How could we survive the horrors of heaven?

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,688
55
USA
✟676,606.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Really?
I can, very easily.
What kind of parent who loves their child doesn't feel pain when they suffer?
I can imagine my son doing something so wrong that he would be punished, and deserve to be punished.
I can imagine seeing his punishment, and knowing that it is right and just.
But I cannot imagine feeling happy watching it. And I cannot imagine any parent who loves their child feeling like that.

Quite frankly heaven is not sitting around watching people suffer in hell...

heaven is being before God's throne in worship of Him...

Your trying to indicate we would stop being engrossed in that having sorrows for those not there... I'm simply saying I'm not planning on it, there will be countless billions in heaven... im not planning on stopping being showered with the love of my God and likewise showering Him in mine to criticise Him for not forcing anyone to anything against their will...

I'm quite convinced those not there would hate God's company... as you call it, the horror of being in the company of a God who loves us.

Today is the day you have to chose Him... today. Even though today is a day your His enemy, He's still giving you another chance to turn. That is love... that is 86,400 opportunities x how many days you've lived so far...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Magnanimity

Active Member
Dec 13, 2020
124
94
Atlanta
✟17,238.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Respectfully, you wouldn't mind ditching the sarcasm, would you? There is a rule on this forum enjoining us to be respectful to one another. Thank you.

As my moniker here suggests, I take civility very seriously. I am ever mindful of the thoughts and feelings of those with whom I interact. It is not sarcasm to speak of "the altar of _______." See here as an example. "We do like to believe that there is a lot riding on our individualized sets of beliefs" is, I believe, a serious point worth discussing. I also believe that what Modernity has done is to merely supplant the altar of religion with whatever altar you'd like (the will, science, politics). This view is neither unique to me (see Charles Taylor, Robert Barron, Alec Ryrie, etc) nor meant as a sarcastic dismissal. You've misunderstood me, but if you are used to seeing flippant sarcasm in this sub-forum, I can understand the misunderstanding.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure that reading sympathetically is the right way to comprehend a difficult piece of text. I'd recommend reading critically, and considering context, as the keys to good reading.
If you try hard to maintain a certain point of view, then you can read selectively, painting isolated passages with your own invented meaning (or one you liked from some ideological web site) -- reading 'critically' as you call it. It's such a weak way of reading, that I keep thinking you will see through it also. To read well, you'd read trying to get the entire picture fully as the text itself is presenting it in its own terms.

Good reading that is neutral would not end up misrepresenting the overall themes that are gained from entire books read as a whole, as one whole thing. To read well, you'd end up with the accurate overall themes, even if you didn't agree with them (at least you'd be ideally able to get them correct to the text).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Math is not an evidentiary science, is it? Arithmetic operates at a high level of precision not because there is so much evidence for it. But as Kant said, “the exactness of mathematics depends on definitions, axioms, and demonstrations. None of these can be achieved or imitated by the philosopher in the sense in which they are understood by the mathematician.” This view is not unique to Kant—it is shared by philosophers in every age. And the term “theologian” could replace “philosopher” in Kant’s claim above with equal application.





Out of curiosity, do you never form ethical or political beliefs because those sciences do not admit of the precision of mathematics? Or how about within the sciences of psychology and biology? Do you never form any strong beliefs because the claims of these sciences are open to further revision and a deeper understanding later on (as more is discovered)?

I’m reasonably certain that no one behaves this way. We all form beliefs in the areas of psychology, politics, religion and ethics, even though we are aware that there is a certain provisional nature to our holding of these beliefs. We know that it’s irrational to expect the same level of precision within them that we expect of much of mathematics. But so what? It seems that humans are perfectly fine proceeding with belief-formation despite all this. But not you?
You are reading too much into my analogy. My point was you should believe something to be true when there is good reason to believe so. When Christians offer conflicting doctrines on an issue the time to believe them is when one of them provides good evidence sufficient for belief. Until then "I don't believe any" is the best position.
 
Upvote 0

Magnanimity

Active Member
Dec 13, 2020
124
94
Atlanta
✟17,238.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You are reading too much into my analogy.

Good, one can certainly prove too much if the high standard of precision of mathematics is what every other area of thought must live up to. It’s simply unrealistic.

My point was you should believe something to be true when there is good reason to believe so.

I think this is uncontroversially true, as I believe would the vast majority of all people. Humanity is united on this one.

When Christians offer conflicting doctrines on an issue the time to believe them is when one of them provides good evidence sufficient for belief.

Idk about the word “evidence,” but if you inserted “reasons” or “arguments” instead, I think that statement is also true. But of course, this is precisely the 2,000 year history of Christian theology. Which side of any important issue hasn’t given reasons and arguments for their position?

Until then "I don't believe any" is the best position.

Gotta go with non sequitur on this one. Arguments have been and continue to be offered on the many sides of this or any other important theological matter. And you have a conscience and rationality to guide you in your discernment, just like we all do.

