Ship of Fools: Is heaven a democracy or a benevolent dictatorship?

Thread: Is heaven a democracy or a benevolent dictatorship? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023129

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

I've been contemplating this idea. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it.

You could say that earthly concepts won't apply in the new world and we can't understand what it will be like with our finite brains. But I'd like to try.

While we're on earth, there's a constant struggle between the powers of good and evil. We're free to take whichever side we like. So in effect there's a modicum of 'democracy', in that we can choose what kind of world we live in. We don't have to do what God wants if we don't want to. The most powerful get their way. Although God brings good out of the evil if we want him to, even if we're in a weak minority.

But in heaven, will it be different? Will we have no free will? Will it be a benevolent, mind-controlled totalitarian regime? Or will it be that there will still be freedom to choose, but we'll be free to choose the good, and the evil dark side will be forever defeated? And only those who have chosen to reject evil and accept good will be allowed in? What if they change their minds? Will that be impossible?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I like the New Church take on heaven and hell.

" Death is merely a transition of the spirit between different states of being. When the body stops working, the soul is no longer anchored to the natural world. So where does it go? The soul, that is to say, our true nature beyond our physical form, awakens in the world of spirits and continues the journey that was begun on earth. After death, we find ourselves in a place which looks very similar to earth but is far more beautiful. We are still ourselves, we're reunited with those we love, and we complete our personal development, choosing a home in the location most appropriate within the spiritual world. "

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :

Pardon the tangent but I've wanted to comment on your sig [redderfreak] for some time - it takes me back to the Rainbow Music Hall somewhere in metro Denver early 1980.

I hear the voice in my mind and isn't it vintage Bob?

What's particulary interesting to me is how 'unmelodic' many critics would say it is but yet it works so well.

Please carry on. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 05. June 2012, 10:14: Message edited by: 205 ]

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I like the New Church take on heaven and hell.

" Death is merely a transition of the spirit between different states of being. When the body stops working, the soul is no longer anchored to the natural world. So where does it go? The soul, that is to say, our true nature beyond our physical form, awakens in the world of spirits and continues the journey that was begun on earth. After death, we find ourselves in a place which looks very similar to earth but is far more beautiful. We are still ourselves, we're reunited with those we love, and we complete our personal development, choosing a home in the location most appropriate within the spiritual world. "

So will we be free to choose between good and evil in the new spiritual world?

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 205:
Pardon the tangent but I've wanted to comment on your sig [redderfreak] for some time - it takes me back to the Rainbow Music Hall somewhere in metro Denver early 1980.

I hear the voice in my mind and isn't it vintage Bob?

What's particulary interesting to me is how 'unmelodic' many critics would say it is but yet it works so well.

Please carry on.

Thanks, yes that's the one. Great performance. Shine your light on me!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

+Richard Harries has an interesting take on this, speculating that there is no reason to think that our capacity to deliberate, any more than our capacity to love, will be taken away from us in Heaven: both are, he argues, God-given capacities and integral to what we are.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
So will we be free to choose between good and evil in the new spiritual world?

According to the New Church, yes - and we'll be able to improve our choices too.

"Our spiritual home is structured according to what we love most — it is also the place where we'll be happiest. If our ruling love is self-serving and hurtful, the most appropriate place for us is in hell. If it's a love which is selfless and good, our home will be located within an area of heaven."

From the same web site. It certainly makes sense to me.

<code>

[ 05. June 2012, 11:41: Message edited by: Boogie ]

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

They will not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain. Er, as God doesn't have freewill, as it's absolutely meaningless in Him, as He could NEVER choose to do evil, His won't.

It will be a benevolent democracy.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Let's imagine a scenario in which we can choose ten different options. Nine of these are "good" and one of them is "evil". But the evil option is really a choice to reject freedom.

Now suppose someone were to come along and deprive us of the "evil option". So we can now only choose the "good" nine. Have we now been deprived of our freedom?

I don't think so.

Since the evil option involves a negation of freedom (isn't that the nature of evil to bind people to compulsion and addiction?), then the removal of this option is an act of protecting our freedom.

