Ship of Fools: Purgatory: "There is no cerebral palsy in heaven."

Thread: Purgatory: "There is no cerebral palsy in heaven." Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000945

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I have cerebral palsy, a mild form that affects my speech. I once engaged in a theological debate with another person who insisted that disability is a result of brokenness and that in the Resurrection, cerebral palsy will be healed.

Now, I wasn't offended by this comment, but I'm honestly perplexed. I have had CP since I was born and I'm comfortable with my voice, even though it is the visible manifestation of the CP. I don't know what being "healed" means, because if I was given a brand new voice in heaven, then it wouldn't be me.

So, pardon me for being so biographical, but what how does the concept of the resurrection body relate to disability?

[ 18. June 2013, 13:36: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Isn't there a difference between heaven and the Resurrection?

In any case, I would suggest that in heaven, everything about us that makes us who we are will be a result of a choice we have made. I think one of God's primary goals is to protect our sense of self, so you will be exactly the person you have decided to be.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Ahh yes, there's no faster way to start an argument in the divinity common room than to ask the queer disabled contingent if they'll still be disabled in the eschaton. As an aspie, it's so bound up in my identity that it's hard for me to imagine being "LQ-but-healed" and still myself. But I know there are families of much more severely autistic kids who find aspie nationalism quite distressing.

For that matter, I have a hard time saying that Christ was "like us in all things but sin" even though I cognitively understand it to be orthodox, because sinfulness is so bound up with my experiene of human nature (and I am uneasy with the idea of a historical "fall" and a prelapsarian period of chronos time). No easy answers, I imagine.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

All I've got to add at this point is that the otherwise beautiful icons at St. Gregory Nyssen in San Francisco make me twitch when I look up at the damned spectacles on the faces of Malcolm X, Norman Perrin, Thurgood Marshall, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Paul Erdos, Julia Morgan, Agnes Sanford, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Paulos Mar Gregorios, W. Edwards Deming, and Desmond Mpilo Tutu, together with Samuel Joseph Isaac Schereschewski in his wheelchair.

I won't need my phreakin' eyeglasses.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

In regard to the OP title, I'm rather counting on it.

I am comfortable with who I am. I fully expect that people who know me on earth will remember me as I am now.

But, in Heaven, baby, I'm running! I'm hearing!

In Heaven I hope to cast off my chains.

[ 12. April 2013, 04:08: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

first off, I'm probably not the best to chime in on this (but I'm gonna anyway!) in that I don't believe in "heaven" per se.

BUT - given the idea that we retain our individual selves from our lives, including the people we have become through meeting the challenge of our various disabilities, why would we hang on to the odd quirks our bodies have bestowed upon us if we're no longer in our bodies?

my MS has changed me in very good ways. on my good days, I'm actually thankful for it. But if I could not have my pain or weirdness, that would be just dynamite!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I would hate to lose my ADHD - it is so much a part of me that I don't know who I'd be without it. Maybe that's because it's a neurological condition, so deeply tied up with all my reactions and responses to everything.

Yes, it's been a challenge too, but I don't think I'd be me at all without it.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

But Boogie, in Heaven will that matter? I don't think so.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Several posters seem to be saying, 'I can't imagine me without....' - I can't imagine me different, in other words.

There's a lot of things I can't imagine about heaven - isn't this just a part of not knowing everything yet?

M.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Several posters seem to be saying, 'I can't imagine me without....' - I can't imagine me different, in other words.

There's a lot of things I can't imagine about heaven - isn't this just a part of not knowing everything yet?

M.

It's more than that. Like LQ, I have Aspergers. Telling me that my Aspergers will be "cured" is like telling me my left-handedness will be "cured" - I don't see it as disabling, so to talk of curing it is nonsensical.

Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on :

In my opinion, I don't really think that discussions like this can go anywhere useful as we really can have no idea what Heaven will be. But, if I imagine that Heaven will be a place of perfection for me, then it means I will be "right and perfect"". And if I can only be "right and perfect" by not being different then that's how it will be. I would only feel "right" with cats - but that would be a problem for those who do't like cats...
I really think that in Heaven stuff like cats, Aspergers, deafness or whatever defines you as being "you" (to yourself or to other people) will actually become irrelevant. And that we will be refined to the very being that is right and perfect.

I have no idea what Heaven will be like. I can have no idea. I joke that I will ask God some difficult questions (though I suspect the ones he asks me will be difficult enough!) and that I want to see my cat Pumpkin again. But in reality I believe that I won't be thinking about Pumpkin, or asking God why cancer and other shit existed on earth. I will be so blown away by being in the place of utmost and absolute perfection.

Edited because I don't use Preview Post and I never see the errors until it's published. It won't be like that in Heaven!

[ 12. April 2013, 08:16: Message edited by: Dormouse ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

The risen Christ bore the wounds of crucifixion. But we speak of those wounds as "glorious".

I've suffered with on-and-off depression for years. Some of my best moments have been when I'm most depressed - I seem to be able to access levels of imagination and creativity that I can't at other times. If there's no depression in heaven, will those depths of myself be lost to me? Or, like Christ's wounds, will my depression be glorified, transfigured, resurrected?

Beethoven, on the other hand, is reputed to have said, "In heaven I will hear again." I hope he does.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Isn't this like the 7 wives question?

I expect neurological categorizations regarding ableness to be an artefact of how we construct our society that will be irrelevant in heaven. Just like marriage.

I think it's reasonable for those of us attached to our identities (or our partners) to be a bit sad about that, but that must simply reflect our Earth-bound current perspective and failure to appreciate just how good we'll have it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Can I truly say that I will still be "me" in Heaven if all the sinful aspects of my nature and personality are no longer present?

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

But surely the sinful aspects don't contribute to what's best about you, and it's the best of you, or perhaps the best version of you that you would want in heaven.

If I compare two sorts of days: one where things run smoothly; I don't get up anyone's nose or say the wrong thing, I'm able to be helpful and understanding and useful to those around me, I'm even able to have a good prayer-time.

Or one where I'm in a foul mood for most of it, upset everyone who comes near, say the wrong thing even trying not to, forget things I should do and feel a long way from God.

The second day, in my view, is caused my own sinfulness, and it's not a day, or a version of me, that I would care to repeat either on earth or in heaven.

So yes, I hope those sinful elements of our personality are what we're able to leave behind. Because at those rare times I manage not to sin for a while, it's so obviously better, and closer to God, that that's where I want to be all the time.

Me and St Paul. I think he had a few things to say on it as well.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
But surely the sinful aspects don't contribute to what's best about you

I don't know, a personality is a funny thing. Without greed would I have bothered working at my career? Without pride would I be a complete slob? Without envy of those who are better than me would I have the drive to better myself?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
But surely the sinful aspects don't contribute to what's best about you
I don't know, a personality is a funny thing. Without greed would I have bothered working at my career? Without pride would I be a complete slob? Without envy of those who are better than me would I have the drive to better myself?

Red herring, I'm afraid, Marvin. It's standard classical theology that the "deadly sins" are excesses or perversions of morally good impulses: pride being an excess of proper self-regard, envy a perversion of the desire to possess the good that we perceive in others, and so on.

Most disabilities, and most of the kinds of illness we've been talking about here, are matters of physics and chemistry. There's nothing sinful about physics and chemistry.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's nothing sinful about physics and chemistry.

Such was not my suggestion. But people are talking about the things that make them "them", which is to say the things that make up their personality. If it's possible for a personality to be changed - considerably, in some cases - by the removal of sin while still being identifiably the same person, then perhaps it is also possible for other aspects of a personality to be removed while still being the same person.

