Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[ToHoldNothing]

After talking with someone in chatbox, I thought it pertinent to bring up a topic, since the mod finally decided to catch up and break up the discussion. Suggestion for chat room anyone?

Anyway, the gist of the discussion actually started with Pascal's Wager and how I found itquestionable on a few levels, not to mention the most relevant being that eternal life is not by necessity agreed upon to be the greatest happiness or good.

With this in mind, along with other considerations, why should we consider heaven objectively good in and of itself? The best and only argument that seems to come up is that heaven is good because one glorifies the Ultimate there, that is, God. But this doesn't seem to synch up either, if only because it hinges on presuming something I would find questionable.

What you'd have to assume is that subsisting forever in a perfect, disease free, destruction free body, forever and into infinity, doing nothing but praising God and having nothing compel you to think of anything else at all would be a good thing.

But I don't see why you should,but then that's a difficulty that spans across one's paradigm in relation to God. If you're thoroughly convinced that worshipping God forever unendingly is a good thing, I am not aware at the moment of how to make you think otherwise, since you're compelled by pathos and ethos, not any sense of logos. You feel you must and should, not that you do it naturally. But that's a whole other issue.

As I put it, heaven and eternal life seems psychologically destructive, suicide inducing, aesthetically dissonant and existentially a source of further anguish in the possibility you might actually exist in your experiential suffering forever as a soul in a perfect body.

 

[ebia]

Your picture of "heaven" is missing something. We aren't destined for another place, but for this created world put right and involving us with a job to do in and for that creation and each other.

 

[talitha]

Well, it's better than the alternative.

Seriously - like it or not, the human spirit is immortal. It bruises my brain to think about living "forever", but I think I can just chalk that up to having no memory of not being in this earth suit.

Right now, during our blink-of-an-eye earthly lifespan, we decide whether to accept eternal pleasures at the right hand of God or eternal suffering with the devil and his angels.

So yeah, it's better than the alternative.

 

[elman]

ToHoldNothing;57163696]eternal life is not by necessity agreed upon to be the greatest happiness or good.

With this in mind, along with other considerations, why should we consider heaven objectively good in and of itself? The best and only argument that seems to come up is that heaven is good because one glorifies the Ultimate there, that is, God. But this doesn't seem to synch up either, if only because it hinges on presuming something I would find questionable.

Why would you assume death to be preferable to life?

What you'd have to assume is that subsisting forever in a perfect, disease free, destruction free body, forever and into infinity, doing nothing but praising God and having nothing compel you to think of anything else at all would be a good thing.

Not how I assume Heaven to be.

But I don't see why you should,but then that's a difficulty that spans across one's paradigm in relation to God. If you're thoroughly convinced that worshipping God forever unendingly is a good thing, I am not aware at the moment of how to make you think otherwise, since you're compelled by pathos and ethos, not any sense of logos. You feel you must and should, not that you do it naturally. But that's a whole other issue.

Not how I assume Heaven to be.

As I put it, heaven and eternal life seems psychologically destructive, suicide inducing, aesthetically dissonant and existentially a source of further anguish in the possibility you might actually exist in your experiential suffering forever as a soul in a perfect body.

Why do you assume heaven--life to be unpleasant?

 

[elman]

Well, it's better than the alternative.

Seriously - like it or not, the human spirit is immortal. It bruises my brain to think about living "forever", but I think I can just chalk that up to having no memory of not being in this earth suit.

Right now, during our blink-of-an-eye earthly lifespan, we decide whether to accept eternal pleasures at the right hand of God or eternal suffering with the devil and his angels.

So yeah, it's better than the alternative.

Actually according to the Bible we can kill our soul, our spiritual existence. Ezekiel 18 says we kill our own soul with our own sin and the Bible says in several places the wages of sin is death.

 

[elman]

Your picture of "heaven" is missing something. We aren't destined for another place, but for this created world put right and involving us with a job to do in and for that creation and each other.

This earth is going to be burned up. It is not this physical world that is our destiny. It is spiritual existence with God who is a Spirit.

 

[ForceofTime]

As I put it, heaven and eternal life seems psychologically destructive, suicide inducing, aesthetically dissonant and existentially a source of further anguish in the possibility you might actually exist in your experiential suffering forever as a soul in a perfect body.

