Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[ebia]

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

Who said it would be stripped of any sense of change or challenge? Certainly not the New Testament, Isaiah or Genesis.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

This isn't so much a question of how to define heaven, but considering the basic problematic implications of eternal life, immortality, eternity and perfection. You seem to be pushing that issue to the side. You're still missing the point of the implications of eternity and immortality to a person that would otherwise be used to and actually find some enjoyment out of that. Why would a person suddenly find it better to have all their problems solved for them as opposed to what more people find at least motivating for their actions in some sense, reincarnation?

The only reason people might find heaven appealing is IF it's defined in such a way that it makes it sound like you can still enjoy yourself: hang out with pets, play football and stuff. But if you're that certain, then you seem to be going against any supposed idea that heaven is basically unknowable, as you're saying.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Who said it would be stripped of any sense of change or challenge? Certainly not the New Testament, Isaiah or Genesis.

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?

 

[ebia]

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?

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.

The idea that it's a static bliss is (common) back-projection onto the text.

 

[talitha]

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 -

I agree with that.

, so your point is moot.

Nah, you just don't agree with it.

Objective truth is axiomatic, not demonstrable

I don't see how the fact that objective truth is axiomatic means, necessarily, that it is not demonstrable.

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

Nope, it means they're wrong.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Oh, okay, I've heard of that doctrine (which to me seems unbiblical).

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.

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.

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?

...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.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

The idea that it's a static bliss is (common) back-projection onto the text.

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

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Nah, you just don't agree with it.

Not agreeing with what you think is the objective truth doesn't mean I disbelieve in objective truth automatically.

I don't see how the fact that objective truth is axiomatic means, necessarily, that it is not demonstrable.

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.

Nope, it means they're wrong.

It means you're an ant trying to judge a dragon.

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.

Instead, it's simply a more creative presentation. Indeed, that was my fault in misreading.

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."

Not knowing is enjoyable because we can learn and know. Ignorance is not bliss, but it isn't necessarily suffering in and of itself.

Oh, okay, I've heard of that doctrine (which to me seems unbiblical).

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

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.

Not everyone likes the idea of ceasing to be, especially if they believe they have a soul. So technically it's not by any means some sort of excuse, because an excuse might be more the idea of universal reconciliation, since you would eventually be saved over a period of time. With annihilationism, you're gone, no ifs ands or buts. 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.

...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.

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

 

[ebia]

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

"Heaven" is not actually the right word for the Christian hope. Heaven is God's space - Earth is ours.
What you get in Genesis 1-2 is the beginning of the project. What you get in the world put back on track is glimpsed in Revelation 21-22, parts of Isaiah, etc, etc. Because it's the continuation of the original project one can infer things from Genesis 1-2 without thinking that is actually a picture of eternal reality.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

 

[ebia]

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.

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.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

 

[ebia]

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.

The bible is written within the cosmologies of the times it is written. So far as it is concerned the earth and the cosmos are close to synonyms.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

 

[ebia]

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.

The huge distinction exists in your cosmology, not the biblical one.

Do you think people 2000-2500 years ago defined "the earth" as "the particular planet on which we stand as opposed to the many other similar spheres orbiting our or any other star"?

No. By the earth they had layers of possible meaning including "the whole world in which we live (as opposed to the world in which God lives)". Some times it's "... As opposed to the sky", sometimes ".... as opposed to the sea". Never could, let alone is, it "... as opposed to other planets".

To read any ancient text in terms of modern categories and thought patterns is anachronistic.

 

[ebia]

What Isaiah, Paul, John the Elder,... clearly have in mind is the renewal of the whole cosmos. That renewal is centered on humanity because that is where the problem is, but they talk about "the whole cosmos", "new heavens and new earth", "all creation", in terms that echo Genesis 1 (which describes the creation of the whole cosmos).

 

[solarwave]

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'm not saying that you can't say both. I'm talking more like a real person not in philosophical ways here and many things people say in real life sound like flse dichotomies but really arn't. I was just unsure of what you meant by that bit I quoted.

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

Many people fear death because it is as if they never existed.

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 can't say worship is based on reason any more than saying thank you to someone, or wanting justice when someone you know is killed is reasonable. But to want to respect, thank, and give to someone what they deserve isn't wrong just because we have to assume certain things we can't prove by reason, don't you think? Isn't reason itself something which we can't prove without circular reasoning? So if we accept that emotions and conscience are part of us just as much as reason it would make sense to act on them if they didn't have bad consequences.

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

Generally yes. But I don't really know what happens after death.

 

[talitha]

Not agreeing with what you think is the objective truth doesn't mean I disbelieve in objective truth automatically.

I didn't say you did. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" in this case is ""my point".

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.

TY for the lesson in earthly wisdom. I am far more familiar with the divine variety.

It means you're an ant trying to judge a dragon.

Really. The dragon refers to what - other people's opinions? okay..

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

Right. See, truth is a very specific, narrow, strict thing, like it or not.

...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.

...and the trash would be...?

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.

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.

Any supposed spirits are demons according to this understanding.

I would agree with that.

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

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.

 

[Tim Myers]

"Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?"

Isn't that kind of like asking, why is a life with good health/without illness desirable?

 

[elman]

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.

It seems to me you have a view of heaven that is physical. I believe heaven is a spiritual existence.

 

[elman]

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.

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.