Thread: The Biblical View of Heaven 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=023075
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
First-century Jews who believed Jesus was Messiah also believed he inaugurated the Kingdom of God and were convinced the world would be transformed in their own lifetimes, Wright said. This inauguration, however, was far from complete and required the active participation of God's people practicing social justice, nonviolence and forgiveness to become fulfilled.

Once the Kingdom is complete, he said, the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth. "What we are doing at the moment is building for the Kingdom," Wright explained.

This is an excerpt from NT Wright asks: Have we got heaven all wrong?

I've got his new book but have yet had time to read it.

Coupla questions that come up for me:

1) It seems to me that the expectation that the Kingdom would come in the disciples lifetimes is well attested to in the NT. So why didn't it? It certainly began with the coming of Christ, but why didn't it come fully as was expected?

2) Do you believe we actively participate in bringing in the Kingdom of God or are we just filling in time until God does it all?

3) What are the implications for us today if we believe this kind of view? Do you like it? Dislike it? Why?
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Coupla quick responses from outside the mainstream:

1) The answer is probably related to a similar question, namely why did God wait so long to send his Son to begin with?

2) One thing I've noticed about the Gospels is that Jesus mostly taught and healed. He rarely did anything we would call "work" himself, although there is no indication that he was unable or unwilling. He almost always bid his disciples to do such things as cast their nets, find food or distribute it, pay tribute money, prepare the Passover, fetch a donkey, etc. The only exception I can think of off hand is that he gave food to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee after the Resurrection.

I think this is representative of God's relationship to people of all time. He rarely does the visible work necessary, but rather bids us do it for ourselves from our faith in him and for each other out of love for him. It's his way of allowing us to participate in fulfilling the purpose of his creation.

3) The implication I take from it is that God never wastes anything, including time. He is bidding us to do things like take up our bed and walk, follow him, and care for each other every moment of our lives because when we do these things for his sake, he is able to bring heaven to us. And I love this implication because as much as I look forward to life after death, I do not have to wait for anything.

[ 17. May 2012, 04:25: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Isn't the problem that there's no consensus on what Jesus meant by 'the Kingdom of Heaven'?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
W Hyatt: One thing I've noticed about the Gospels is that Jesus mostly taught and healed. He rarely did anything we would call "work" himself
Teachers and doctors don't work? [Confused]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:


Coupla questions that come up for me:

1) It seems to me that the expectation that the Kingdom would come in the disciples lifetimes is well attested to in the NT. So why didn't it? It certainly began with the coming of Christ, but why didn't it come fully as was expected?

2) Do you believe we actively participate in bringing in the Kingdom of God or are we just filling in time until God does it all?

3) What are the implications for us today if we believe this kind of view? Do you like it? Dislike it? Why?
1) They were wrong. Jesus said they don't know the day or hour. If they assumed it was 'tomorrow', well that was just their assumption.

2) Yes we actively participate. By prayer and 'anticipatory work.'

3)The parable says 'Occupy until he comes'. In other words, do the work of the Kingdom whilst lifting up our heads because our redemption draws nigh.


In my view, the kingdom is much more tangible and physical than heavenly music played by spirits on clouds.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Who said the Kingdom of Heaven isn't here? I think your question fails at the first hurdle: the kingdom of heaven is not just something that happens when you die.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Once the Kingdom is complete, he said, the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth.
Gosh. It's going to be awfully crowded.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Once the Kingdom is complete, he said, the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth.
Gosh. It's going to be awfully crowded.
Why, are you expecting all mankind to be saved?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
It's a good thing many people go to Hell then, to avoid the restored earth becoming too full. I for one will want to have a nice peace of land with my mansion, so can't have to many buggers around here [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Once the Kingdom is complete, he said, the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth.
Gosh. It's going to be awfully crowded.
Why, are you expecting all mankind to be saved?
I think that anyone arguing as Wright does should be expecting all humankind to be resurrected.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
W Hyatt: One thing I've noticed about the Gospels is that Jesus mostly taught and healed. He rarely did anything we would call "work" himself
Teachers and doctors don't work? [Confused]
Good point - perhaps I should have said that he rarely did anything we would call "physical labor" himself.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Once the Kingdom is complete, he said, the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth.
Gosh. It's going to be awfully crowded.
Not really, no more sea means a lot of extra land to play with, and a lot more areas would presumably be inhabitable if there is no more pain. Even if every human in history (something like 100 billion, it's estimated) were saved, there would be sufficient room.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in response to the statement that the sea would be no more. How can Heaven be Heaven without the sea?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I think we have only the vaguest idea of what the "new heaven and new earth" will be like, or whether it will literally be on this planet w/ it's current dimensions or be remade in some different way.

