Is heaven in or outside time?

[ShaunJ72]

GaukseiDon.

You are choosing to miss the point, and there is no problem with my logic.

All these religions previously mentioned distinctly contradict eachother. They all have very different ideas about the afterlife and different rules about what gets a person into paradise, or into the less favoured alternative destination of course.

Even if one religion has it absolutely spot on, let’s even say that that religion is Christianity, and that religion's concept of the afterlife, and how to please God and get to heaven, is exactly right but very specific and, by definition, contradictory to all the other other religions, then every other one has to be wrong.

Is this not the case? Where is the flaw??

Do not most Christians (Moslems/Jews/whoever) feel fairly secure in thinking that they are the ones who have it right; that only they can gain the keys to the gate and nobody else does?

Wouldn’t most Christians be extremely surprised to bump into a Moslem suicide bomber (and his 72 virgins) when they arrive in heaven, and vice versa. AND VICE VERSA.

Monotheism is monotheism, no?

If God was truly omniscient and omnipotent (and even omnibenevolent* which is a word I learned from you) why would He tolerate all these other people getting His name wrong and setting out the wrong rules for spending the rest of eternity with Him? At what point did the Old Testament Yahweh stop being jealous and vengeful and start being tolerant and happy to share the limelight with imposters?

As for me telling you how each religion is wrong and why, how about you tell me why they are right, and maybe offer some evidence to back it up..? The onus is firmly on you.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there simply isn't any as far as I can see..........?...........?..........?..........?

An aside:

*Omnibenevolence?!? Where the h*** have you been? What have you been watching on TV? What have you been reading? (Oh yes, of course, sorry).

How would describe the concept of omnibenevolence to the parents of a small child after he or she had been repeatedly and violently raped by a Catholic priest? How is that evidence of omnibenevolence in action? This is only one example, and you surely don’t need me to provide any more reasons why omnibenevolence is a joke, a horribly sick joke. God moves in mysterious ways eh?

 

[GakuseiDon]

GaukseiDon.

You are choosing to miss the point, and there is no problem with my logic.

Actually, I thought this was about your claim that fear of death plays a part in conversion. My point was that plenty of people become (for example) Christian when they are quite young, long before fears of death arise.

All these religions previously mentioned distinctly contradict eachother. They all have very different ideas about the afterlife and different rules about what gets a person into paradise, or into the less favoured alternative destination of course.

Even if one religion has it absolutely spot on, let’s even say that that religion is Christianity, and that religion's concept of the afterlife, and how to please God and get to heaven, is exactly right but very specific and, by definition, contradictory to all the other other religions, then every other one has to be wrong.

Is this not the case? Where is the flaw??

No flaw.

Do not most Christians (Moslems/Jews/whoever) feel fairly secure in thinking that they are the ones who have it right; that only they can gain the keys to the gate and nobody else does?

There are many who think that. Are most like that? I honestly don't know. I would think that this is not the case, but I'd have to see the stats.

Wouldn’t most Christians be extremely surprised to bump into a Moslem suicide bomber (and his 72 virgins) when they arrive in heaven, and vice versa. AND VICE VERSA.

Yes, they would. But if an omnibenevolent and omniscient God decides that Moslem suicide bombers deserve to be in heaven, who am I to disagree? You either trust in God or you don't. If you believe that God is omnibenevolent, then logically you have to trust His decisions.

Monotheism is monotheism, no?

Monotheism is monotheism, yes.

If God was truly omniscient and omnipotent (and even omnibenevolent* which is a word I learned from you) why would He tolerate all these other people getting His name wrong and setting out the wrong rules for spending the rest of eternity with Him? At what point did the Old Testament Yahweh stop being jealous and vengeful and start being tolerant and happy to share the limelight with imposters?

If God is omnibenevolent, why wouldn't He tolerate people getting His name wrong? Wouldn't you expect an omnibenevolent God to be tolerant? Would YOU complain if God rewarded people who believed incorrect things about Himself? Would you think it is unfair?

As for me telling you how each religion is wrong and why, how about you tell me why they are right, and maybe offer some evidence to back it up..? The onus is firmly on you.

Not my claim. If you aren't claiming anything either, then nothing to see here.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there simply isn't any as far as I can see..........?...........?..........?..........?

Nothing that I can see as well.

An aside:

*Omnibenevolence?!? Where the h*** have you been? What have you been watching on TV? What have you been reading? (Oh yes, of course, sorry).

How would describe the concept of omnibenevolence to the parents of a small child after he or she had been repeatedly and violently raped by a Catholic priest?

I wouldn't. That isn't the time for philosophy, it is a time for compassion.

How is that evidence of omnibenevolence in action? This is only one example, and you surely don’t need me to provide any more reasons why omnibenevolence is a joke, a horribly sick joke. God moves in mysterious ways eh?

He does. Some of it is all quite imponderable.

 

[ShaunJ72]

..your claim that fear of death plays a part in conversion. My point was that plenty of people become (for example) Christian when they are quite young, long before fears of death arise.

My point is that fear and ignorance (of death and the unknown) have had big parts to play in the origin of every organised religion, not about any invidual's conversion to a particular faith system.