So I see no reason why heaven (the place cleansed of evil and the possibility of evil) cannot be both a democracy (i.e. involving the choice of a range of beneficial options) and a benevolent dictatorship (the evil option forcibly removed by God's authority).

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I don't know about the either-or of the question, but I always kind of wince at "free will" as used in this setting.

That's because of something Jesus said in John, ch.8, that "if you continue in my word... you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Which means that in some way we are not free now. Martin points out that God, though Almighty and unimpeded, immutable, etc, cannot sin. Whereas me, I cannot NOT sin - if not overt commission, still, all of my being "comes short of the glory of God." And I feel it all the time. So I am not free, my will is not as free as someday it will be - free to rejoice in the presence of God and the presence of you all. I can get a hint of it now, but I "see through a glass darkly". Free from the ability to sin. "Conformed to the image of His Son," as Paul says in Romans ch. 8.

It is a glorious destiny. We will be free to love one another fully, to learn of one another and appreciate one another and commune with one another- and with the triune God.

So if I had to pick, I'd go with he benevolent dictatorship, because God must always be supreme. Still, it would be the benevolent dictatorship of the family, with God as the head, loving us fully as He always has, but with us being able to fully receive it and reciprocate as well.

See you there,

Tom

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

Bliss. The VERY best rhetoric, nay dialectical synthesis I've seen for a LONG time.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

ISTM that all human notions such as power structures, wealth , values, endeavours and achievements will not have any relevance in Heaven or even exist there .

I believe we possibly just get the merest glimpses of what Heaven might be like . And yes " the things we love most" could be the only way of relating to something of which we have yet to experience.

I sometimes wonder if being in the Presence of God is something whereby we won't even retain our individuality , maybe our souls will be all mixed together with those of unborn babies in a way it is impossible for us to comprehend .

OTOH Heaven might be an incomprensible version of "West World" where you can live out every whime without a rogue robot spoiling the fun.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I like the New Church take on heaven and hell.

Me too.

According to New Church teaching, heaven is a democracy in the same sense that the physical earth is a democracy. You have to live within the laws of physics and scarce resources, but within those laws you can do whatever you wish.

The Lord's kingdom in heaven operates in a similar way, but instead of being governed by physics it is governed by the equivalent spiritual laws.

The Lord is acknowledged everywhere in heaven as its sovereign ruler. He is not necessarily more evident or constantly visible there than He is in this world, but the inhabitants of heaven have a much more exquisite understanding and sense of His presence than we do here.

Within the kingdom of heaven there are many countries, cities, and communities, each with its own chosen form of government. Whether this form is democratic or some other traditional form would depend on the wishes of the people. This is heaven, after all, so any number of different systems will work very nicely.

In hell the government is somewhat different, according to New Church teaching. There the most powerful rule by force and there are frequent coups and revolutions.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

It's anarchy!!!!! [Cool]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I don't know for sure what comes after the resurrection. Is heaven an actual place with pearly gates and streets of gold? Will be living on a new earth as perfect as our new bodies? I don't know about hell. Is hell an actual place of fire and torment? Will souls of some be annihilated? Will all eventually be resurrected?

Here is what I do know. Anybody post-resurrection who has the audacity to say to Jesus, "Excuse me, Jesus (not Lord we don't have real lords in a democracy), this is nice and all but could we form a deliberative body and vote on stuff," deserves to be thrown into the lake of fire and suffer for all eternity. Would heaven be a parliamentary democracy? If so, would Jesus be more like the head of state or prime minister? What with it being heaven and all, maybe, we would see fit to give Jesus the powers of the president of the United States. Given veto power and the creative use of executive order, Jesus might be able to keep us from fucking up heaven or the new earth as bad as we've fucked up this earth with all our free will.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

In what sense can a dictatorship that has a program for torturing dissidents be considered "benevolent"?