If a person insists on an agnostic attitude in politics, history, religion, ethics, philosophy or theology, that’s certainly that person’s prerogative. But most of us take stands and form beliefs in all of these areas, even if we hold those beliefs with some measure of tentativeness. If you’re waiting around for undeniable certainty, you’ll be waiting a loooooong time.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Good, one can certainly prove too much if the high standard of precision of mathematics is what every other area of thought must live up to. It’s simply unrealistic.
I never said it was.



I think this is uncontroversially true, as I believe would the vast majority of all people. Humanity is united on this one.
I doubt humanity is united on anything.



Idk about the word “evidence,” but if you inserted “reasons” or “arguments” instead, I think that statement is also true. But of course, this is precisely the 2,000 year history of Christian theology. Which side of any important issue hasn’t given reasons and arguments for their position?
None. But just because an argument is provided does not mean it is a good argument.



Gotta go with non sequitur on this one. Arguments have been and continue to be offered on the many sides of this or any other important theological matter. And you have a conscience and rationality to guide you in your discernment, just like we all do.
If none of the arguments or evidence etc. is convincing the answer is 'I don't know". I am not convinced a god exists and I am not convinced a god does not exist. When I am convinced of either claim I will believe it.

My feeling is that no gods exist. However, I cannot back up that claim with good evidence.

If a person insists on an agnostic attitude in politics, history, religion, ethics, philosophy or theology, that’s certainly that person’s prerogative. But most of us take stands and form beliefs in all of these areas, even if we hold those beliefs with some measure of tentativeness. If you’re waiting around for undeniable certainty, you’ll be waiting a loooooong time.
I never said I needed 100% certainty. I said I needed convincing evidence or good reasons. I don't think we can be 100% certain of anything. This is not as hard as you seem to want to make it.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Quite frankly heaven is not sitting around watching people suffer in hell...
There are plenty of Christians who would disagree with you. Saint Augustine, for example, who said that one of the primary delights of heaven is watching people in torment.

heaven is being before God's throne in worship of Him...
I'm sure it is. And this worship would be so delightful that you would forget the screams of your loved ones, who would be spending every second of your worship being tortured?

Am I supposed to be sad when or if you finally get exactly what your asking for in the afterlife? Really?
But we're not talking about me, or about faceless millions, are we? If I haven't made it clear, I apologise, so let me do so now: I'm not asking you about your feelings for me, or for humanity in general. I'm asking you about your feelings for those you love.
Having said that, while I generally don't give a thought to those starving around the world, I would certainly not be able to maintain this indifference if I were actually watching them starving. Is that the answer? People in heaven don't care about those in hell because out of sight is out of mind? If so, the people in heaven don't seem very pure or good to me.

I'm with God on this, we reap what we sow... I at least raised my kids to believe that.
Well, of course, that's a very proper attitude to teach your children. Under most circumstances. But did you tell your kids that if they went to hell, you would not care? That the knowledge or even seeing that they were suffering in hell would not disturb your happiness in the slightest?
Because forgive me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be what you're telling me.

im not planning on stopping being showered with the love of my God and likewise showering Him in mine to criticise Him for not forcing anyone to anything against their will...
Were you planning on your kids going to hell? Seriously, is that part of the plan?
Because you seem to be telling me that if they did go to hell, this would not interrupt your happiness for a moment. Again, forgive me if I am minsinterpreting you.

I'm quite convinced those not there would hate God's company... as you call it, the horror of being in the company of a God who loves us.
LEt's not get off track. I'd prefer to stay on the topic of the thread.

Today is the day you have to chose Him... today. Even though today is a day your His enemy, He's still giving you another chance to turn. That is love... that is 86,400 opportunities x how many days you've lived so far...
A polite request: let's leave the preaching out of this.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
As my moniker here suggests, I take civility very seriously. I am ever mindful of the thoughts and feelings of those with whom I interact. It is not sarcasm to speak of "the altar of _______." See here as an example. "We do like to believe that there is a lot riding on our individualized sets of beliefs" is, I believe, a serious point worth discussing. I also believe that what Modernity has done is to merely supplant the altar of religion with whatever altar you'd like (the will, science, politics). This view is neither unique to me (see Charles Taylor, Robert Barron, Alec Ryrie, etc) nor meant as a sarcastic dismissal. You've misunderstood me, but if you are used to seeing flippant sarcasm in this sub-forum, I can understand the misunderstanding.
I'm glad to hear you take civility seriously. But that's not what I felt from you, in more than one comment. Still, I must say your recent comments have indeed been very polite.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Magnanimity
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I’m surprised no one has delved into the question of what the experience of “living” in a temporal-less state might be like.

The damned are tortured for all eternity, but the “experience” takes (literally) no time at all.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you try hard to maintain a certain point of view, then you can read selectively, painting isolated passages with your own invented meaning (or one you liked from some ideological web site) -- reading 'critically' as you call it. It's such a weak way of reading, that I keep thinking you will see through it also. To read well, you'd read trying to get the entire picture fully as the text itself is presenting it in its own terms.