It's quite possible that the advantages that such things can give may be retained while the disadvantages are removed. For example, a bipolar person may keep the "highs" but never again have to suffer the "lows" (with apologies for the crass oversimplification!).

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I'm with The Silent Acolyte ... my resurrected eyes had better not be myopic. But I've never had the experience of having a "disability" that was closely tied to my identify and sense of who I am.

Posted by nomadicgrl (# 7623) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
But surely the sinful aspects don't contribute to what's best about you
I don't know, a personality is a funny thing. Without greed would I have bothered working at my career? Without pride would I be a complete slob? Without envy of those who are better than me would I have the drive to better myself?

To my mind this is where "all things being redeemed" come in. I imagine (because of course I cannot know) that in Heaven you will have the yang of the good qualities without the need or goad of the yin of the less desirable side of those qualities. C.S. Lewis describes this a bit in the novella The Great Divorce.

Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :

The OP is a fascinating question!
I don't know the answer, and I don't know anyone on earth who does, but I trust in the Lord and know that whatever we become, it will be born out of love and truth.

His promises have been reliable so far, so I can trust Him to look after me - and you too.

Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
But I've never had the experience of having a "disability" that was closely tied to my identify and sense of who I am.

I suspect this is the heart of it.

My son has a medical problem which means he needs quite a bit of intervention through the day. He was blown away when he first heard the possibility that in heaven his body will function properly and he won't have to do all this unpleasant stuff his peers don't have to do.

My daughter, on the other hand, has a disability which seems to be more closely linked to who she is. It's a genetic condition - every cell in her body carries the genetic abnormality which manifests itself in several different ways. While in one sense I'd love to wake up tomorrow and find she can hear, speak and swallow, so we didn't have to faff with hearing aids, learn to sign and feed her with a tube, I also can't quite get my head around whether she'd be the same person.

Last Christmas we went to the Christmas play at my kids' school. All the children were fully involved, from the mainstream classes to the learning support units. There were kids in wheelchairs who, with help, could wave a flag at the appropriate moment, there were deaf kids signing rather than singing the songs, there were children whose support workers moved their hands for them as they couldn't do it themselves.

The atmosphere in the room was one of acceptance like I've never experienced before. Everyone belonged; everyone did just what they could do and everyone was valued, whatever they were able to do.

I came away wondering if that's what heaven would be like.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by M.:
Several posters seem to be saying, 'I can't imagine me without....' - I can't imagine me different, in other words.

There's a lot of things I can't imagine about heaven - isn't this just a part of not knowing everything yet?

M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's more than that. Like LQ, I have Aspergers. Telling me that my Aspergers will be "cured" is like telling me my left-handedness will be "cured" - I don't see it as disabling, so to talk of curing it is nonsensical.

Where did I put anything about being cured? I merely wrote that we don't know. I don't know how I can be recognisably me but completely transformed.

M.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

What I am hearing here would seem to lead to the conclusion that heaven must be different for everyone, with every person experiencing their own unique version of eternal happiness.

I think that in one sense we each create our own heaven, according to our own individual sense of how things should be and what is comfortable, beautiful, desirable and useful. Of course it is really God who creates it for us.

Extending this idea would suggest that one person's heaven could be another person's hell. And if we believe that there is objective reality to these subjective environments, and that they most importantly fall out on moral and spiritual lines, we have an afterlife that potentially includes every possibility.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

When I was diagnosed, I was told I had the Aspie strengths. Do I lose those?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
When I was diagnosed, I was told I had the Aspie strengths. Do I lose those?

The person who diagnosed you is a saint.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

Why should this be a question only for "disabled" people. Surely in heaven we will become the best versions of ourselves. And for everyone that will mean change that is currently beyond our imagining. But not loss of identity.

When I think of my own son, who is severely autistic; well yes, it would be heavenly for him to keep his ability to become completely absorbed in some small sensory detail, such as a leaf or an interesting textile. I think we could all do with a bit of that.

But I sincerely hope and pray he will lose the anxiety that sometimes overwhelms him to the point of self-harming. And I'm quite looking forward to having an actual conversation with him.

[ 12. April 2013, 12:25: Message edited by: busyknitter ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
Why should this be a question only for "disabled" people. Surely in heaven we will become the best versions of ourselves. And for everyone that will mean change that is currently beyond our imagining. But not loss of identity.

Nicely put!

I think that it needs to rest on the idea that God is good, and that things ultimately work out in a way that is right and fair. This despite much apparent evidence that this is not the case.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Some time ago somebody who had lost a day old baby said to me ‘will she grow to be an adult in heaven.’ I could only say that I believe that in heaven everybody will be the person that God meant them to be. Now how that will manifest itself, as others have said, I don’t know.

The wife to 7 brothers question, shows that Jesus thought heaven was very different from earth and we will think in different ways then, I think we will have to wait and see what it is like and what we are like. I just know that God promises we can be with him forever – how it happens and what we will know and be like – I will have to trust to the Lord.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but there is a whole genre of YouTube clip of deaf people hearing for the first time as their new implants are activated.

It's always a fascinating thing to watch. Younger children seem to find the experience joyful. They go right from being perplexed at the new experience to demanding to know what everything around them is called. Adults often find the experience overwhelming and usually burst into years. For their whole lives, sound, voice, and music have been merely vague abstractions, or empty words that everyone else talked about. A whole new aspect of existence is opened to them when their implants are switched on.

I've been thinking this must be something like the resurrection, when some part of existence that we've never been able to really comprehend, or even conceive, is revealed to us. Call it eternity, who knows. It will be beyond words because it's been something beyond us our whole lives.

[ 12. April 2013, 13:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

We lose nothing we'll miss of these caterpillar days. We gain everything.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We lose nothing we'll miss of these caterpillar days. We gain everything.

Caterpillar days! [Overused]

Crawl, crawl. Nibble, nibble....

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
some part of existence that we've never been able to really comprehend, or even conceive, is revealed to us. Call it eternity, who knows. It will be beyond words because it's been something beyond us our whole lives.

Oh I do hope so!
I am looking forward to being "not me". Not having "people"(as it were) "look at me" and define me by my gender, race, religion, politics, etc.
I have been saying to myself for a few years "I will be floating along in the Stream of The Everything and I will be in tune with everything and not in conflict with anything"

Of course I could do that as some small invertebrate marine creature, I suppose

I told this to my hairdresser (because she asked me what I thought happened when we died).
She replied "Oh, so do you mean it won't be all lovely shops and that?"

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We lose nothing we'll miss of these caterpillar days. We gain everything.
Caterpillar days!

I just can't wait 'til I pupate!

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

I find the hopeful thinking on this thread profoundly sad.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

Why is hope sad?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Notwithstanding that I think the idea of heaven is not very nice because apparently we're supposed live torturous lives on earth and then later things will be nicey nice because God loves us more up in heaven than down here on earth. But it is sort of aesthetically pleasing to have the idea of it.

How about: if the thing you have (a diagnosis or condition or whatever) is an evil or bad thing on earth, it must be left behind if you go to heaven. If the thing is partly bad, you'll be leaving the bad piece behind, and if it is part of you such that it is essential to you to have it in whole or in part, then it's good and it will come with you. Good belongs in heave and bad/evil cannot fit through the pearly gates.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Why is hope sad?

Because there's no heaven, and the hope is false*. I find it genuinely tragic, especially when people hope for an unreal afterlife because their real lives are painful.