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

They torture themselves mate, rather than anyone else. Their ultimate, free choice. I like John Polkinghorne's analogy with stasis at absolute zero and Dante's Cocytus. Mercy ALWAYS triumphs over judgement.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

What, exactly, would require a government in the Kingdom of God anyway? Levying taxes and maintaining law and order will not really be issues I should imagine. Interactions between human beings, without the sting of sin and death, will not need to be regulated for they will always be directed by faith and charity. There won't be a military to maintain. It seems to me that government is only necessary in the first place because of sin, and in the resurrection humanity will be truly free.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
They torture themselves mate, rather than anyone else. Their ultimate, free choice.

Isn't that what torturers have told their victims throughout the ages? "You have the power to end this any time."

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
They torture themselves mate, rather than anyone else. Their ultimate, free choice.
Isn't that what torturers have told their victims throughout the ages? "You have the power to end this any time."

Some of us haven't dispensed with the idea of justice altogether.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I hope Heaven isn't a democracy. The Saved (?) would be voting to put some in a position to govern them. AFAIAC there won't be any government beyond that which God puts in place.

If we can trust God here can't we trust Him there?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
In what sense can a dictatorship that has a program for torturing dissidents be considered "benevolent"?

But what if it's benevolence itself which tortures certain people?

After all, that is what evil is: a deep-seated fear, loathing and contempt for all that is good, kind and merciful.

Those who want nothing to do with the love of God flatter themselves to think that God would give them so much attention as to want to torture them. Let them torture themselves.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
In what sense can a dictatorship that has a program for torturing dissidents be considered "benevolent"?
But what if it's benevolence itself which tortures certain people?

I'm pretty sure there's no Biblical justification for this "torturous benevolence" interpretation. Care to make a citation?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, that is what evil is: a deep-seated fear, loathing and contempt for all that is good, kind and merciful.

I'm guessing this is the Kingdom of Heaven's equivalent of "they hate us for our freedoms".

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

My hypothesis is that the goal of our life on this earth is for us to learn-- in the same ways we learn pretty much everything (experience, observation, trial & error)-- that God's ways really are the best for us, so that we will freely choose them.

The Kingdom of God (broader than "heaven" as I understand it) then is the place where we have freely chosen God's ways out of our trust that this is in our best interests, the way we freely want to live.

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

Nobody tortures Satan but Satan. Unless you say that God tortures him by not letting him have his way: murder. Fine.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
I'm pretty sure there's no Biblical justification for this "torturous benevolence" interpretation. Care to make a citation?

I've put a whole juicy video together about it - biblical references included.

quote:
I'm guessing this is the Kingdom of Heaven's equivalent of "they hate us for our freedoms".

Then you've guessed wrong.

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

Zach82 - if one wants justice, one can have it. Rather than mercy. The damned would rather ... die.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What, exactly, would require a government in the Kingdom of God anyway?

It makes sense to wonder that.

According to New Church teachings, governments are needed in heaven because although people there are all well-intentioned, they are not perfect and therefore need guidance:

quote:
Forms of Government in Heaven
Since heaven is differentiated into communities, and the larger communities consist of some hundreds of thousands of angels, and since all the people in a given community are involved in similar good but not in similar wisdom, it follows of necessity that there are forms of government. Good order needs to be kept, and all matters of good order seen to.
The actual forms of government in heaven vary, though. Heaven and Hell 213

There is a whole section in this book about government in heaven.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
It makes sense to wonder that.

According to New Church teachings...

Fanciful, semi-biblical cosmological speculation aside, if human government is the result of sin, it follows that the need for human government goes away once sin is finally defeated. As for divine government, we shall be directly in the presence of God in the Kingdom, "and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

When one puts his faith in God, and only in God, he is governed perfectly by grace.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

It's yet another question for which we do not have an answer. Wait a short period of time and find out. I do, of course, have my own comments.

If you expect Heaven to reflect anything in the Bible, you should certainly not expect a democracy or a republic. Every government in the Bible is strictly top-down autocratic: kings, emperors, governors of provinces, etc. There is not always any government at all (consider the book of Judges). If the entire panoply of Mosaic law is implemented--and it never was--you would have a theocracy. It seems unlikely we will have a vote.

On the other hand, if we reach Heaven at all, it will be by accepting the will of God, that is, accepting God as the ruler. Do you really expect to be in conflict?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I like the New Church take on heaven and hell.

