A Paradoxical Heavenly Quandary

[CabVet]

I don't see why.

I do, if I know the future, there is no surprise. There is no unfolding. Want to test it? Think of it as yesterday. Can yesterday "unfold"?

 

[Tree of Life]

What sort of narcissistic deity would be like that? Really? A God that wants everyone to suffer and go through sin and death just so he can be seen as merciful and just? Come on.

This is indeed offensive to an anthrocentric worldview.

 

[Tree of Life]

I do, if I know the future, there is no surprise. There is no unfolding. Want to test it? Think of it as yesterday. Can yesterday "unfold"?

Unfolding does not require surprise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not even close to what I said. In "heaven" we could conceivably still have the free will to sin, but without the death-centric flesh that characterizes our mortal existence, there will be no appeal to sin whatsoever.



Evolutionary processes taking millions of years which couldn't possibly end up in any natural way developing human flesh and organs and bone that wouldn't end up dying. But God is at work to elevate humanity out of it's purely material origins and into God's own immortal, divine, perfect life.

I think I get what you're saying...it's just a bit silly to me, and I mean no offense so please don't take any.

It's just if I'm some flesh less spirit floating around and I cannot see, hear, taste, feel, smell...that doesn't sound much like heaven to me. It sounds like hell.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do, if I know the future, there is no surprise. There is no unfolding. Want to test it? Think of it as yesterday. Can yesterday "unfold"?

That all depends on how hard you drink!

 

[CabVet]

Unfolding does not require surprise.

In what dictionary? In mine it does.

un·fold
ˌənˈfōld/
verb

(of information or a sequence of events) be revealed or disclosed.

What was not revealed or not disclosed for God before it unfolded?

 

[CabVet]

That all depends on how hard you drink!

Haha, very true!

 

[Tree of Life]

In what dictionary? In mine it does.

un·fold
ˌənˈfōld/
verb

(of information or a sequence of events) be revealed or disclosed.

What was not revealed or not disclosed for God before it unfolded?

The story does unfold for God's creatures. And God still experiences the progression of the story. He is the one causing the story to unfold. He is the unfolder of history.

 

[CabVet]

The story does unfold for God's creatures. And God still experiences the progression of the story. He is the one causing the story to unfold. He is the unfolder of history.

That's not what you said to begin with, is it? So, he knows everything and causes everything but just wants to see it happening. What does that make us? Puppets?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think I get what you're saying...it's just a bit silly to me, and I mean no offense so please don't take any.

It's just if I'm some flesh less spirit floating around and I cannot see, hear, taste, feel, smell...that doesn't sound much like heaven to me. It sounds like hell.

Actually I completely agree. Christianity has historically been focused on the future resurrection of the dead in this world, the renewal of this world, and the final completion of God's (we now know) 13.7 billion year work of creation. "Heaven" is a temporary way-station between death and resurrection which has been blown out of proportion by medieval and early modern Christianity's focus on individual salvation and by modern fundamentalists with their strange disdain for the earth. Heaven is not the ultimate goal.

Ultimately, resurrection and renewal are the goal, and that means being back here, on an earth that is sustained by God's own life, in bodies that are sustained by God's own life. Bodies with taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell, but without the character of death that pervades our current existence. And so just as Jesus' body was his same body (the tomb was empty), it was characterized by extraordinary new properties (immortality first among them).

I think it might help to know that the Greek word that Paul of Tarsus used in his letters that we translate as 'flesh' is also the common word for animal 'meat.' The trouble isn't that we're physical; it's that we're slowly dying 'meat.' Outside of Christianity, the Greeks (follow Homer) referred to humans as the "thantoi" and the gods as "athanatoi." In Latinized English this normally gets translated (in the Iliad) as "the immortals" and "the mortals," but I think it's better to get at Greek sense with "the deathless ones" and "the dying ones." From the moment we are born, we are dying- hence, the body we're in is composed of 'meat.' And the point Paul makes again and again (especially in his First Letter to the church at Corinth, chapter 15) is that while we'll be raised again from the dead in bodies, those bodies won't be 'meat' and destined for death in that way we are now.

So, to get back to the OP: This means that for those people who go through death and out the other side having already been forgiven, the source of our sinful desires (our death-destined meat) will be left behind, but we will one day return to (re)new(ed) bodies with a deathless, and therefore sinless, character.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually I completely agree. Christianity has historically been focused on the future resurrection of the dead in this world, the renewal of this world, and the final completion of God's (we now know) 13.7 billion year work of creation. "Heaven" is a temporary way-station between death and resurrection which has been blown out of proportion by medieval and early modern Christianity's focus on individual salvation and by modern fundamentalists with their strange disdain for the earth. Heaven is not the ultimate goal.

Ultimately, resurrection and renewal are the goal, and that means being back here, on an earth that is sustained by God's own life, in bodies that are sustained by God's own life. Bodies with taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell, but without the character of death that pervades our current existence. And so just as Jesus' body was his same body (the tomb was empty), it was characterized by extraordinary new properties (immortality first among them).

I think it might help to know that the Greek word that Paul of Tarsus used in his letters that we translate as 'flesh' is also the common word for animal 'meat.' The trouble isn't that we're physical; it's that we're slowly dying 'meat.' Outside of Christianity, the Greeks (follow Homer) referred to humans as the "thantoi" and the gods as "athanatoi." In Latinized English this normally gets translated (in the Iliad) as "the immortals" and "the mortals," but I think it's better to get at Greek sense with "the deathless ones" and "the dying ones." From the moment we are born, we are dying- hence, the body we're in is composed of 'meat.' And the point Paul makes again and again (especially in his First Letter to the church at Corinth, chapter 15) is that while we'll be raised again from the dead in bodies, those bodies won't be 'meat' and destined for death in that way we are now.