* IMO.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think you're right, Yorick. If the hope is false then it is all very sad indeed…

quote:
if Christ was not raised then neither our preaching nor [our] faith has any meaning at all. Further it would mean that we are lying in our witness for God, for we have given our solemn testimony that he did raise up Christ—and that is utterly false if it should be true that the dead do not, in fact, rise again! For if the dead do not rise neither did Christ rise, and if Christ did not rise [our] faith is futile and [our] sins have never been forgiven. Moreover those who have died believing in Christ are utterly dead and gone. Truly, if our hope in Christ were limited to this life only we should, of all [hu]mankind be the most to be pitied!

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I find the hopeful thinking on this thread profoundly sad.

I think it's fair to say that at least some of the posts on this thread should be prefaced with "Allowing the possibility of heaven, then...". Mine certainly should be.

But yours is the most solid hope, Yorick: if there's no afterlife, there's definitely no cerebral palsy in it.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But yours is the most solid hope, Yorick: if there's no afterlife, there's definitely no cerebral palsy in it.

No CP, no cancer, no depression, no income tax. Perfect nothingness. That's a beautiful sort of heaven! But my personal hope is not about death; it's about life.

Ditch your wishful belief in an afterlife and concentrate instead on appreciating your pre-death. See the blueness of the sky on a cloudless day, smell the delicious scent of the first rain for a month on the dusty ground, listen to a child laugh. Don't distract yourself with hopes for heaven when there's so much to enjoy now, and so little time.

Your lifetime is the briefest tiny flicker between two unimaginably vast periods of emptiness. It's all you've got, but it's infinitely precious.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Why is hope sad?
Because there's no heaven, and the hope is false*. I find it genuinely tragic, especially when people hope for an unreal afterlife because their real lives are painful.

* IMO.

I only find such a false hope tragic if in the end someone is going to experience the profound disappointment of finding out it was false. In this case, if their hope is false they will simply experience nothing, no disappointment or anything conscious at all. Yet they will have had the benefit of that hope perhaps giving them strength during life here and now to live with the things which cannot be changed.

I don't however think the hope of a better future should in any way stop us working with all our power to make the here and now better for every one of us. To say it will all be alright in heaven after we die is no excuse to neglect what we can do now to alleviate suffering and help each other to live meaningful and fulfilled lives. The hope of future joys should not stop us from wanting joy for ourselves and others in the here and now.

And if those of us who hope turn out to be wrong...well I see no loss in having hoped.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

Ditch your wishful belief in an afterlife and concentrate instead on appreciating your pre-death. See the blueness of the sky on a cloudless day, smell the delicious scent of the first rain for a month on the dusty ground, listen to a child laugh. Don't distract yourself with hopes for heaven when there's so much to enjoy now, and so little time.

Your lifetime is the briefest tiny flicker between two unimaginably vast periods of emptiness. It's all you've got, but it's infinitely precious. [/QB]

I simply don't see these as an either/or proposition. A hope in the former doesn't preclude the latter.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Ditch your wishful belief in an afterlife and concentrate instead on appreciating your pre-death. See the blueness of the sky on a cloudless day, smell the delicious scent of the first rain for a month on the dusty ground, listen to a child laugh. Don't distract yourself with hopes for heaven when there's so much to enjoy now, and so little time.

Your lifetime is the briefest tiny flicker between two unimaginably vast periods of emptiness. It's all you've got, but it's infinitely precious.

Ah, the usual call to nihilistic gluttony, with no hint of hope to those who cannot afford a life of pleasant leisure.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ditch your wishful belief in an afterlife and concentrate instead on appreciating your pre-death.

Personally, I find that instead of being mutually exclusive, they reinforce each other quite well.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Ah, the usual call to nihilistic gluttony, with no hint of hope to those who cannot afford a life of pleasant leisure.

As with all the best things in life, the blue sky, the smell of rain, and the sound of kids laughing are all free. Isn't it wonderful?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

What Yorick misses altogether is his own perspective as a comfortable, educated, first world person.

For the solid majority of the human race, there is no possibility of turning away from theological hopes to a life of delight in simple pleasures, because such a life is beyond their means. At least the Roman philosophers were aware of that fact enough to say "tough shit" to the poor. Fate and all that.

The Gospel, on the other hand, is the hope of the poor.

[ 12. April 2013, 16:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As with all the best things in life, the blue sky, the smell of rain, and the sound of kids laughing are all free. Isn't it wonderful?

It's very easy for the rich to think a little bad poetry about the smell of rain is enough.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
Ditch your wishful belief in an afterlife...

Got any evidence to support your claim that it's a "wishful belief"?

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Yup. I 'know' it's true. Apparently.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As with all the best things in life, the blue sky, the smell of rain, and the sound of kids laughing are all free. Isn't it wonderful?
It's very easy for the rich to think a little bad poetry about the smell of rain is enough.

Yeah, yeah. FYI, I've been through a tremendously bad time recently, suffering more psychological pain than I thought even possible. But whatever.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I am very sorry to hear that, Yorick. Everyone suffers tremendous psychological pain in their lives, but it's also the case that the poor have far fewer consolations in times of adversity.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...the poor have far fewer consolations in times of adversity.

I know many rich people, and I know many very poor people, and I think it's extremely ignorant of you to assume the poor necessarily suffer unhappiness more than do the rich. You would appear to have bought the Great Lie.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Oh get off it, will you? You're the one calling people to material consolations, Yorick, which the rich have much greater access to.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We have very little evidence of an afterlife, and all the evidence is testimonial and thus not subject to the sorts of evidence that can be examined. It is about faith.

I have been unpinning the afterlife ideas, heaven etc from my beliefs and following of Christianity, and find that Christianity does not not hinge on whether there is or isn't. The eternal life thing is mainly an appeal to the self's selfish desire to not be extinguished.

Pain? It's the main feature of the world and the experience of all life. The afterlife is irrelevant to the nowlife. Except if you're transitioning from one to the other.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

1 Cor 15, from about - oh - verse 37 on explores what a resurrection body might be like. Paul thinks about how a resurrection body might compare to an earthly one. One illustration he uses is to say that our current bodies are like a seed, compared to what the seed grows into our heavenly body. As has been said unthread - the pupaping caterpillar is apt.

All our earthly bodies are in some ways made defective by sin. Their full capacities are dimmed by age if nothing else. Whatever else they may be like, they will be fully adapted for the kind of life we will be living in heaven. I suspect that will be different from here in substance as well as quality.

But for now, I am happy to give God thanks for the body I have - with all its limitations. It isn't just a compartment to house me, it is me - in the sense that I how I sound, move, gesture, smile (and whatever else you care to imagine) is as much an expression of myself as the way I shape my thoughts.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
All I've got to add at this point is that the otherwise beautiful icons at St. Gregory Nyssen in San Francisco make me twitch when I look up at the damned spectacles on the faces of Malcolm X, Norman Perrin, Thurgood Marshall, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Paul Erdos, Julia Morgan, Agnes Sanford, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Paulos Mar Gregorios, W. Edwards Deming, and Desmond Mpilo Tutu, together with Samuel Joseph Isaac Schereschewski in his wheelchair.

I won't need my phreakin' eyeglasses.

There was a wonderful morning when the rota conspired to give us three scared monsters at the altar who were all Levitically disqualified therefrom.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Recalling the obit of Nancy Eiesland

quote:
why did she say she hoped that when she went to heaven she would still be disabled?