" Death is merely a transition of the spirit between different states of being. When the body stops working, the soul is no longer anchored to the natural world. So where does it go? The soul, that is to say, our true nature beyond our physical form, awakens in the world of spirits and continues the journey that was begun on earth. After death, we find ourselves in a place which looks very similar to earth but is far more beautiful. We are still ourselves, we're reunited with those we love, and we complete our personal development, choosing a home in the location most appropriate within the spiritual world. "

It seems to miss out, what I would consider an essential doctrine - The Resurrection of the body.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
It seems to miss out, what I would consider an essential doctrine - The Resurrection of the body.

Unless Freddy has changed his beliefs recently, he doesn't believe in the resurrection of the body.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Fanciful, semi-biblical cosmological speculation aside,

Yes, sorry about that.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, sorry about that.

Hmmmm... OK, we'll agree to differ... for now...

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Heaven is a theocracy, yes?

I suspect living continually, eternally safe, bathed in the Light, kinda kills any desire for bad choices.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Heaven is a theocracy, yes?

I suspect living continually, eternally safe, bathed in the Light, kinda kills any desire for bad choices.

Yeah.. something like that I guess.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

A sure way for most people to misconceptualise Heaven is to put their false hopes on it.

It is, I suspect, far, far better than our imaginings. Something unimaginable.

The task is not to fantasise about it, nor spread those fantasies, but to attempt, by our very real prayer life (if we have one) and actions resultant from that, plus, most important, that extra and never-to-be-presumed-on but freely given "ingredient" - Divine Grace - to realize it, to whatever extent, in our lives in the here and now.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
After death, we find ourselves in a place which looks very similar to earth but is far more beautiful. We are still ourselves, we're reunited with those we love, and we complete our personal development, choosing a home in the location most appropriate within the spiritual world. "
So will we be free to choose between good and evil in the new spiritual world?

Yes.

But you have to understand how it works.

According to this system, all your decisions are fundamentally based on the choices you made in this world, assuming that you were free to make choices.

So in the next life you are actually following and refining your interests, based on the choices inherent in the kind of life you lived in the world. The choices and actions of your life "formed" your spirit.

These interests then lead you to live the way that you want to live in the next life, and this in turn leads you to greater or less happiness depending on the nature of what you wish for and love, and therefore what you do.

The spiritual laws that govern how things work in the next life act to bring together those with similar interests and beliefs. People then voluntarily gather into communities, districts and nations, with every person finding a place perfectly suited to them. People are able to do exactly what they wish to do and go where they want to go.

This feature enables both heaven and hell to exist, and is the organizing principle of the entire spiritual world.

Hell is nothing more than what life is like when self-centered people, who share similar self-centered interests, band together into communities.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Zach82 - if one wants justice, one can have it. Rather than mercy. The damned would rather ... die.

That seems a very limited understanding of "justice".

quote:
There are three big problems (at least) with thinking of justice in this way. The first is that it suggests that grace, mercy, pardon and forgiveness cannot satisfy justice and are not a part of justice. It suggests that grace, mercy, pardon and forgiveness violate justice. God’s bodkin that’s a bad place to be.

The second problem with defining justice as inexorable punishment is that it reduces justice from an end to a means. Punishment can never be an end unto itself, it always serves some larger purpose, some desired end. Punishment that serves no larger end or purpose cannot mean anything, and meaningless punishment is merely torment. The end that legitimate punishment serves is justice — justice in this sense meaning not simply the rough justice of fairness, but the justice of wholeness, of reconciliation and restoration.

The third problem with this definition of justice is that it is wholly negative. Justice cannot only be concerned with punishing wrongdoers, it must also be concerned with compensating and restoring those who have been wronged. The writer of this essay is preoccupied with the injustice of this fallen world, seeing here a world full of sinners deserving punishment. But because this world is, indeed, fallen and unjust, it is also a world full of people suffering unjustly, people being oppressed, exploited, abused, misused, cheated, injured and violated. That, too, requires the correction of justice — not inescapable punishment, but healing, compensation, reparation and restoration.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
That, too, requires the correction of justice — not inescapable punishment, but healing, compensation, reparation and restoration.