Good reading that is neutral would not end up misrepresenting the overall themes that are gained from entire books read as a whole, as one whole thing. To read well, you'd end up with the accurate overall themes, even if you didn't agree with them (at least you'd be ideally able to get them correct to the text).
I suggest you take your own advice.
Isaiah was a Jew. An Israelite. He was not speaking of Christianity, because it had yet to be invented. Nor was he speaking of the people in heaven looking down on hell.
You are, I'm afraid, making the mistake you accuse others of making. You see something in the Bible about "a new heaven" and you assume it is speaking about the heaven that you have in your Christian religion. But read the book of Isaiah critically - that is to say, placing it in context and trying to imagine what the writer was thinking, and what the words meant to him - and you will see that it is nothing to do with Christian ideas about heaven.
Isaiah was speaking about how the Lord Yahweh would save his nation and his chosen people, and how the sins of the nation would be forgotten.
In order to think that he was saying "Don't worry, in heaven you won't have to worry about your loved ones in hell because you will have forgotten them," you basically need to snip a single sentence out of context and repurpose it for your own religion. I advise you not to do that.
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I could disagree with quite a lot of that, but I'll stick to the main point. And that is that Isaiah was not talking about individual believers in God, but about the nation of Israel. So in the verse quoted, he was not saying - as several people have stated - that people who go to heaven will forget their former lives and associates; he was saying that the nation of Israel will be brought to glory by God, and that Israel's former sins and flaws will be forgotten.
Therefore, this is not scriptural proof that people who go to heaven will not be bothered by memories of loved ones in hell. Indeed, it would be very strange if they were!

Except Revelation is talking to different Churches as well and not just individuals.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Except Revelation is talking to different Churches as well and not just individuals.
Sure it is. But we were talking about Isaiah, and people are quoting him as if he was talking about individual Christians in heaven.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,688
55
USA
✟676,606.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But we're not talking about me, or about faceless millions, are we? If I haven't made it clear, I apologise, so let me do so now: I'm not asking you about your feelings for me, or for humanity in general

I wouldn't feel any different about my son than you or anyone else.

I'm just that way.

P.S. I don't have Augustine's theology, if that was truly the correct context of what he said.

Maybe next thread you should request people only reply who believe such nonsense.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I wouldn't feel any different about my son than you or anyone else.
I'm just that way.
Well, that sounds like a pretty horrible heaven, in which parents don't care about their children.

P.S. I don't have Augustine's theology, if that was truly the correct context of what he said.
It was. And while you may not have shared his exact take on it, your views would seem to have quite a lot in common.

Maybe next thread you should request people only reply who believe such nonsense.
I requested that people reply if they believe in hell, because there is an obvious logical problem for Christians who believe in both a perfectly happy heaven and an eternal and punishing hell.
I noted that no Christian has yet found a satisfactory way of reconciling these, and invited responses. You responded, and confirmed my theory.

Thank you for your time.
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,688
55
USA
✟676,606.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, that sounds like a pretty horrible heaven, in which parents don't care about their children.


It was. And while you may not have shared his exact take on it, your views would seem to have quite a lot in common.


I requested that people reply if they believe in hell, because there is an obvious logical problem for Christians who believe in both a perfectly happy heaven and an eternal and punishing hell.
I noted that no Christian has yet found a satisfactory way of reconciling these, and invited responses. You responded, and confirmed my theory.

Thank you for your time.

I do believe in a hell, absolutely. I just don't believe in heaven we will be crying over others bad choices in life.

Refuse God every day of your life, instead of accepting what he's offering, and the end of that is what it is....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do believe in a hell, absolutely. I just don't believe in heaven we will be crying over others bad choices in life.
You're free to choose your beliefs, of course. But you're not free to choose the consequences of those beliefs.
And you have just told me that if you go to heaven, you don't care if your children go to hell.
Okay. Fair enough. That was more or less what this thread was about.
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,688
55
USA
✟676,606.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You're free to choose your beliefs, of course. But you're not free to choose the consequences of those beliefs.
And you have just told me that if you go to heaven, you don't care if your children go to hell.
Okay. Fair enough. That was more or less what this thread was about.

If I "didn't care", I wouldn't spend time speaking of Christ and salvation with my child.

The definition of caring is the attempt to do something about it while there is time to change it.

There's no point in wringing one's hands after time has ended. That's lunacy, not caring.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If I "didn't care", I wouldn't spend time speaking of Christ and salvation with my child.

The definition of caring is the attempt to do something about it while there is time to change it.

There's no point in wringing one's hands after time has ended. That's lunacy, not caring.
Oh yes. That is certainly the sensible, rational and logical attitude for you to take.
So, when you are in heaven, and you have a vision of your beloved child roasting on a spit, screaming in agony, perhaps calling out to you for help...you'll give a happy smile, and perhaps a laugh of joy.

The OP suggested a number of horrible ways in which God might solve this problem, but I really do feel this way is more horrible still. Apparently you won't need help in forgetting about the agony of loved ones. You are telling me that you just won't care about it.

The horrors of heaven indeed.
 
Upvote 0