As I've mentioned before on other threads, Greg Boyd has done some interesting noodling on this, in his thinking re: natural evil. He envisions a new world where nature is no longer "red of tooth & claw"-- where larger animals no longer need to prey on smaller & weaker animals to survive. Which will require a complete rethinking of what, for example, a tiger would look like. He believes there will be tigers, of course, but they will be somehow different than the tigers we now see in this fallen world.

The same would be true for the planet as a whole. If we're all going to be able to live on it, if we're going to be sustainable w/o war and disease, it's going to need to be different physically. But since we live in a world where all of those things are necessary presumptions, I don't think we can possibly imagine what the new creation will look like.

I am tickled, however, by Lewis' notion that when we see that new, unimaginable reality, it will somehow "look right"-- obvious, even-- so that we will slap our foreheads and say, "Oh! Of course!"

[ 17. May 2012, 17:03: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Casineb (# 15588) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in response to the statement that the sea would be no more. How can Heaven be Heaven without the sea?
Well, speaking of first-century Christian/Jewish perspectives, the sea was seen as the place where Satan lived and where all 'evil' things came from. When Jesus cast 'Legion' out of the man by the side of the lake the demons fled into the pigs they drowned themselves in the sea - they were trying to return home.

So, following on from this, I'm sure early Christians expected the sea to disappear.
 
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
I like the "now" and "not yet" approach to it. This world is still bitterly fallen. But the invasion has begun. You can live in it now, in that you can be an ambassador, as Paul says, or as Francis of Assisi said, "an instrument of Your peace."

I've used this illustration before, but as it's very relevant to this thread here's a repeat: I primarily like the relational aspects of Heaven. Rich Mullins, in his song "Be With You" asks that he be remade out of "stuff that's purer than gold is, and clearer than glass could ever be", a sweet interpretation of Rev. 21:21. I take that to mean that I will be perfectly holy and perfectly transparent, no "head games" or hidden agendas; completely trustworthy and forthcoming.

That is what I try to be now, to be a witness and a channel to for His love and transforming grace; hence the "now"; but the "not yet" because clearly I'm not perfectly holy, and it's impossible to be perfectly transparent, just from the nature of human limitations.

My 2 cents,

Tom
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casineb:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in response to the statement that the sea would be no more. How can Heaven be Heaven without the sea?
Well, speaking of first-century Christian/Jewish perspectives, the sea was seen as the place where Satan lived and where all 'evil' things came from. When Jesus cast 'Legion' out of the man by the side of the lake the demons fled into the pigs they drowned themselves in the sea - they were trying to return home.

So, following on from this, I'm sure early Christians expected the sea to disappear.
Thank you! I have always wondered about that.
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
I agree with Wright's assessment. Jesus said the kingdom is at hand -- within reach.

I think that the Baptist (at least on this side of the pond) idea of heaven as being some spiritual place to which you go when you die is gnosticism. It's the idea that matter is evil and spirit is good. Heaven is seen as the sweet bye-and-bye, and if we can just hang on and be good until we die we'll be ok. "Just give me a cabin on the corner of Glory-land," we sing.

I believe that heaven is more than "a mansion in the sky." Frankly, I am not much interested in spending eternity that way. I believe that heaven exists here and now: A baby's laugh, a child's birthday candles, a slice of caramel pecan pie, a glass of oatmeal stout or sweet iced tea, a hug from granny, a father's firm handshake... Also heaven is in someone's eyes when they realize something big about God, when priest or bishop presides at the table, when we engage in the selfless giving of mission work, and in countless other glimpses.

In short, "the kingdom of God is within you." Heaven is when we recognize it.
 
Posted by CuppaT (# 10523) on :
 
There is a nice little book called Heaven is for Real which I read recently. There is nothing un-Orthodox about it at all. But the Nebraska minister whose little son tells of his experience seems astounded by many things that I think are normal.
 