There are not only victims in this world, and not everyone even wants healing, compensation, reparation or restoration. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Hell does not mean God isn't merciful. God offers his grace freely and unconditionally. It's humanity that doesn't want it and flees at the very sight of it.

[ 06. June 2012, 01:49: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let's imagine a scenario in which we can choose ten different options. Nine of these are "good" and one of them is "evil".

It's never that simple. Several different choices can be good in different ways, depending on the specific good in question. I can choose to do what's good for me, what's good for someone else, or what's good for God. All are good in some ways and all are bad in some ways.

Heaven is a dictatorship, and a more totalitarian one than we could ever form down here on earth. Even though every single citizen of Heaven will be in complete agreement with every other citizen about every single decision that is ever made (the "right" answer in all cases being, of course, whatever God says it is), that state of affairs will only persist because all those who disagree about even the least important issue will be cast into Hell. "Choice" and "free will" will exist only as theoretical concepts, in the same way that Henry Ford offered a theoretical choice to his customers when selecting the colour of their cars.

In afterlife terms, we have the choice to be either automatons in Heaven or free thinkers in Hell. Brainwashed clones in Paradise or independent rational entities in eternal torture. And with no other options, and no means of abdication or escape. Enjoy!

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Since the evil option involves a negation of freedom (isn't that the nature of evil to bind people to compulsion and addiction?), then the removal of this option is an act of protecting our freedom.

That's fine as long as you don't use the Free Will argument to explain the Problem of Evil.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Since the evil option involves a negation of freedom (isn't that the nature of evil to bind people to compulsion and addiction?), then the removal of this option is an act of protecting our freedom.

In fact, that seems to be in conflict with the other idea, frequently expressed in apologetics, that people choose Hell of their own free will.

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

Their own autonomous will. Continuing in autonomy when freedom from it is offered is aberrant. Choose your master.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So in the next life you are actually following and refining your interests, based on the choices inherent in the kind of life you lived in the world. The choices and actions of your life "formed" your spirit.

<snip>

Hell is nothing more than what life is like when self-centered people, who share similar self-centered interests, band together into communities.

Doesn't this mean that everyone goes to Hell? Following your own interests (instead of someone elses interests) is "self-centered", almost by definition.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Their own autonomous will. Continuing in autonomy when freedom from it is offered is aberrant. Choose your master.

So the natural state of mankind is slavery? Given the relative paucity of historic examples where people volunteered for enslavement makes me doubt this proposition. To crib shamelessly from a Hollywood script writer some words ably delivered by Anthony Hopkins:

quote:
Well, gentlemen, I must say I differ with the keen minds of the South and with our President, who apparently shares their views, offering that the natural state of mankind is instead - and I know this is a controversial idea - is freedom. Is freedom. And the proof is the length to which a man, woman or child will go to regain it once taken. He will break loose his chains. He will decimate his enemies. He will try and try and try, against all odds, against all prejudices, to get home.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Since the evil option involves a negation of freedom (isn't that the nature of evil to bind people to compulsion and addiction?), then the removal of this option is an act of protecting our freedom.
In fact, that seems to be in conflict with the other idea, frequently expressed in apologetics, that people choose Hell of their own free will.

On one level you are right.

But let's suppose that someone derived their whole well-being from oppressing other people. His exercise of freedom involved oppressing, enslaving and destroying others.

While it is true that he is making a free choice, that very choice is a negation of freedom for those he is oppressing. In other words, he is choosing slavery for others.

Now suppose a system of justice and liberation came along and deprived this evil man of his victims, by emancipating them and then protecting them from all further oppression. Where would that leave the oppressor? He would need to be "bound" in some place where he could be prevented from oppressing others. He would effectively lose his freedom.

But actually he has not lost his freedom at all. All that has happened is that his victims have been given their freedom, and this freedom has been guaranteed. Thus the oppressor is left in a kind of "hell". He has built his life on deriving pleasure from oppressing others, and now he has no "material to work on". He is left in a perpetual vacuum of endless frustration. He can continue to be as oppressive as he likes. But he will have no one to oppress.

