Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who said it would be stripped of any sense of change or challenge? Certainly not the New Testament, Isaiah or Genesis.Even if heaven is the material world put right, it just makes life seem unpleasant if it is stripped of any sense of change or challenge. It would be a utopia, and pretty much all utopias can be demonstrated to be found wanting in some area, such as human fulfillment or the like
I don't believe that eternal life is inherently preferable to a finite existence. In other words, I don't believe there is any basis for saying that "living forever" is inherently preferable to "not living forever" in the abstract. But the Christian isn't dealing in the abstract. The Christian is placing faith in the promises of God that eternal life with Him is a goal to be desired above all else. We really have no idea of what heaven will be like -- we can't even get our minds around the concept of eternity. If it were the unrelenting, bland utopia you describe, it indeed wouldn't be very appealing. (Reminds me of the old golf joke: A guy dies and finds himself on a perfectly manicured golf course. First hole, par 4, his drive screams 400 yards for a hole in one. Second hole, par 5, his drive screams 525 yards for a hole in one. Third hole, difficult par 3 over water, hole in one. The guy screams in elation, "I KNEW heaven would be like this!!!" His playing companion stops him and asks, "Wait a minute, pal -- just where do you think you are?" The point being, it's the challenge that keeps life interesting; an incessant stream of holes in one would pretty quickly become Hell.) But the Christian simply trusts God that eternity with Him will be something desirable beyond anything we can comprehend. By your descriptions, you are simply setting up a straw man (or a "straw heaven") to knock down.
Who said it would be stripped of any sense of change or challenge? Certainly not the New Testament, Isaiah or Genesis.
Re-read the story - there isn't entirely an ongoing story with challenge and change. Nowhere does it picture a static existence. People are there to do things and effect change, with challenges. It's a project going somewhere.By all means tell me what makes the Garden of eden seem like it has any semblance of change? Unless eden isn't identical to heaven in which case you'd need to be bringing up textual evidence to support this claim. Not to mention you may very well be skewing the idea of change or challenge to be limited simply to praising God all day long. Or does heaven include such mundane activities as football and the like, mansions of gold, all these amenities which imply that heaven is little more than a glorified spa for eternity?
I agree with that.Objective truth doesn't require any subjective text to communicate it to be objective. Objective truth exists regardless of if any text or any humans even existed -
Nah, you just don't agree with it., so your point is moot.
I don't see how the fact that objective truth is axiomatic means, necessarily, that it is not demonstrable.Objective truth is axiomatic, not demonstrable
Nope, it means they're wrong.So does everyone elses' that finds the bible authoritative. Doesn't mean they'll agree with you, does it?
No, I said that The Great Divorce does NOT stand against what the Bible says. Oh, I see how you could have been confused about what I meant now that I see it again. Let me restate what I was trying to say. I don't believe CSLewis's viewpoint as expressed in The Great Divorce to be inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.You just seem to reinforce that idea of heaven and hell being a matter of perspective in the same temporal afterlife, whatever it might be, with your comments after saying that C.S. Lewis' novel, which was probably not necessarily intended to be "biblical" doesn't synch up with the bible.
Um, I wasn't trying to "assess" nihilism; I merely thought you had the word wrong. I have never heard the term "annihilationism," so I assumed you meant "nihilism."I dunno where you get the notion that anything that somehow implies destruction is automatically nihilistic. Not a fair assessment of nihilism's overall history and diversity.
Oh, okay, I've heard of that doctrine (which to me seems unbiblical).Annihilationism can and is a Christian explanation, albeit a minority, similar to universal reconciliation. It basically says that immortality of the soul is conditional upon being saved by Jesus.
It seems to me that this doctrine exists to make people feel better about not accepting Christ. Oh, forget what the Bible says about the lake of fire. You just cease to be. You won't exist, so you won't suffer. No need to accept Jesus. I was just leaving, 'cause there's no need for me to spread the Gospel here.So if you are not saved by Jesus, you are not condemned to torture, which would not synch up with even a just God in the realization that a finite life's sins do not require an infinite amount of punishment for those sins necessarily.
...because that explanation would be unbiblical. Nowhere in the Bible is it implied that death equals ceasing-to-exist. Physical death is separation from the world; spiritual death is separation from God. That has always been the Jewish concept of death and thus the Christian concept of death.As is commonly quoted to me, the wages of sin are death. So why not have a basic explanation that a spiritual death implies a physical death that is complete?
You seem to be trying to read heaven into Eden even if eden itself is not heaven. Or do you think Eden is essentially heaven? If it's a project, why does it involve entities that have free will and are thus being affected by what is essentially an experiment on sentient and cognizant beings? Doesn't seem too ethicalRe-read the story - there isn't entirely an ongoing story with challenge and change. Nowhere does it picture a static existence. People are there to do things and effect change, with challenges. It's a project going somewhere.
The idea that it's a static bliss is (common) back-projection onto the text.
Nah, you just don't agree with it.
Axioms are a priori, before the fact, they can't be demonstrated, they can only be justified by some overall consistency or general necessity, such as the axiom that our senses are reliable. Beliefs such as that the earth is flat or round are a posteriori, after the fact. We observe and then posit something as an answer. You can't demonstrate objective truth, you can only argue why it makes sense.I don't see how the fact that objective truth is axiomatic means, necessarily, that it is not demonstrable.
It means you're an ant trying to judge a dragon.Nope, it means they're wrong.
No, I said that The Great Divorce does NOT stand against what the Bible says. Oh, I see how you could have been confused about what I meant now that I see it again. Let me restate what I was trying to say. I don't believe CSLewis's viewpoint as expressed in The Great Divorce to be inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.