The reason, which seems clear enough to many disabled people, was that her identity and character were formed by the mental, physical and societal challenges of her disability. She felt that without her disability, she would “be absolutely unknown to myself and perhaps to God.”

By the time of her death at 44 on March 10, Ms. Eiesland had come to believe that God was in fact disabled, a view she articulated in her influential 1994 book, “The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability.” She pointed to the scene described in Luke 24:36-39 in which the risen Jesus invites his disciples to touch his wounds.

“In presenting his impaired body to his startled friends, the resurrected Jesus is revealed as the disabled God,” she wrote. God remains a God the disabled can identify with, she argued — he is not cured and made whole; his injury is part of him, neither a divine punishment nor an opportunity for healing.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Can I truly say that I will still be "me" in Heaven if all the sinful aspects of my nature and personality are no longer present?

Not if you truly think the sinful aspects of your nature and personality are really something worth keeping. If you do then it's unlikely you'll face that particular dilemma.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The afterlife is irrelevant to the nowlife. Except if you're transitioning from one to the other.

Why wait until you're transitioning? I find that each has everything to do with the other, no matter how far off in the future my death may seem to be.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But yours is the most solid hope, Yorick: if there's no afterlife, there's definitely no cerebral palsy in it.
No CP, no cancer, no depression, no income tax. Perfect nothingness. That's a beautiful sort of heaven! But my personal hope is not about death; it's about life.

Ditch your wishful belief in an afterlife and concentrate instead on appreciating your pre-death. See the blueness of the sky on a cloudless day, smell the delicious scent of the first rain for a month on the dusty ground, listen to a child laugh. Don't distract yourself with hopes for heaven when there's so much to enjoy now, and so little time.

Your lifetime is the briefest tiny flicker between two unimaginably vast periods of emptiness. It's all you've got, but it's infinitely precious.

A related Haiku by Issa:

quote:

this world of dew
is just a world of dew—
and yet … and yet …

Issa

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but there is a whole genre of YouTube clip of deaf people hearing for the first time as their new implants are activated.

It's always a fascinating thing to watch.

Thanks for adding this! I've seen them too. They are amazingly emotional. I made the same connection with the joy of waking up in the afterlife.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Recalling the obit of Nancy Eiesland

quote:
why did she say she hoped that when she went to heaven she would still be disabled?

The reason, which seems clear enough to many disabled people, was that her identity and character were formed by the mental, physical and societal challenges of her disability. She felt that without her disability, she would “be absolutely unknown to myself and perhaps to God.”

By the time of her death at 44 on March 10, Ms. Eiesland had come to believe that God was in fact disabled, a view she articulated in her influential 1994 book, “The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability.” She pointed to the scene described in Luke 24:36-39 in which the risen Jesus invites his disciples to touch his wounds.

“In presenting his impaired body to his startled friends, the resurrected Jesus is revealed as the disabled God,” she wrote. God remains a God the disabled can identify with, she argued — he is not cured and made whole; his injury is part of him, neither a divine punishment nor an opportunity for healing.

Thank you for that, I've never heard it before and it is truly inspirational (so much so that I've bought the book).

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
“In presenting his impaired body to his startled friends, the resurrected Jesus is revealed as the disabled God,” she wrote. God remains a God the disabled can identify with, she argued — he is not cured and made whole; his injury is part of him, neither a divine punishment nor an opportunity for healing.

But I don't think those woulds are still bleeding and painful and causing physical weakness in hands and body, like the wounds would in a physical-only body in this life. There's no dis-ability.

I long to ditch my glasses. And the other physical limitations. And being somewhat aspie is part of who I am, but I'd love to be not only able to think function that way but also be more outgoing at will, have a broader tools set so I can be who I am, plus more! Sound the way my voice sounds now - plus more ways if I want to.

We all go through changes without ceasing to be "me." A boy's voice changes, he doesn't cease being who he is just because he switches from soprano to bass. A person who goes blind is still the same person, why wouldn't a blind person who gains sight be the same person? Fundamentally the same person.

Anyway, I doubt heaven forces changes on anyone. Just offers more choices to explore than we have now.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The one thing I'd hope to change is that I don't like crowds. And if it's true what we hear about how heaven is going to be full of other people, my present personality is going to have a huge problem! So, it will either be necessary for me to have a sociability makeover, or else there will have to be lots of hidey holes where I can meet with 2 or 3 at a time and don't have to confront the whole multitude of the heavenly host for more than the occasional short burst at a time. Still, I seem to remember that Christ himself needed to withdraw to recharge his batteries on regular occasions, so I expect there will be some sort of inbuilt heavenly chill-out zone.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Yorick's right, and I think that everyone knows it. Heaven doesn't exist. Heaven is nothing more than a device, a thought experiment to enable us to talk about certain aspects of life.

That's why no one really bothers about the daft inconsistencies that arise if you start thinking too hard about heaven. The woman married to seven brothers is actually a pretty good one. Or, how can it be heaven for Sally if she's old and arthritic for eternity? But if Sally is young again, she'd still be married to that hopeless Tim, and Tom, who only met her when she was sixty five, would be forever separated from the love of his life.

Oh, it's not like that, we say. No being married, no particular age, no bodies. Hmm, probably no voices, CP or otherwise, no communication, no being present to others, no time, no finding things out, no learning, no joy of discovery, no sensations, no experience. Which is nothing.

But no one cares about all that. Instead we rightly get stuck in with using the concept. And we do wonderful things with it. We affirm, for instance, that this disability is no disability at all. We will wear glasses in heaven. Boogie will still be ADHD. Anglican Brat will still have CP. Hatless will still be only 5'7" tall (and a half, actually).

And this is absolutely about life here and now. It is how we define ourselves. What is completion, fulfilment, perfection for us? It's exciting when it turns out that it doesn't have to be about conforming to an ideal but can include our individuality, our quirks and even our damage.

And the idea that heaven might be a community thing, where we sensitively work to include everyone in the great performance, that is marvellous. And we can do it today and tomorrow.

So you're right Yorick. Only sky. But the point of heaven is to help us get things right here. It does freak me out, though, when people forget it's only a fairy tale.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

hatless

Ah. The voice of Western reason speaks! But isn't Christianity meant to be about putting our faith in the supposedly impossible?

Anyway, the cynic in me says that if we forget that heaven's not real, as you say, the blame lies on the shoulders of our clergy, who are strangely reluctant to preach on that topic. Our belief serves them well, but our scepticism, not so much....

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am very sorry to hear that, Yorick. Everyone suffers tremendous psychological pain in their lives, but it's also the case that the poor have far fewer consolations in times of adversity.

I disagree. I definitely qualify as "poor" and yet my life is for the most part pretty full of happy things. challenges, hell yes. But I laugh a lot. I hug a lot. I blast music and dance around. my kids and I generally goof off and have a great time.

I know plenty more wealthy than me who are miserable. if nothing else, when you have all that shit you have to keep track of it all. life is kind of fun when there's nothing to keep track of.

also - when you're "winging it" - making life work with what you have, rather than buying the perfect "thing" for everything - it's harder, but there's a lovely sense of accomplishment. honestly, I'd rather my kids see that way of living than get all the stuff they want when they want it.

my lack of wealth does not keep me from being happy or having things to be proud of or feel a sense of worth. Money would give me some things, but it would take other things away.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
hatless

Ah. The voice of Western reason speaks! But isn't Christianity meant to be about putting our faith in the supposedly impossible?

Anyway, the cynic in me says that if we forget that heaven's not real, as you say, the blame lies on the shoulders of our clergy, who are strangely reluctant to preach on that topic. Our belief serves them well, but our scepticism, not so much....