How much genuine understanding (of our physical selves, this planet and it's place in the universe etc) existed in the Middle East around two thousand years ago? (not a lot) and that ignorance was the knowledge baseline for all the Abrahamic scripture.
Fear of death is a fundamental driver, but ignorance and fear of the unknown (including death) has enabled religion to flourish for thousands of years, filling our knowledge gaps with certainty and reassurance.

Most people become Christian (for example) when they are inducted (I was going to say brainwashed) as children, before they are intellectually equipped to employ the defences of reason and rational incredulity. For strong evolutionary reasons (i.e. for species protection - e.g. stay away from the fire) children are naturally credulous and programmed to believe what they are told by adults, and religions have always used this rather handy facility to build the next generation of believers.

Yes, fears of death rarely arise naturally in the very young, unless they have been introduced by their religion of course: "God watches everything you do, he knows everything you think. You are born a sinner and if you behave in a myriad of ways, and if you don't repent all your sins, after you die you shall be tormented in an everlasting, burning hell".
That could never instill a fear of death into any child, oh no.

What did the jesuits say? "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man"

Yes, they would. But if an omnibenevolent and omniscient God decides that Moslem suicide bombers deserve to be in heaven, who am I to disagree? You either trust in God or you don't. If you believe that God is omnibenevolent, then logically you have to trust His decisions.

And if God is indeed Omnipotent, is he also not responsible for the actions of the suicide bomber? I'm not sure how far this hypothetical logic goes (obviously quite far with some people), but if He is all powerful, makes all the decisions etc etc, then we don't really have any free will, and if that is the case then why worry about an imposed scriptural morality? I know that many people of faith don't necessariy take it so far, but if someone believes literally in the three O's, then that surely can be their only conclusion. This 'life' sounds as truly repressed and awful as these claims seem implausible.

I know it is someone else's life, and it is utterly important that every person can believe whatever they wish (unless it hurts other people of course), but I feel it is morally wrong for irrational, absolutist principles like this to be forced into the minds of the young and vulnerable. No one can stop it happening of course as parents have the right to instill their own values in their young, for better or worse.

Some people will always believe that blind, unquestioning faith is an inherrently good thing, while I believe it is the seed of many of the worst of things, and sadly never the twain shall meet. This is the philospohical line in the sand for me: Either teach a child what to think (that there is a supernatural creator etc), or teach them how to think - ask questions, be curious, weigh up the evidence and then make up your own mind.

If only it were in our interests for everyone to have the chance to think for themselves...

I was brought up as a Catholic, but worked it out for myself, and I am okay now - apart from the odd twang of irrational guilt of course!

 

[elman]

Hey,

Well basically it doesn't seem to make sense to me for heaven to be in time or outside time. If heaven is timeless then in some sense we exist in heaven now and before we were born and with God before creation.

If heaven is in time then eternity just seems like too long. I know that because it is heaven we wont get bored, but I don't know if I would want to live forever, unending. For consciousness to continue a million years and then still have a billion billion to go and for that not even to be a fraction of our time there, just seems very strange and in the end unwanted.

Edit: Also in a heaven with time there can only be a limited number of things that can be done and there is unlimited time, so in the end every act in every combination will be done and after that heaven would become a time loop, just doing the same things over and over again. This this a problem, can it be solved?

So a timeless heaven seems more satisfying, but very wierd at the same time because it would be hard to say how it is that we could say that we personally live beyond death when our minds are by nature in time.

The idea of a literal afterlife seems quite central to Christianity, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Opinions??

The Bible says we cannot even image how wonderful heaven will be. Getting bored is not something I think we should concern ourselves about. Heaven and God are spiritual, not physical. Our existence in heaven will be spiritual, not physical. I think God is not subject to time and exists in a spiritual state in which time is not relevant. I don't claim to understand that. I don't think beings in time can understand anything not being subject to time.

 

[elman]

Because the Bible teaches we will be resurrected with bodies in a New Earth (Rev 21:1), I believe there will be an eternity of successive moments.

Your query about whether it could ever be fun to have an eternity of successive moments is a very common thought... but I would say that there is a way it could be a good thing.

Something interesting I find about this issue is that God can't suffer from this problem. Think about it like this: if God is eternal and infinite, then God must be infinitely old in some sense. The Bible indicates this I think (Psalm 90:2). So if God had this problem, He would have gone insane with boredom (Isaac Asimov, interestingly enough, wrote a short story based on called "The Last Answer"). But, if you believe the Bible, God is quite OK.

I believe God can handle eternity because God's happiness is very different to ours in its fundamental nature. God's happiness is a kind of eternal happiness we have no experience of in this world, apart from through the peace of the Holy Spirit, if Christianity is to be believed.

So I think that an eternity of successive moments in the New Heavens and New Earth will be a good thing because we will have access to God's kind of happiness, sidestepping the common concern about such a fate.

Rom 14:17: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,"

1 Cor 2:9: "However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him""

Psalm 16:11: "You will make clear to me the way of life; where you are joy is complete; in your right hand there are pleasures for ever and ever."

Psalm 36:7-8: "How precious is your unfailing love, O God! All humanity finds shelter in the shadow of your wings. You feed them from the abundance of your own house, letting them drink from your river of delights. For you are the fountain of life, the light by which we see."

I agree for the most part except our bodies will be spiritual bodies. 1 Cor 15.