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
I liked that book.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't the problem that there's no consensus on what Jesus meant by 'the Kingdom of Heaven'?
There is consensus that it is now and not yet. What Wright argues is that in the end, when the kingdom comes in it's fullness, all will be transformed. Heaven will be on earth.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
1) They were wrong. Jesus said they don't know the day or hour. If they assumed it was 'tomorrow', well that was just their assumption.
Just before that quote in Mark, Jesus says he will return within the generation and heaven and earth as we know it will pass away. Are you happy to say Jesus was wrong too?

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Who said the Kingdom of Heaven isn't here? I think your question fails at the first hurdle: the kingdom of heaven is not just something that happens when you die.
Again, Wright's argument (and the I believe - the biblical tradition) says the kingdom is here, but it is not yet complete. It will only be complete when Jesus returns.

Then the whole earth will be renewed and we will all rise from the dead as he did. There is no "disembodied" heaven.

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
I agree with Wright's assessment. Jesus said the kingdom is at hand -- within reach.
At hand (Mark 1:14:15) does not imply within reach (although later texts do). It implies it is imminent. It's about to happen. The renewal of creation is at hand!

Didn't happen tho.

Sucks.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This is an excerpt from NT Wright asks: Have we got heaven all wrong?
This puzzles me because I think that Christians, and it seems to me most people on the Ship, fairly consistently say what Wright is saying. He's just parroting the same old line.

I think that Wright has heaven all wrong. The more daring and divergent alternative, which is also completely biblical, is that people enter a spiritual realm called heaven when they die and stay there forever.

The fact that this is also the popular cultural conception of heaven, not only in the Christian world but in most parts of the world, doesn't bother me at all.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It strikes me as a very earth-centric view, given our modern understanding of the universe.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I think that Wright has heaven all wrong. The more daring and divergent alternative, which is also completely biblical, is that people enter a spiritual realm called heaven when they die and stay there forever.
But what about the resurrection of the body?

Jesus was "first fruits" remember? We too shall one day be raised as he was.

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It strikes me as a very earth-centric view, given our modern understanding of the universe.
You could see it that way.

Or you could see it as a view that affirms the incarnation and the ultimate goodness of creation. The gnostics would disagree that heaven could ever be on earth because the earth ( and our physical bodies) is "bad" and to be escaped.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in response to the statement that the sea would be no more. How can Heaven be Heaven without the sea?
Three of the thirteen verses.

THUS said the Lord in the vault above the cherubim,
Calling to the angels and the souls in their degree;
“Lo! Earth has passed away
On the smoke of Judgment Day.
That our word may be established shall we gather up the sea?”

Then cried the soul of the stout Apostle Paul to God:
“Once we frapped a ship, and she labored woundily.
There were fourteen score of these,
And they blessed Thee on their knees,
When they learned Thy grace and glory under Malta by the sea.”

Sun, wind and cloud shall fail not from the face of it,
Stringing, ringing spindrift nor the fulmar flying free,
And the ships shall go abroad
To the glory of the Lord,
Who heard the silly sailor men and gave them back their sea!
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in response to the statement that the sea would be no more. How can Heaven be Heaven without the sea?
Three of the thirteen verses.

THUS said the Lord in the vault above the cherubim,
Calling to the angels and the souls in their degree;
“Lo! Earth has passed away
On the smoke of Judgment Day.
That our word may be established shall we gather up the sea?”

Then cried the soul of the stout Apostle Paul to God:
“Once we frapped a ship, and she labored woundily.
There were fourteen score of these,
And they blessed Thee on their knees,
When they learned Thy grace and glory under Malta by the sea.”

Sun, wind and cloud shall fail not from the face of it,
Stringing, ringing spindrift nor the fulmar flying free,
And the ships shall go abroad
To the glory of the Lord,
Who heard the silly sailor men and gave them back their sea!
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:


I think that the Baptist (at least on this side of the pond) idea of heaven as being some spiritual place to which you go when you die is gnosticism. It's the idea that matter is evil and spirit is good. Heaven is seen as the sweet bye-and-bye .

Jesus says to the repentant thief on the day that both knew they would die -- " Today you will be with Me in Paradise ".

The 'martyr's charter'? Does for me though .

By all means have a look at the complicated stuff , but thoughts of folk being flung into sulphur pits disturbs the euphoria somewhat.