I think it was Western reason that probably got us into the fix in the first place, unable to live in a metaphor, insisting we have to drill down through every lovely story to find some bedrock 'facts.'

Faith in the impossible? No. In the supposedly impossible? Oh yes! We've been talking about a modern response to disability, which is to challenge what is considered normal, and to ask who has to adapt here, the person with the 'condition' or those around them? Where precisely is the disability? Is it in the legs that don't work or the space around that is designed to only work for people who can walk well? We are increasingly willing to say that people are disabled only in part by the weakness of their limbs or organs, and to a greater extent by the way we have arranged our collective life and the expectations and prejudices we allow to flourish amongst us. It turns out that you really can make the abnormal normal if you are allowed to shift normal!

Many of Jesus' healing miracles are right on the money here. He challenges prejudices and judgments as well as dealing with illness, and often seems to deal with the illness in order to make the challenge as if that was more important. As, of course, it is.

I think it really matters whether or not modern saints wear glasses in their icons. Our ideas of right and wrong for our bodies are a terrible mess at the moment. Allowing ourselves to think about what is of us and what is imposed on us, and to listen well to each other, seems such a good idea.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

How beautifully suited you both are.

Two sides of the same false coin.

W Hyatt [Overused]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Hatless, I like your portrayal of heaven as being a thought device to help us in the here and now. But that is precisely the reason why you shouldn't knock it. We need all the help we can get.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I'm not knocking it. I think heaven is important.

It's not such a big deal in the New Testament, and it's hard to find in the Old Testament, but it's a huge part of modern religion, in and out of the churches. And most of the time people know how the rules work and how to use heaven to talk about the world.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

It's not such a big deal in the New Testament, and it's hard to find in the Old Testament, but it's a huge part of modern religion, in and out of the churches. And most of the time people know how the rules work and how to use heaven to talk about the world.

There are rules? I struggle IRL to abide by normal conversational 'rules', never mind in discussion about heaven!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I guess it's an understanding of how we can say 'I'm sure little Johnny is looking down from Heaven now and smiling at us', even when you know that it isn't literally like that - because they are comforting words to say. Picture imagery is an important device known from ancient times onwards.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

It's just rules like those we follow when talking about the weather. If you say 'it's been a funny old winter, hasn't it,' and I reply, 'yes, I suspect we're seeing a weakening of the historically strong correlation between westerly winds and the North Atlantic Oscillation,' then I've just broken the rules. [Smile]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If you stop telling people it’s all sorted out after they’re dead, they might try sorting it out whilst they’re alive. Terry Pratchett

Aye, heaven can wait. It'll take care of itself.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If you stop telling people it’s all sorted out after they’re dead, they might try sorting it out whilst they’re alive. Terry Pratchett

Yes, but unless we can talk about heaven, that is about what we're aiming for, we won't know what to do to try and sort things now.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Excellent hatless. Although I completely disagree. And completely agree. We know NOTHING of heaven. Apart from our experience of it now. Nothing of Eternal Life, of the Kingdom unless we live it, live in it now.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If you stop telling people it’s all sorted out after they’re dead, they might try sorting it out whilst they’re alive. Terry Pratchett
Yes, but unless we can talk about heaven, that is about what we're aiming for, we won't know what to do to try and sort things now.

That's my thought too. Understanding heaven is the same as understanding what makes heaven on earth.

It includes the idea that if we fail to work to make heaven on earth we will also fail to find it after death. The two are the same!

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It'll be given to us despite our pathetic attempts to invoke it here.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We know NOTHING of heaven. Apart from our experience of it now.

Speak for yourself. Some Christians claim to know something about heaven:

quote:
"Church people these days know practically nothing about heaven and hell or their life after death, even though there are descriptions of everything available to them in the Word.

In fact, many who have been born in the church deny all this. In their hearts they are asking who has ever come back to tell us about it.

To prevent this negative attitude-especially prevalent among people who have acquired a great deal of worldly wisdom-from infecting and corrupting people of simple heart and simple faith, it has been granted me to be with angels and to talk with them person to person.

I have also been enabled to see what is in heaven and in hell, a process that has been going on for thirteen years.

Now I am being allowed therefore to describe what I have heard and seen, in the hopes of shedding light where there is ignorance, and of dispelling skepticism." (Emanuel Swedenborg, Heaven and Hell 1, published in London in 1758)

The thing that always interests me in this quote is the idea that Christians know "nothing about heaven and hell or their life after death, even though there are descriptions of everything available to them in the Word."

I would agree that the information is there. I also understand why people often don't see or accept this, and claim that we know nothing about life after death.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I speak for us ALL mate. With the possible exception of the apostle Paul, and even he didn't know.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If you stop telling people it’s all sorted out after they’re dead, they might try sorting it out whilst they’re alive. Terry Pratchett

Yes, but unless we can talk about heaven, that is about what we're aiming for, we won't know what to do to try and sort things now.

So we're meant to talk about heaven as if we believe in it, whilst not actually believing in it? How can you tell the difference between real belief and fake belief in heaven? Which church should one attend that ensures all its members know the difference?

Secondly, I don't see how believing in heaven is in itself an offense to disabled people, although I understand the challenge that the offer of 'perfection' presents to those of us who fear a loss of identity. We might all reflect on what that means.

Finally, I accept that some faith traditions have used the belief in heaven as a way of diverting people's attention from the fight for justice. But to state that this is the inevitable outcome of such a belief is an argument that lacks nuance. It also disregards historical examples that suggest the opposite.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... There was a wonderful morning when the rota conspired to give us three scared monsters at the altar who were all Levitically disqualified therefrom.

How come? Did they all have crushed testicles or leprosy? Or had they had a nocturnal emission within the last 24 hours? How do you know?

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus
But yours is the most solid hope, Yorick: if there's no afterlife, there's definitely no cerebral palsy in it.

Only if that is a solid hope. If, as I believe, it isn't, then some people may be in for a nasty shock.

Besides, there must be an afterlife. Even leaving aside Jesus's own resurrection on the grounds that as Son of God he is different, if there was no survival there would be no place for Lazarus, Jairus's daughter, or the Shunammite's son to have been called back from.

I believe that we are raised as the best of all possible versions of ourselves and then more so and that we will rejoice as to how we find ourselves. What is sown corrupt is raised incorruptible.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

They were called back from oblivion.

Posted by wheelie racer (# 13854) on :

As a wheelchair user and someone who lives with quite significant levels of pain, I quite often get frustrated by the idea held that one day I will be cured/ healed/ fixed... Yes I would love to be without the limitations and frustrations, but there is an element of confusing wholeness with lack of impairment.

Over the past few years I have experienced tremendous healing, in that I am able to accept, live within the limits of my condition, have a meaningful and purposeful life,deal and cope with the emotional aspects of my condition and have drawn much closer to God. Maybe things will be different in heaven in terms of physical impairment and disability and maybe I will be able to dance and run, but that doesn't mean that I can't be a whole person on earth.