So everybody's freedom has been guaranteed. Some are in "heaven" (those victims who have been emancipated) and others are in "hell" (the oppressors).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Ah! I see where you're coming from.

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks.

It makes perfect sense for those whose selfish desires center around oppressing others, yes.

But there are others (myself included) whose selfish desires don't manifest in the deliberate oppression of others, but in indifference to them. And for us the fact that none shall be oppressed in Heaven wouldn't mean we would have no "material to work on". So how would the "we choose Hell for ourselves" thing work out in our case?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...On one level you are right.

But let's suppose that someone derived their whole well-being from oppressing other people. His exercise of freedom involved oppressing, enslaving and destroying others.

While it is true that he is making a free choice, that very choice is a negation of freedom for those he is oppressing. In other words, he is choosing slavery for others.

Now suppose a system of justice and liberation came along and deprived this evil man of his victims, by emancipating them and then protecting them from all further oppression. Where would that leave the oppressor? He would need to be "bound" in some place where he could be prevented from oppressing others. He would effectively lose his freedom.

But actually he has not lost his freedom at all. All that has happened is that his victims have been given their freedom, and this freedom has been guaranteed. Thus the oppressor is left in a kind of "hell". He has built his life on deriving pleasure from oppressing others, and now he has no "material to work on". He is left in a perpetual vacuum of endless frustration. He can continue to be as oppressive as he likes. But he will have no one to oppress.

So everybody's freedom has been guaranteed. Some are in "heaven" (those victims who have been emancipated) and others are in "hell" (the oppressors).

This is very good!

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So in the next life you are actually following and refining your interests, based on the choices inherent in the kind of life you lived in the world. The choices and actions of your life "formed" your spirit.

<snip>

Hell is nothing more than what life is like when self-centered people, who share similar self-centered interests, band together into communities.
Doesn't this mean that everyone goes to Hell? Following your own interests (instead of someone elses interests) is "self-centered", almost by definition.

Unless your interest is in serving God and the interests of others. The theory is that this is not only possible but enormously fulfilling.

[ 06. June 2012, 17:34: Message edited by: Freddy ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I like the New Church take on heaven and hell.

" ....... we're reunited with those we love........ "

How does this work if those we love don't love us?
Do they get conscripted into this further existence or are there multiple existences so that a virtual (simulacrum?) those-we-love can enhance our heaven without impinging on their heaven (which we can't occupy because they don't want us there)? Or is someone assuming that everyone will love everyone else (compulsory mutually requited love) irrespective of the fact that they were a b*****d in this life?

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

Aye Croesos. A slave to righteousness. To love. To co-operation. To harmony. To peace. To patience. To joy. To functionality. How awful when you could be autonomous, in competition, disharmony, discontent, hatred.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks.
It makes perfect sense for those whose selfish desires center around oppressing others, yes.

But there are others (myself included) whose selfish desires don't manifest in the deliberate oppression of others, but in indifference to them. And for us the fact that none shall be oppressed in Heaven wouldn't mean we would have no "material to work on". So how would the "we choose Hell for ourselves" thing work out in our case?

True.

Thinking about it a bit more, I suppose the main temptations I am exposed to go something like this: Should I (a) do my job properly, or (b) take a shortcut that causes problems for my colleagues a few weeks down the line but in a way that can't easily be traced to me? If I choose (b), it's not because I dislike my colleagues, but because I like slacking off.

Now, on the one hand, I suppose it's good to imagine I can live my life by (b) and still go to Heaven. On the other hand, the argument supposes that our destination in the afterlife is in some way reflective of our desires here on Earth ...

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I like the New Church take on heaven and hell.

" ....... we're reunited with those we love........ "
How does this work if those we love don't love us?

According to the New Church understanding, it works because of the way that love works in the spiritual realm. Fundamentally you will only love people who share similar loves with you.