So, to get back to the OP: This means that for those people who go through death and out the other side having already been forgiven, the source of our sinful desires (our death-destined meat) will be left behind, but we will one day return to (re)new(ed) bodies with a deathless, and therefore sinless, character.

So...you think in these "renewed" bodies we would no longer want pre-marital sex....because we won't die?

 

[Tree of Life]

So...you think in these "renewed" bodies we would no longer want pre-marital sex....because we won't die?

It seems to me that his point was that the presence of death makes us selfish. "Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die." Because we sense that time is running out we live for momentary pleasure at the expense of others.

It's not wrong to want sex. Sex is one of the most wonderful things that God created. But sex outside of the context of marriage is selfish. It doesn't usually take into account the good of the other person or the implications for other people in your lives. It's focused on the pleasure of the moment. It's not an act of service but a selfish indulgence.

But in the new heavens and new earth marriage will no longer be a thing. It will have served its purpose - to teach us about the relationship between Christ and the church. Does this mean that there will be no sex in heaven? Possibly. But if not it's because we'll no longer need it. The pleasure that we experience in the presence of the Lord will far surpass the pleasures of sex, or any sensual pleasure for that matter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems to me that his point was that the presence of death makes us selfish. "Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die." Because we sense that time is running out we live for momentary pleasure at the expense of others.

It's not wrong to want sex. Sex is one of the most wonderful things that God created. But sex outside of the context of marriage is selfish. It doesn't usually take into account the good of the other person or the implications for other people in your lives. It's focused on the pleasure of the moment. It's not an act of service but a selfish indulgence.

But in the new heavens and new earth marriage will no longer be a thing. It will have served its purpose - to teach us about the relationship between Christ and the church. Does this mean that there will be no sex in heaven? Possibly. But if not it's because we'll no longer need it. The pleasure that we experience in the presence of the Lord will far surpass the pleasures of sex, or any sensual pleasure for that matter.

I get what he's saying...it just sounds silly to me. It would seem to me that if I were undying, immortal, I would actually indulge in far worse things than I have already. Why not? The consequences of some of.the worst things I could do to my body really only exist because of a lack of time.

See what I'm saying?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

So...you think in these "renewed" bodies we would no longer want pre-marital sex....because we won't die?

That's not quite what I'm saying, but I can understanding how my explanation led you there.

I'm not simply saying that human sin is the result of our consciousness of the ever-impending doom of death. But in trying to explain it, the examples inevitably become examples wherein sin is the result of our consciousness of death.

Now, take the whole 'consciousness' part out. Make it less an awareness of death, and more a death-instinct. Sin is anything that leads away from Life (= God) and toward Death. Take away Death's hold over us, and sin is no longer a factor.

It's difficult to explain, because any conscious explanation of how it works leads back to examples where it seems like we only sin because one day we're going to die. Again, that's not quite it. Rather, Death- our ultimate destiny- has a hold over us and is dragging us down further into his realm. Whatever is part of that realm gets left behind when we die.

It's more existential than rational (and that goes back to my use of Heidegger), and less about reasons behind our decisions than about the source of certain instincts and impulses. It treats the whole human person- the rational and the emotional- as having the same disease.

 

[orangeness365]

Matthew 22:30
English Standard Version
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.


If the elect are like angels in heaven, my guess is that they would probably have as much free will and desire to sin as angels do.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm afraid I don't put much stock in ndes....

So if you're going with the idea of a sinless heaven...well honestly I'm not sure what idea you're going with. Are you saying we could sin but simply wouldn't want to? Or that it's physically impossible to do "moral wrong"?

I must confess I merely threw out the ideas to chew on, and as for what heaven is really like, I am not really qualified to say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I must confess I merely threw out the ideas to chew on, and as for what heaven is really like, I am not really qualified to say.

Fair enough... I like that you at least took a stab at it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not quite what I'm saying, but I can understanding how my explanation led you there.

I'm not simply saying that human sin is the result of our consciousness of the ever-impending doom of death. But in trying to explain it, the examples inevitably become examples wherein sin is the result of our consciousness of death.

Now, take the whole 'consciousness' part out. Make it less an awareness of death, and more a death-instinct. Sin is anything that leads away from Life (= God) and toward Death. Take away Death's hold over us, and sin is no longer a factor.

It's difficult to explain, because any conscious explanation of how it works leads back to examples where it seems like we only sin because one day we're going to die. Again, that's not quite it. Rather, Death- our ultimate destiny- has a hold over us and is dragging us down further into his realm. Whatever is part of that realm gets left behind when we die.

It's more existential than rational (and that goes back to my use of Heidegger), and less about reasons behind our decisions than about the source of certain instincts and impulses. It treats the whole human person- the rational and the emotional- as having the same disease.

You know, it's entirely possible the problem is on my end and I'm just not getting what you're saying.

For me, if I were in some world where my body couldn't be damaged and I cannot die....why not shoot heroin? What's the downside? There's no brain damage, no withdrawal, no risk of death. You don't need to worry about becoming addicted and losing 10 years of your life to it.

For me at least, you take away death and bodily harm...and it opens a whole floodgate of stuff that most would call sins that I'd never do.

 

[juvenissun]

Will people in heaven/the new kingdom/afterlife/whatever produce offspring? Or will the population be fixed and never changed, with no new humans ever conceived?

No new soul ever in the Heaven. Old souls do not disappear either.
There are a lot of them together. That is enough.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm afraid I don't put much stock in ndes....

So if you're going with the idea of a sinless heaven...well honestly I'm not sure what idea you're going with. Are you saying we could sin but simply wouldn't want to? Or that it's physically impossible to do "moral wrong"?

Yes. That is exactly what Christians will be.