I often think that the glib comments about there been no disability in heaven are more to do with the warped and misguided theology of the people who make these comments and their inability to accept disabilities. As I have said so many times before, one of my biggest niggles with the evo/charismatic church and orgs like New Wine (which I do have a lot of respect for incidently) is that whilst there is a theology of healing there is no theology of disability

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wheelie racer:

I often think that the glib comments about there been no disability in heaven are more to do with the warped and misguided theology of the people who make these comments and their inability to accept disabilities. As I have said so many times before, one of my biggest niggles with the evo/charismatic church and orgs like New Wine (which I do have a lot of respect for incidently) is that whilst there is a theology of healing there is no theology of disability

A good and useful insight, to which I would add only this one single but notable exception from a thoughtful Pentecostal theologian:

Theology of Disability

Posted by Crazy Cat Lady (# 17616) on :

There is some research (actually quite a lot of it) that suggests those with long term illness achieve a faster and more expansive recovery if they have a spiritual/religious identity.

So we must be a pretty positive bunch - perhaps belief in an afterlife isn't so negative after all!

I agree the term 'recovery' is a bit hard to pin down as to meaning but it's the one they use in my field of disaility - prolly cos noone has come up with a 'cure' yet!

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Enoch. I like your

Besides, there must be an afterlife. Even leaving aside Jesus's own resurrection on the grounds that as Son of God he is different, if there was no survival there would be no place for Lazarus, Jairus's daughter, or the Shunammite's son to have been called back from.

Nice point.

Someone asked me recently why heaven is often described in the Bible as a banquet or feast. I said it's because most people who ever lived (and too many today) live a large proportion of their life hungry. As a nicely-fed Westerner this had never occurred to him. Not believing in heaven, or any kind of afterlife, is a hell of a lot easier if you reckon this life gives you everything you want.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

wheelie racer - superb. Without a theology of disability, of affliction, of thorns in the flesh and mind, there is no theology of healing.

Crazy Cat Lady - it'll be correlated with strong identity not just 'spirituality' or 'religion'. Spirit and religion in their broadest senses. The sense that a person has of meaning as Viktor Frankl noted in Auschwitz.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The afterlife is irrelevant to the nowlife. Except if you're transitioning from one to the other.
Why wait until you're transitioning? I find that each has everything to do with the other, no matter how far off in the future my death may seem to be.

Because it bends your focus in a problematic direction, towards yourself, your soul and your salvation. Rather than keeping it on others and God where it belongs.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The afterlife is irrelevant to the nowlife. Except if you're transitioning from one to the other.
Why wait until you're transitioning? I find that each has everything to do with the other, no matter how far off in the future my death may seem to be.
Because it bends your focus in a problematic direction, towards yourself, your soul and your salvation. Rather than keeping it on others and God where it belongs.

I think that just the opposite is the case. A focus on heaven is a focus on the priority of kindness and service. It is the opposite of a focus on ourselves and our problems.

If thinking of heaven is thinking about ourselves, our souls and our salvation then this is a problem.

In practice I find that a focus on heaven is actually a focus on what really matters in life - not money or possessions, not popularity or position, not looks or physical abilities. It's about who we really are, and the qualities and relationships that will stand the test of time.

[ 13. April 2013, 18:46: Message edited by: Freddy ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

This morning I attended the funeral of a retired priest who was eighty-two.

People who knew him said that his faith was very deep. His only theory about what life after death would be like was that it would be what God had chosen for him, and therefore it would be good.

Moo

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The afterlife is irrelevant to the nowlife. Except if you're transitioning from one to the other.
Why wait until you're transitioning? I find that each has everything to do with the other, no matter how far off in the future my death may seem to be.
Because it bends your focus in a problematic direction, towards yourself, your soul and your salvation. Rather than keeping it on others and God where it belongs.
I think that just the opposite is the case. A focus on heaven is a focus on the priority of kindness and service. It is the opposite of a focus on ourselves and our problems.

If thinking of heaven is thinking about ourselves, our souls and our salvation then this is a problem.

In practice I find that a focus on heaven is actually a focus on what really matters in life - not money or possessions, not popularity or position, not looks or physical abilities. It's about who we really are, and the qualities and relationships that will stand the test of time.

I'm with Freddy. I think in general, we all have to start out based on what we think is in it for ourselves and it can be hard to get past that idea of salvation, but it is possible to get to the point where we realize that heaven in the here-and-now and heaven in the life to come are both all about wanting to help other people because it's what Christ has commanded us to do, not about wanting something for ourselves.

If there is a problem, it's in the idea that heaven is only about our own individual salvation. It's fine as an idea for us to start with, but it's an idea that we're eventually supposed to replace with something bigger and more outward oriented.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

We're all saying the same thing. Disagreeably [Smile]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I just want to hold onto what the Bible says: "Behold, I make all things new!"

I can't imagine that whatever God makes us to be in heaven that it'll be somehow less satisfying and less authentic than what we are now.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can't imagine that whatever God makes us to be in heaven that it'll be somehow less satisfying and less authentic than what we are now.

That's my view as well. I doubt that we will be disappointed.

However, there may be things that we currently misunderstand that will interfere with our ability to be happy in the next life.

For example, Swedenborgians have this story:

quote:
"I have heard any number of newcomers from our world complain that they did not know that their lot in life would depend on the desires of their love. They said they had not thought about them in this world, let alone about the pleasures associated with them. They had loved whatever gave them pleasure and had simply believed that our lot depended on what we thought intellectually, especially what we thought in matters of devotion and therefore of faith.

However, they were told that if they had wanted to, they might have known that an evil life is unwelcome in heaven and displeasing to God, but welcome in hell and pleasing to the devil." Emanuel Swedenborg, Divine Providence 305

It seems to me that it makes a big difference if we realize that the nature of our thoughts and desires are an important aspect of our current and future happiness.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Regardless of all that we say about heaven and all that we or popular culture or religion have to say, there are a couple of things that are very important.

1. Our 'personhood' will be very different to what we know and experience here. This is why Paul talks so much about the resurrection body - not only is it 'mortality that has put on immortality', it is also life that is only based on what we know here - the resurrection body is the 'wheat' to the natural body's 'grain'. Therefore we cannot assume just a continuation of what we are here.

2. It's a mystery. John says "It has not yet been revealed what we shall be..." (1 John 3 v 2)
This means we cannot with certainty and satisfaction describe wither the life we shall lead nor the state we shall find ourselves. If I die tonight I do not expect that my eternal life will be Newcastle with clean streets!

3. It is Christ-centred. It seems to me that so much of what passes off as heaven or eternal life is about us; we parade our desires, our needs; we demand our identity and satisfaction/reward. It is not about us; it's not about our survival and whether we will retain our 'stuff'. Heaven is only heaven because we will be "with Christ, which is far better." I would suggest that if you don't want to be with Christ, then don't bother looking to go to heaven! Heaven is not about me! It's about Jesus. I quoted 1 John 3 v 2 which continues "...we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is."

That's what heaven is - a mystery - who knows what it'll be like, but it doesn't matter because Jesus will be there and that is all we need to know. Anything else is either presumptuous speculation or selfish, worldly desire.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

That's what heaven is - a mystery - who knows what it'll be like, but it doesn't matter because Jesus will be there and that is all we need to know. Anything else is either presumptuous speculation or selfish, worldly desire.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anything else is either presumptuous speculation or selfish, worldly desire.

That's a rather strongly worded statement - what leads you to use those particular adjectives?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

presumptuous - because the believer 'presumes' to guess what heaven will consist of.

speculation{/B] - because any description or definition of heaven that is beyond what we are told is precisely that.

