all new believers. as we are taught as Children of the Gold streets and pearly gates etc.. But this elementary/Sunday school understanding of a medieval doctrine and art work, actually represents a small portion of what the scripture provides.

If we grow spiritually our understandings grow. Truthfully what solid relationship looks the same, and has the same defining qualities as when you were a child? As we grow so should our understanding.

But my argument is that there is some focus on one's needs, though you haven't disagreed our needs are met, but moreso that it isn't the human perception of what our needs are, but God's perception. Is that a better understanding?

more or less yes.

And Heaven is only related to that incidentally, not intentionally, am I right?

This is what the worship of Heaven/utopia looks like.

In that Heaven is seen as synonymous with God in providing for our needs in some mistaken way?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

WALL-E was a cool movie. It does make you think about our planet and how people treat it and others. That's what I got out of it.

I got a similar notion, though moreso I got the message that technology should not be viewed as an end, but a means to an end where humans are not fat blobs with no bone density, lol. Not to mention that idea that we shouldn't be so self centered either, I agree.

As far as heaven being a place where all the work is done for you. This is an interesting view. Well, while we're here on this earth, we are to strive toward becoming one with Him (which I explained in another thread), so we must deny ourselves and follow Him, and to do this, there is work involved. Because the Christian life is not the life of sitting back and having the Spirit work in you. If He's working in you, you'll be doing something, many things! There is the ascetic struggle we all go through (well, at least the Orthodox) in growing in His presence and what we'd call spiritual maturity.

There will be no more sorrows or pain. Tru dat. But, we will not cease growing spiritually. We will contiue to do so in His presence.

There's a mutual relationship here, even though one might note that God doesn't need anything from you, so it's a very confusing sort of relationship for an entity that has no real needs, but seems to just be interacting with humans out of lack of any other people it can interact with in a dynamic way.
I find the notion that we will have no sorrows or pain troubling if we are still incarnate entities. If we were disembodied entities, it might be more reasonable to assume that, with no bodies, we would feel no pain at least. Though no sorrow seems a stretch, since we could conceivably still feel sad even if we were just floating spirits.

I don't believe so. First off, once we've run the race in this life - the marathon, as St. Paul talks about us being atheletes and finishing the race and earning our crown of salvation - we do go on receiving this "reward" for finishing the race. Not falling away, or turning away from God, but staying stedfast and obedient in our spiritual lives on earth. I'm not sure I'd use the words "taken care of" by God. We do share in His Divine energies, and we continue to grow in His presence. And we are still forever created beings, but beings glorified - His Saints.

Our needs are met, but we are not risen to a level of equality with God. Though I am reminded of the notion Jesus says that those who lower themselves will be risen up in heaven, so I always tend to think that implies some sort of being treated better, though that doesn't mean any hedonistic sort of elitism.

The utopias thought up by philosophers in opposition to being in the presence of God eternally, is these earthly ideas of utopia are something that is truly unsuccessful. Human's capacity to understand heaven can be quite hard to grasp, and some think they can have utopia or their idea of "heaven" here on earth. But Earth is not of His Kingdom, so it can never be.

I never said utopias could be successful. As I said with drich, I think we can both agree human utopias are unsuccessful, though for drastically differing reasons. It's the notion of heaven as some spiritual utopia of sorts I dont find any more appealing than a secular one.

Heaven is superior because we're in the presence of an all-loving God eternally, where we share in the life of the perfect love of the Trinity and grow in His presence.

If we share in perfect love and are in the presence of an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God eternally, one has to wonder how long we can continue to improve until we're as perfect as humans can be?

 

[Fierce Badger]

ToHoldNothing, out of curiosity, have you read or heard about the Orthodox view called the River of Fire?

 

[Dorothea]

There's a mutual relationship here, even though one might note that God doesn't need anything from you, so it's a very confusing sort of relationship for an entity that has no real needs, but seems to just be interacting with humans out of lack of any other people it can interact with in a dynamic way.
I find the notion that we will have no sorrows or pain troubling if we are still incarnate entities. If we were disembodied entities, it might be more reasonable to assume that, with no bodies, we would feel no pain at least. Though no sorrow seems a stretch, since we could conceivably still feel sad even if we were just floating spirits.

I agree that He didn't need us. He is perfect love within the Trinity. But He did create us because He loves us so!

Well, we are not alone up there, of course. There are also other humans and angels.

Ah, this is interesting on the incarnate. Well, the thing is that when we are resurrected when He returns, our souls and bodies reunited, they are transformed into a glorified state, which is what Christ's resurrected Body was. So, the glorified body is not the same as the fleshly body we're in now. Why? Because Christ walked through locked doors, through walls in his resurrected Body, but at the same time, ate fish on the beach. It is quite intriquing. So, this is the difference.

Our needs are met, but we are not risen to a level of equality with God. Though I am reminded of the notion Jesus says that those who lower themselves will be risen up in heaven, so I always tend to think that implies some sort of being treated better, though that doesn't mean any hedonistic sort of elitism.

Yes, God dwells in the humble heart.

I never said utopias could be successful. As I said with drich, I think we can both agree human utopias are unsuccessful, though for drastically differing reasons. It's the notion of heaven as some spiritual utopia of sorts I dont find any more appealing than a secular one.

I see. I can understand that actually. I can see your POV. It really comes down to one knowing and experiencing God and through the small instances of these joyous experiences, we are drawn to want to be in His presence for eternity. We are limited at this time to feel His presence for more than a few minutes because, as I've read from many who have felt His presence and from the Saints, that they could not take in more than those few minutes they had at a time. I know, hard to get into and explain now.

If we share in perfect love and are in the presence of an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God eternally, one has to wonder how long we can continue to improve until we're as perfect as humans can be?

I really don't know.

 

[razeontherock]

I never said utopias could be successful. As I said with drich, I think we can both agree human utopias are unsuccessful, though for drastically differing reasons. It's the notion of heaven as some spiritual utopia of sorts I dont find any more appealing than a secular one.

Good point! Now how can you factor in the idea that human thoughts are not God's thoughts, nor are our ways His ways? Is your dread based on human limitation?

If we share in perfect love and are in the presence of an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God eternally, one has to wonder how long we can continue to improve until we're as perfect as humans can be?

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

I see yet another paradox, that while Jesus is still human (or is this currently incorrect in some way?) and we will be instantly perfected, Dorothea speaks confidently of growth past that. This does not strike me as contradictory, but does seem hard up against the edge of what we can speak about.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

ToHoldNothing, out of curiosity, have you read or heard about the Orthodox view called the River of Fire?

I've just looked into it, and it seems similar to what I've heard in this topic slightly, as well as my "Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?" topic. The notion that hell isn't a separate place and everyone is before Jesus; those who love Jesus feel his "fire" as beneficial, while those who hate Jesus feel the fire as "detrimental" in paraphrased terms.