Even though there may be a hint of truth in it, this could be stamped on most anything: relationships, money, career, etc. Perhaps these too are psychologically destructive and should therefore be abandoned.

But, I suppose we will get all the proof we are seeking when our number is called.

 

[solarwave]

With this in mind, along with other considerations, why should we consider heaven objectively good in and of itself? The best and only argument that seems to come up is that heaven is good because one glorifies the Ultimate there, that is, God. But this doesn't seem to synch up either, if only because it hinges on presuming something I would find questionable.

Is the thing you find questionable here the existance of God, or that worship is fun?

What you'd have to assume is that subsisting forever in a perfect, disease free, destruction free body, forever and into infinity, doing nothing but praising God and having nothing compel you to think of anything else at all would be a good thing.

Its hard to say whether it would be good for us or not. It blows my mind to think of living forever and whenever I think of it I don't think I want it. A peaceful sleep perhaps. But Heaven could be timeless and have that peacefulness of death yet in life. This may have its problems also though.

If you're thoroughly convinced that worshipping God forever unendingly is a good thing, I am not aware at the moment of how to make you think otherwise, since you're compelled by pathos and ethos, not any sense of logos. You feel you must and should, not that you do it naturally. But that's a whole other issue.

Are you saying that the will to worship God forever is emotions rather than based on reason? Is that wrong though? In the past when I have worshipped they have been some of the most peaceful and happy experiences. Is it illogical to hold Goodness as something amazing and to be at peace with existance?

I don't know what heaven is like, but I tend to consider that God knows best what is good for us, be it Heaven or eternal sleep.

 

[Timothew]

Living forever is better than death. This seems like a no-brainer. Of course it is better to have eternal life than it is to be dead.

A living dog is better than a dead lion.

 

[ebia]

This earth is going to be burned up. It is not this physical world that is our destiny. It is spiritual existence with God who is a Spirit.

So you keep saying but:
a. that's glorified gnostism, not the faith of the New Testament church
b. this is Exploring Christianity - the rules oblige you to engage with the Openning Poster, not with other Christian respondents.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Your picture of "heaven" is missing something. We aren't destined for another place, but for this created world put right and involving us with a job to do in and for that creation and each other.

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

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well, it's better than the alternative.

Seriously - like it or not, the human spirit is immortal. It bruises my brain to think about living "forever", but I think I can just chalk that up to having no memory of not being in this earth suit.

Right now, during our blink-of-an-eye earthly lifespan, we decide whether to accept eternal pleasures at the right hand of God or eternal suffering with the devil and his angels.

So yeah, it's better than the alternative.

You cannot demonstrate the human spirit/soul is immortal, you believe it because you think it's the only way to make sense of the world, seems to me.

Not to mention your idea of hell isn't necessarily what all Christians believe, even if you assume that hell is some state of existence after this life.

C.S. Lewis put it something like this, "hell's doors are shut from the inside". I haven't read The Great Divorce, but that's another portrayal of his idea of hell being something that seems good to us, but in reality is not. To think hell has to be understood as a torturous existence that is basically designed by God for unrepentant sinners seems just unpleasant to even attribute to a God that is called loving.

And then there's the other Christian explanation, annihilationism. I'd prefer that to any amount of immortality or eternal life.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Why would you assume death to be preferable to life?

Loaded question, I never said death was preferable to life, since I believe they're two halves of the same whole. But if I have two options, existence after death and nonexistence after death, then I'd prefer the latter

Not how I assume Heaven to be.
Not how I assume Heaven to be.

Then by all means tell me what YOU assume Heaven to be.

Why do you assume heaven--life to be unpleasant?

Because life is no longer enjoyable when you don't have the opposite to experience: suffering, death, disease, loss, unease, aversion, etc. Your heaven would seem to be inhuman in that everyone would basically be in a utopian stasis and have no reason to think about anything but what they think is ideal by primitive wish fulfillment.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This earth is going to be burned up. It is not this physical world that is our destiny. It is spiritual existence with God who is a Spirit.

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.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Even though there may be a hint of truth in it, this could be stamped on most anything: relationships, money, career, etc. Perhaps these too are psychologically destructive and should therefore be abandoned.