[B]selfish - because there is a danger that heaven is all about what we want, what I want, regardless of the promises of God.

worldly desire - because for many people heaven is indeed just a continuation of stuff they don't want to end - heaven for them is all about fulfilling their life according to what is earthly and temporary without any regard to what heaven has to offer or the requirements of faith and grace.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

That helps me understand what you mean, but I'm still puzzling over what leads you to make such a broad, categorical statement. I can only guess that you have encountered people who cause problems with their presumptuous speculation and their beliefs based on selfish and worldly desires. But you seem to be interested in shutting down discussion by labeling all speculation as presumptuous and all beliefs as being based on selfish and worldly desires. Why do you not want to allow room for speculation that is not presumptuous or beliefs that are not selfish and worldly?

In Matthew 5:12, Christ encourages his listeners to rejoice when they are persecuted because their reward in heaven is great, so it seems safe to assume that he did not believe he was encouraging them to be selfish and worldly by appealing to their self-interest.

[ 15. April 2013, 03:48: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It's as I have written it I suppose.

The common perception of heaven is of a place where, strangely, Jesus is absent!
It's all about fulfilling our desires, assuaging our grief, meeting our loved ones, and living a wonderful life for ever.

Wonderfully, these thiongs are not incompatible with heaven - we will be together in the Lord, there will be no pain or crying or mourning, etc; no hunger, no thirst...

BUT heaven - as with the current obsession some people have with angels - seems to be heaven because it fulfils our desires rather than because it brings us into the presence of Jesus.

Far from being content to accept the 'through a glass darkly' teaching of the Bible, many people seem to show they want to heaven to be a place that suits them. It is a mystery and our resurrection body is a mystery.

Anyhow, for all our speculation, heaven is going to be much greater than, and quite a bit different to, that which we imagine.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I well remember a former neighbour saying that she imagined heaven being like a warm bath (where you don't get wrinkly and the water never gets cold). I don't recall her saying whether Jesus would be in the bath with her, but I suspect not.

(More seriously, I think she was trying to express her feeling that God/Jesus would be like a warm presence encompassing all, rather than a more physical entity, hence the warm bath analogy.)

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

That's even better than my hairdresser's "all lovely shops and that"!

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is a mystery and our resurrection body is a mystery.

Anyhow, for all our speculation, heaven is going to be much greater than, and quite a bit different to, that which we imagine.

I think that there is enough said about it in the Bible that it should not be too mysterious. It is referenced 300 times in the New Testament alone.

Jesus talks especially about the real nature of heaven and what people are like who go there. He does not say much about what it looks like, and the images from works like John's "Revelation" do not seem likely to be representative of what we can expect to see.

The kind of testimony found in books like Eben Alexander's "Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife", on the other hand, has been so consistent that it is convincing to many people. Far from describing an absent Jesus, these reports describe His presence there in compelling and beautiful ways.

I don't accept the idea that having concrete ideas of heaven is problematic. I think that they make it all the more real. For example:

quote:
"In the spiritual world there are landmasses, plains and valleys, mountains and hills, springs and streams; there are parks and gardens, woods and forests. There are cities there, with mansions and homes. There are also written documents and books; jobs and businesses; gold, silver, and precious stones.
To put it briefly, that world contains every single thing that exists in the physical world, although in heaven those things are immensely more perfect. The main difference, though, is that everything that comes into view in the spiritual world, such as houses, gardens, food, and so on, is created in a moment by the Lord. The things in that world are created to correspond with what is inside the angels and spirits, namely, their feelings and thoughts." Emanuel Swedenborg, True Christianity 794

While people can pass off descriptions like these, or those of people who have had Near Death Experiences, as speculation, wishful thinking, delusions, or outright lies, they do form a consistent picture that has caught on in the popular imagination.

I think that the overall effect of these images has been to foster a belief in heaven. The drawbacks that Mudfrog and others have mentioned are certainly real and worth noting, but I don't think that they tell the whole story.

In my view the more that we can know about heaven, especially relying on what Jesus tells us in the New Testament, the better. I think that we all agree that the effort to prepare ourselves for our eternal home results in a better life both in this world and the world to come.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is a mystery and our resurrection body is a mystery.

Anyhow, for all our speculation, heaven is going to be much greater than, and quite a bit different to, that which we imagine.
I think that there is enough said about it in the Bible that it should not be too mysterious. It is referenced 300 times in the New Testament alone.

Hmm. 285 times according to Oremus Bible Browser's search function. These are hardly references to heaven, just instances where the word ouranois is used. In some cases it just means 'sky' or 'air.' In some cases it's effectively an adjective: our father in heaven; treasure in heaven; kingdom of heaven. In other cases it's a way of talking about God slightly indirectly: does John's baptism come from heaven or from 'men,' they wonder.

There are very few places outside Revelation where heaven is spoken of directly because of an interest in the nature of heaven.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Hmm. 285 times according to Oremus Bible Browser's search function.

Yes, I was rounding up to include references to eternal life, the description of Dives and Lazarus, and other allusions to the idea that we live after death.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
These are hardly references to heaven, just instances where the word ouranois is used. In some cases it just means 'sky' or 'air.' In some cases it's effectively an adjective: our father in heaven; treasure in heaven; kingdom of heaven. In other cases it's a way of talking about God slightly indirectly: does John's baptism come from heaven or from 'men,' they wonder.

That's right. Not all, or even most, of the references tell us meaningful things about the afterlife. But many do.

In any case, Jesus talked about heaven quite a bit. He did not seem to think that this was problematic.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Now you're equating heaven and the afterlife. I don't think they're the same. And I still don't think it's right to say that Jesus talked about heaven much. He used the word a lot, especially when Matthew had his pen out, but almost always he was talking about something else.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Now you're equating heaven and the afterlife. I don't think they're the same. And I still don't think it's right to say that Jesus talked about heaven much. He used the word a lot, especially when Matthew had his pen out, but almost always he was talking about something else.

Interesting comments. You could be right.

Before I came to the Ship I had never been acquainted with the idea that the "kingdom of heaven" meant anything other than what people normally think of as heaven - the place good people go when they die.

Having heard people explain it for the past ten years, and read up on it elsewhere, I do understand that it can mean God's kingdom on earth as well - since the kingdom of God is within us. I still don't think that this is the primary meaning.

I would still equate heaven with the afterlife, or at least the good part! [Angel]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Heaven is shorthand I suppose. What we are actually talking about is resurrection life in eternity. What will it be like?

That is what the Bible doesn't tell us about.
Do we need businesses and jobs? Why would we need gold and precious stones? And why on earth would all these houses and parks be made by God in an instant - kind of does away with any construction industry don't you think? Which is no good for a brick layer in this life who thinks heaven is going to be a perfect building site for him to continue working at for all eternity!

You see, it's this that I can't accept - people like Swedenborg imagining his own fictional paradise and passing it off as equal to Biblical revelation.

A resident in the elderly care home where I was the chaplain once told me he idea of heaven was 'a big farm with no trouble.'
A girl in a class I taught said her idea of heaven was a big shoe shop.

Are we to say that God will give them their desires? Is that all heaven is, somewwhere that we will enjoy?

Where does Jesus fit in with this - he doesn't seem to fit in Swedenborg's vision.

I thought Heaven was eternal relationship with Jesus, not a perfect retirement village! It's not Cocoon you know!

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Where does Jesus fit in with this - he doesn't seem to fit in Swedenborg's vision.

Wow! It's hard to know how to respond to that because it's so opposite to the facts. Swedenborg's primary message about heaven is that it's the presence of Jesus Christ that makes it heaven, down to every last particular detail, so he actually agrees with you.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Where does Jesus fit in with this - he doesn't seem to fit in Swedenborg's vision.
Wow! It's hard to know how to respond to that because it's so opposite to the facts. Swedenborg's primary message about heaven is that it's the presence of Jesus Christ that makes it heaven, down to every last particular detail, so he actually agrees with you.