So you may be interested to see someone that you knew and loved in this world, but after a short time you will not be interested in being with them, and they won't be interested in being with you, if there is no compatibility. This is something that is much more completely evident in that world than this one.

Because people's true natures are so evident to everyone in the spiritual world it doesn't happen that one person loves another who doesn't return that same love. This is so unhappily common in this world because we are unable to immediately perceive what is really going on with people. Instead we are are attracted by appearance, personality and similar factors.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Do they get conscripted into this further existence or are there multiple existences so that a virtual (simulacrum?) those-we-love can enhance our heaven without impinging on their heaven (which we can't occupy because they don't want us there)?

There is something a little bit like that in the New Church descriptions. Very famous people, especially religious figures like the Apostles, Moses or Mohammed, are constantly sought after by people entering the next life. Since it would be impossible to actually meet them all there are people who essentially act the part for the sake of welcoming people to heaven.

These "actors" explain to people that there is nothing holy about these characters and that everything is from God. They then understand that they are not really meeting Moses or Mohammed, so it is not a deception that is perpetuated.

But there is nothing similar for non-famous people, who are only sought out by people who actually knew them. For them, whether there was a strong mutual friendship or not, the normal qualities of the spiritual realm solve the relationship issues that we might expect to arise when strong attachments are not reciprocated.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Or is someone assuming that everyone will love everyone else (compulsory mutually requited love) irrespective of the fact that they were a b*****d in this life?

Actually, people in heaven do love everyone else, whether b*****ds or not. The way it works is that the good love everyone and the self-centered essentially love no one. This tends to happen in this world as well, but there are other factors that run interference, such as mutual self-interest. Mutual self-interest mimics love but is not actually love.

In the next life these things are stripped away and self-centered people can't bear to be with those who are sincere. Sincere people, on the other hand, are tolerant and accepting of everyone, even though they clearly see their true nature.

What this means is that the evil simply do not want to be among people who love God and one another, but look for people who have similar interests and natures as themselves. The environments that this feature creates are not as idyllic as those of the communities of people whose interests are more in line with God's will.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Now, on the one hand, I suppose it's good to imagine I can live my life by (b) and still go to Heaven. On the other hand, the argument supposes that our destination in the afterlife is in some way reflective of our desires here on Earth ...

Is slacking off and taking it easy not allowed in Heaven then? The place just gets worse and worse... [Biased]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Marvin the Martian

quote:
Is slacking off and taking it easy not allowed in Heaven then? The place just gets worse and worse...

To quote Milton out of context, Marvin, might offer some hope, though it looks a bit of a toss-up between exhaustion and inactivity:

Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Actually heaven is all about "slacking off":

Hebrews 4:9

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Actually heaven is all about "slacking off":

Hebrews 4:9

So I guess I'm in Heaven every day after lunch then [Biased]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Actually heaven is all about "slacking off":
Hebrews 4:9
So I guess I'm in Heaven every day after lunch then

Heaven is all about rest, but rest does not necessarily imply inactivity. We are comfortable and rested when we are doing what we enjoy, with variety, recreation, and, yes, periods of inactivity thrown in when desired.

Pure slacking-off gets boring at some point, even for those of us with a high tolerance. [Snore]

A lot of people don't think that this applies in eternity, but my understanding is that it does. [Angel]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Heaven is all about rest, but rest does not necessarily imply inactivity. We are comfortable and rested when we are doing what we enjoy, with variety, recreation, and, yes, periods of inactivity thrown in when desired.

This sounds like the perfect retirement to me.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Now, on the one hand, I suppose it's good to imagine I can live my life by (b) and still go to Heaven. On the other hand, the argument supposes that our destination in the afterlife is in some way reflective of our desires here on Earth ...
Is slacking off and taking it easy not allowed in Heaven then? The place just gets worse and worse...

Actually, that's kind of my point - relaxing is good. So I'm not choosing evil instead of good, but choosing good and obtaining it by dodgy means.

(FWIW, my own views on the afterlife are a giant question-mark.)

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

Anyone who claims otherwise needs the same giant question mark over them.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Anyone who claims otherwise needs the same giant question mark over them.

Hey!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0