One thing about Heaven is that there will be no concept of boredom, otherwise it would be Hell.

In short, "the kingdom of God is within you." Heaven is when we recognize it.
[Overused]
 
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :
 
Link to the complete poem:

The Last Chantey
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It strikes me as a very earth-centric view, given our modern understanding of the universe.
True. The alternative, though, strikes me as very gnostic-- very negative on the value of this world, and of the material universe.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I did not mean to disrupt the thread when I mentioned Kipling's poem. Jesus did have a number of fishermen among his followers, and I somehow think they would have been dismayed by the disappearance of the sea.

As for the original topic: I also tend to agree with Padre Joshua. I tend to take an intellectual approach to the matter; I think Heaven is at hand for each of us to the extent that we accept God's love and will, and Hell to the extent that we reject God's love and will. It's not an entirely satisfactory view. These things evolve.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, I am dismayed by the idea of the sea disappearing, and I hope very much that the point was symbolical. I suspect it is. (Wot no more jellyfish? no surfing?)

Given the fact that the new Jerusalem is said to be a cube, I think it's a mistake to blithely assume that all the glorious descriptions in the book of Revelation are going to turn out to look exactly like the images we have now as a result of reading them. I think there will be a lot of "Oh, I get it NOW" moments. (A cube, really? So one huge apartment complex? doesn't sound like heaven to me, more like t'other place)

And we are told it's going to be a new heaven and earth, which I take to mean a new cosmos or universe. That being the case, I see no reason why God would expect us to remain on the one planet. We're within dreaming range of leaving it now, at least for short trips. And it's a heckuva big universe out there, even this side of Judgment Day. What will be after that should be even more awesome. And there are hints that we might get to be in on the action.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
It’s certainly true that there is currently a strong move away from the idea of Heaven as a disembodied, spiritual, extraterrestrial state, and a new emphasis on Heaven as consisting of perfectly restored conditions here on earth.

Possibly this has something to do with the influence of the environmental movement over the last few decades.

It is also true that Revelation appears to portray the final state with inconsistent, nonliteral imagery, ie both a garden, suggesting renewed nature (but without a sea), and a garish, sterile-sounding city.

The problem with Heaven’s consisting of an ideal form of what we know already, is that the thought of doing or enjoying anything for ever without end (and yes, eternal life in the Bible speaks of quality, not quantity, but it is difficult for us not to think of it in temporal terms) no matter how pleasurable, is faintly nauseating, from the sublime (playing Mozart) to the ridiculous (playing golf), to bonking seventy-two houris.

One commentator wrote that he was looking forward to pursuing his favourite past-time of sailing in on a lake with his grand-children, with the weather conditions always just right, and the lake unpolluted.

Non-stop?

If, however, Heaven is going to consist of something beyond our conception, and of which we could not conceivably tire (“eye has not seen…ear has not heard…neither has entered into the heart of man…”) then there are two other problems.

On the one hand, it can be described in terms and dimensions of what we know already, in which case we are not really helped.

C.S. Lewis somewhere writes about a small child asking whether going on your honeymoon is like eating chocolate.

On the other hand, it can be described in vague generalities (ineffable, sublime, glorious, awesome, transcendent…) which are too abstract to get any purchase on our imaginations.

We can then finish up like the adult who replied to the child's question about what it will be like after we die with, "Well, it will no doubt be joyful and fufilling for us beyond description, but let's not dwell on such morbid topics".

[ 20. May 2012, 06:16: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't the problem that there's no consensus on what Jesus meant by 'the Kingdom of Heaven'?
There is consensus that it is now and not yet. What Wright argues is that in the end, when the kingdom comes in it's fullness, all will be transformed. Heaven will be on earth.
Yes, but that doesn't explain what it actually is.

Remembering a (rather old) Gospel commentary, I seem to recall four possible, and not necessarily mutually exclusive, interpretations:

1. The Kingdom of Heaven is the (somewhat metaphorical) realm in which God and the saints are supposed to reside. 'The Kingdom of God is at hand' means 'the world is about to end, and the saved will all be united with God.'

2. The Kingdom of Heaven is metonymy for God Himself. 'The Kingdom of God is at hand' means 'God is with us', either in the Person of Christ or in the Eucharist or the indwelling Holy Spirit.