But, I suppose we will get all the proof we are seeking when our number is called.

To use Aristotle's golden mean, all things in moderation are good, but not things in excess or deficit. Heaven seems from general descriptions to be a combination of excessive happiness, excellence and a deficit of challenge and existential considerations or problems to contemplate in some scientific or philosophical manner. That's where they fall short or overstep their boundaries

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Is the thing you find questionable here the existance of God, or that worship is fun?

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?

Its hard to say whether it would be good for us or not. It blows my mind to think of living forever and whenever I think of it I don't think I want it. A peaceful sleep perhaps. But Heaven could be timeless and have that peacefulness of death yet in life. This may have its problems also though.

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

Are you saying that the will to worship God forever is emotions rather than based on reason? Is that wrong though? In the past when I have worshipped they have been some of the most peaceful and happy experiences. Is it illogical to hold Goodness as something amazing and to be at peace with existance?

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 don't know what heaven is like, but I tend to consider that God knows best what is good for us, be it Heaven or eternal sleep

I thought sleep was just a temporary thing in Christianity. Unless you're talking about something else that I'm not aware of.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Living forever is better than death. This seems like a no-brainer. Of course it is better to have eternal life than it is to be dead.

A living dog is better than a dead lion.

This assumes you buy into the binary dichotomy that life is always better than death, which isn't always the case. You wouldn't want eternal life if you were also wracked with crippling pain or torture, would you?

And I don't even know what you mean by that little "metaphor"

 

[talitha]

You cannot demonstrate the human spirit/soul is immortal, you believe it because you think it's the only way to make sense of the world, seems to me.

I believe it because the Bible teaches it. Truth is something that does not originate inside of me, and my own experience is not the best resource for learning it. Truth is revealed to humans by God.

Not to mention your idea of hell isn't necessarily what all Christians believe, even if you assume that hell is some state of existence after this life.

"My idea of hell" comes from the Bible.

C.S. Lewis put it something like this, "hell's doors are shut from the inside". I haven't read The Great Divorce, but that's another portrayal of his idea of hell being something that seems good to us, but in reality is not. To think hell has to be understood as a torturous existence that is basically designed by God for unrepentant sinners seems just unpleasant to even attribute to a God that is called loving.

I have read The Great Divorce. It does not stand against what the Bible says; it merely gives another perspective of it. What if Heaven and Hell were the same place, and the only differences were the perspectives of the people there? God is everywhere, and outside of our space-time continuum, so to speak, our ability to comprehend His presence and His holiness is unhindered. In the presence of such holiness, the righteous rejoice while the wicked shrink back in horror.

And then there's the other Christian explanation, annihilationism. I'd prefer that to any amount of immortality or eternal life.

Except that annihilationism (er- nihilism is the correct term, I believe) is not a Christian explanation.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I believe it because the Bible teaches it. Truth is something that does not originate inside of me, and my own experience is not the best resource for learning it. Truth is revealed to humans by God.

Neither here nor there. Your personal belief in objective truth as taught by a subjective text is not the problem I have here. You can believe whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. But you can't overlay objective truth as objective with your subjective experience of truth as you have found it in the bible. 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, so your point is moot. Objective truth is axiomatic, not demonstrable

"My idea of hell" comes from the Bible.

So does everyone elses' that finds the bible authoritative. Doesn't mean they'll agree with you, does it?

I have read The Great Divorce. It does not stand against what the Bible says; it merely gives another perspective of it. What if Heaven and Hell were the same place, and the only differences were the perspectives of the people there? God is everywhere, and outside of our space-time continuum, so to speak, our ability to comprehend His presence and His holiness is unhindered. In the presence of such holiness, the righteous rejoice while the wicked shrink back in horror.

If Heaven and hell were the same place, but a matter of spiritual perspective, it doesn't seem so bad, especially if the saved and unsaved are unaware of each other. It'd be like having a parallel dimension coexisting on the same plane as another. 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.

Except that annihilationism (er- nihilism is the correct term, I believe) is not a Christian explanation

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.


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. 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. If you are unsaved, you will simply be destroyed because that is what you deserve, one might. 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?

 

[LBP]

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.