Not knowing is enjoyable because we can learn and know. Ignorance is not bliss, but it isn't necessarily suffering in and of itself.Um, I wasn't trying to "assess" nihilism; I merely thought you had the word wrong. I have never heard the term "annihilationism," so I assumed you meant "nihilism."
Oh, okay, I've heard of that doctrine (which to me seems unbiblical).
It seems to me that this doctrine exists to make people feel better about not accepting Christ. Oh, forget what the Bible says about the lake of fire. You just cease to be. You won't exist, so you won't suffer. No need to accept Jesus. I was just leaving, 'cause there's no need for me to spread the Gospel here.
You can ask other Jews and it's questionable whether they always believed in life after death. I'm reminded of something in the OT to the effect that the dead don't speak, because they're gone. Not because they're in some other plane of existence, they're just gone. Any supposed spirits are demons according to this understanding. This whole thing presumes to have one overarching explanation that applies to every historical iteration of Chistians and Jews, which is patently impossible because of basic diversity of human thought and interpretation...because that explanation would be unbiblical. Nowhere in the Bible is it implied that death equals ceasing-to-exist. Physical death is separation from the world; spiritual death is separation from God. That has always been the Jewish concept of death and thus the Christian concept of death.
"Heaven" is not actually the right word for the Christian hope. Heaven is God's space - Earth is ours.You seem to be trying to read heaven into Eden even if eden itself is not heaven. Or do you think Eden is essentially heaven? If it's a project, why does it involve entities that have free will and are thus being affected by what is essentially an experiment on sentient and cognizant beings? Doesn't seem too ethical
When Scripture talks about the earth you can't read that in the context of 21st century cosmology - we are talking about the whole cosmos.Then Eden sounds like a prototype for heaven, but not the finished product, which will be the entire earth, whatever that implies. Sounds like God doesn't care about the rest of the universe, as if God was so short sighted that it only made one planet in the universe inhabitable and all the others don't need a savior or anything like earth. Just seems too centered on our little existence as a drop in the water of the universe which is quite large.
ToHoldNothing said:Then the problem persists because the Bible is very sporadic in talking about anything like the entire universe. The udnerstanding in the bible seems to basically say the earth is the center of the universe, since jesus came on this earth, not on mars, not on alpha centauri, not on sirius or any other planet.
ToHoldNothing said:Synonymous and related are not the same thing. You can't claim the cosmos, a set of planets, which includes the earth and the earth are identical, no more than you can call a tree a forest or an apple orchard an apple.
False dichotomy. THe issue I bring up is why would you want eternal life or immortality with eternal life? this isn't about whether God exists or not, and the question of worship being fun is again another issue entirely. The question is why you would find fulfillment and meaning and value in a life that basically has no more telos to it, no challenge, no anything to motivate you to do anything?
I'd prefer sleep to being basically awake all the time. I'd prefer something of annihilation of my personality as in the Buddhist idea of anatta
I'd like to see you defend worshipping God as based in reason over emotions or ethos. It seems questionable to say your will to worship god could be rational. Being at peace with existence doesn't require that you worship anything, so that seems to be a loaded question if you presume God is goodness incarnate.
I thought sleep was just a temporary thing in Christianity. Unless you're talking about something else that I'm not aware of.
I didn't say you did. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" in this case is ""my point".Not agreeing with what you think is the objective truth doesn't mean I disbelieve in objective truth automatically.
TY for the lesson in earthly wisdom. I am far more familiar with the divine variety.Axioms are a priori, before the fact, they can't be demonstrated, they can only be justified by some overall consistency or general necessity, such as the axiom that our senses are reliable. Beliefs such as that the earth is flat or round are a posteriori, after the fact. We observe and then posit something as an answer. You can't demonstrate objective truth, you can only argue why it makes sense.
Really. The dragon refers to what - other people's opinions? okay..It means you're an ant trying to judge a dragon.
Right. See, truth is a very specific, narrow, strict thing, like it or not.Kind of like you'd think it was heresy or unorthodox if you were a Catholic or Orthodox, you're just putting it under a different, but equally strict standard of what you think is biblical/orthodox
...and the trash would be...?...The lake of fire could be argued to be like Golgotha, where they burned rubbish. It's not that the lake of fire doesn't exist, but it's not a place where people suffer in anguish and torment, it's more like a trash disposal.
They're gone because there is no way to communicate with them. Again - death = separation. And to the living the question of where they went was moot - because they were forever separated.You can ask other Jews and it's questionable whether they always believed in life after death. I'm reminded of something in the OT to the effect that the dead don't speak, because they're gone. Not because they're in some other plane of existence, they're just gone.
I would agree with that.Any supposed spirits are demons according to this understanding.
Well, we are presuming to talk about truth here, and ultimately there is only one truth about this or any subject - not one for me and one for other Christians and one for modern Jews and another for those in the time of Moses, etc. Anything that is not truth is merely opinion.This whole thing presumes to have one overarching explanation that applies to every historical iteration of Chistians and Jews, which is patently impossible because of basic diversity of human thought and interpretation
It seems to me you have a view of heaven that is physical. I believe heaven is a spiritual existence.Then Eden sounds like a prototype for heaven, but not the finished product, which will be the entire earth, whatever that implies. Sounds like God doesn't care about the rest of the universe, as if God was so short sighted that it only made one planet in the universe inhabitable and all the others don't need a savior or anything like earth. Just seems too centered on our little existence as a drop in the water of the universe which is quite large.
1 cor 15. Paul says we are not going to have natural bodies but spiritual ones. God is a Spirit according to the Bible, which means not physical as we are.Are you saying heaven is basically a bunch of disembodied spirits/souls communing with God? Or is there going to be some new spiritual body, in which case what does this spiritual body consist of? You're sounding more like Plato with heaven here, which is ironic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?