I didn't see Jesus mentioned. He just said that the Lord would build the houses, dig the gardens and cook the food. What is he, staff? It is 'all about me'. Heaven is not just a brighter version of what we have here.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]That's right. Not all, or even most, of the references tell us meaningful things about the afterlife. But many do.

In any case, Jesus talked about heaven quite a bit. He did not seem to think that this was problematic.

That is only true if you believe "Kingdom of heaven" is talking only about heaven, as opposed to something like "the reign of God"-- something that happens in this earth and this life as well as the next.

In terms of the next life, by my count Jesus says very very little. Basically, as others have noted, he tells us only that there is a next life, and that God is there. That should suffice.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is he, staff?

Is that a trick question?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is he, staff?
Is that a trick question?

And how about when Jesus fixed the disciples breakfast on the shore of Galilee after the Resurrection?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is he, staff?
Is that a trick question?
And how about when Jesus fixed the disciples breakfast on the shore of Galilee after the Resurrection?

Yes, staff would be a good word:

quote:
Luke 22:27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

I hadn't thought of that.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That is only true if you believe "Kingdom of heaven" is talking only about heaven, as opposed to something like "the reign of God"

I don't see anything wrong with either reading. As I said, though, I had never heard of the second reading until fairly recently. Equating "heaven" and the "kingdom of heaven" works perfectly well.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That is only true if you believe "Kingdom of heaven" is talking only about heaven, as opposed to something like "the reign of God"
I don't see anything wrong with either reading. As I said, though, I had never heard of the second reading until fairly recently. Equating "heaven" and the "kingdom of heaven" works perfectly well.

But then, Jesus says stuff like this:

quote:
Luke 17:20-21: the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?”* Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God isn’t ushered in with visible signs. You won’t be able to say, ‘here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’. For the Kingdom of God is among you.”

Here Jesus seems to be explicitly saying the Kingdom of God/Heaven is not just "over there" or "up there" but rather right here, on this earth.

*"Kingdom of God" being, of course, the term used everywhere other than Matthew, who uses "kingdom of heaven"

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But then, Jesus says stuff like this:

quote:
Luke 17:20-21: the Pharisees asked Jesus, When will the Kingdom of God come?* Jesus replied, The Kingdom of God isnt ushered in with visible signs. You wont be able to say, here it is! or Its over there!. For the Kingdom of God is among you.
Here Jesus seems to be explicitly saying the Kingdom of God/Heaven is not just "over there" or "up there" but rather right here, on this earth.

(Emphasis mine)

How is that not saying "here it is"?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

AmandaBR provides a very fitting example of the pictorial device, understood by all even though not to be taken entirely literally, here.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
*"Kingdom of God" being, of course, the term used everywhere other than Matthew, who uses "kingdom of heaven"

Yes, I understand that "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" mean the same thing and that sometimes they are used in ways that only make sense referring to God's kingdom here on earth.

Other times it only makes sense to understand these terms as referring to His kingdom in heaven.

It really amounts to the same thing since it's the same kingdom either way - the kingdom of those who love and God and the neighbor.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But then, Jesus says stuff like this:

quote:
Luke 17:20-21: the Pharisees asked Jesus, When will the Kingdom of God come?* Jesus replied, The Kingdom of God isnt ushered in with visible signs. You wont be able to say, here it is! or Its over there!. For the Kingdom of God is among you.
Here Jesus seems to be explicitly saying the Kingdom of God/Heaven is not just "over there" or "up there" but rather right here, on this earth.
(Emphasis mine)

How is that not saying "here it is"?

(rueful grin). Ok, point. Still, I think that is the clear (or not?) implication of "it's among you"

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Still, I think that is the clear (or not?) implication of "it's among you"

I'm aware of that translation issue ("among" vs. "within"), but I'm not aware of how much scholarly agreement (or disagreement) there is over the meaning of the original text - are you? Is the original ambiguous? I've been assuming that there are reasonable arguments for both cases, but that's just an assumption on my part. I'm also not sure what the implications are in either case.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Still, I think that is the clear (or not?) implication of "it's among you"
I'm aware of that translation issue ("among" vs. "within"), but I'm not aware of how much scholarly agreement (or disagreement) there is over the meaning of the original text - are you? Is the original ambiguous? I've been assuming that there are reasonable arguments for both cases, but that's just an assumption on my part. I'm also not sure what the implications are in either case.

I probably don't know any more than you, I am aware of the debate but my Greek is far too poor to weigh in on it. I'm just not sure that either way it changes my point re: the kingdom of heaven not just being "up there". All of which is a digression from the OP on the subpoint of "does Jesus have much to say specifically about heaven?"

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

A digression on the subpoint, but quite relevant to the OP question about cerebral palsy in heaven.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Still, I think that is the clear (or not?) implication of "it's among you"
I'm aware of that translation issue ("among" vs. "within"), but I'm not aware of how much scholarly agreement (or disagreement) there is over the meaning of the original text - are you? Is the original ambiguous? I've been assuming that there are reasonable arguments for both cases, but that's just an assumption on my part. I'm also not sure what the implications are in either case.

Trouble is that the "you" in that sentence is definitely a plural.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Still, I think that is the clear (or not?) implication of "it's among you"
I'm aware of that translation issue ("among" vs. "within"), but I'm not aware of how much scholarly agreement (or disagreement) there is over the meaning of the original text - are you? Is the original ambiguous? I've been assuming that there are reasonable arguments for both cases, but that's just an assumption on my part. I'm also not sure what the implications are in either case.
Trouble is that the "you" in that sentence is definitely a plural.

But again, my point. The "you" is a plural "you" here on earth. The statement is intriguing and can be parsed in all sorts of interesting and debatable ways, but all of them point to a "kingdom of heaven" that is not "up there" but rather is or has come "down here" (so to speak). Which goes to the point that when Jesus teaches/preaches about the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven he is not speaking exclusively of something "over there" or "up there".

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Thank you, Bullfrog, for pointing that out about the plural "you."

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The statement is intriguing and can be parsed in all sorts of interesting and debatable ways, but all of them point to a "kingdom of heaven" that is not "up there" but rather is or has come "down here" (so to speak).

Yes, that is a valid way to interpret the phrase, but it seems to me that it can also mean that heaven is not only about the afterlife, but is also something we can participate in the here and now. That is, I don't see that the passage implies that there is no heaven awaiting us after we die.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Thank you, Bullfrog, for pointing that out about the plural "you."

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The statement is intriguing and can be parsed in all sorts of interesting and debatable ways, but all of them point to a "kingdom of heaven" that is not "up there" but rather is or has come "down here" (so to speak).
Yes, that is a valid way to interpret the phrase, but it seems to me that it can also mean that heaven is not only about the afterlife, but is also something we can participate in the here and now. That is, I don't see that the passage implies that there is no heaven awaiting us after we die.

Yes, sorry, that is what I meant. I think that may have been clearer (I hope so anyway) in some of my earlier posts before all the back & forth.

[ 16. April 2013, 02:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Sorry - missed that!

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The statement is intriguing and can be parsed in all sorts of interesting and debatable ways, but all of them point to a "kingdom of heaven" that is not "up there" but rather is or has come "down here" (so to speak).

I agree also. "Higher" and "inner" can often mean the same thing. Our "higher" self is also our "inner" self, our souls are both above our worldly consciousness and within it. Heaven is both on high and within.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0