3. The Kingdom of Heaven is the Church. (This needs a certain degree of wriggling to explain why Inquisition, Crusades and child abuse are part of the Church but not part of Heaven, and I don't think I have ever actually heard this interpretation in real life.) 'The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand' means 'I am about to found the Church.'

4. The Kingdom of Heaven means the works of God expressed in the lives of the believers. 'Go and advance the Kingdom' means 'Go and do my works,' so 'The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand' means 'People are going to do my works.'
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
You seem to be missing the "both/and" option-- Ladd's famous "the Kingdom is both now & not yet". This pov would say that the Kingdom of God is the place where God reigns. That would include "heaven"-- the dimension/place where angels dwell-- but would also include the earth for anyone who submits his/her life to God. Any time we are seeking God, obeying God, discerning God, we are participating in the Kingdom of God. This would be the perspective NT Wright is outlining, for example, in Simply Christian.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You seem to be missing the "both/and" option--
That was supposed to be implicit in the "not necessarily mutually exclusive", though I appreciate it wasn't very clearly worded.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I think that Wright has heaven all wrong. The more daring and divergent alternative, which is also completely biblical, is that people enter a spiritual realm called heaven when they die and stay there forever.
But what about the resurrection of the body?
The resurrected body is spiritual, as Paul said.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but that doesn't explain what it actually is.

Remembering a (rather old) Gospel commentary, I seem to recall four possible, and not necessarily mutually exclusive, interpretations:

1. The Kingdom of Heaven is the (somewhat metaphorical) realm in which God and the saints are supposed to reside. 'The Kingdom of God is at hand' means 'the world is about to end, and the saved will all be united with God.'
I don't especially recognize any of these four as what I understand as the common belief, but this is the closest.

The kingdom of heaven is the realm where God and the angels reside. It is not metaphorical. Everyone will pass into that spiritual realm when they die. The good will go to heaven and the evil to hell.

This same kingdom is also present within every person on earth, because the physical and spiritual worlds are intimately connected.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
What exactly would be the difference between a metaphorical spiritual realm and a non-metaphorical spiritual realm?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What exactly would be the difference between a metaphorical spiritual realm and a non-metaphorical spiritual realm?
A metaphor is not tanglible. It is an idea.

A non-metaphorical spiritual realm is tangible to those in that realm. It is not just an idea, it is real. When you die it is the real world that you inhabit. It was seen and experienced by numerous prophets.

Ideas are certainly real, but as ideas not worlds.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Freddy: A non-metaphorical spiritual realm is tangible to those in that realm.
Tangible as in: "the molecules in my fingers will touch the molecules in this realm, and a physical force will be exerted between them?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Freddy: A non-metaphorical spiritual realm is tangible to those in that realm.
Tangible as in: "the molecules in my fingers will touch the molecules in this realm, and a physical force will be exerted between them?
Yes. A spiritual being in a spiritual realm experiences things almost exactly like a physical being in a physical realm.

So when a person dies their spiritual body is resurrected in the spiritual world. The experience is almost exactly as if they were resurrected in the physical world.

This is why the biblical accounts, such as that of Paul when he was lifted up into the "third heaven" or Ezekiel, or John on Patmos, describe heaven as if it were a physical place.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
How boring. That's the same as we have here. Yeah I know, we'll always be happy and never be hungry anymore, but what's the point?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I put "metaphorical" because "realm" suggests a place, and God is not restricted to any one place.

If Heaven is defined as 'the place where God is', that implies (to me) that there's also a place where God isn't.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
How boring. That's the same as we have here. Yeah I know, we'll always be happy and never be hungry anymore, but what's the point?
The point is that a life of service in that realm is immensely interesting and fulfilling.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I put "metaphorical" because "realm" suggests a place, and God is not restricted to any one place.

If Heaven is defined as 'the place where God is', that implies (to me) that there's also a place where God isn't.
Indeed. God isn't restricted but neither is he excluded from being in 'a place'. I believe heaven will indeed be a place and that God will not be in that place called hell.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Heaven is defined as 'the place where God is', that implies (to me) that there's also a place where God isn't.
Good point. God is omnipresent.

I think the idea is about relative imminence. God is everywhere, but He can seem to be more present or more absent for a host of reasons.

One of those factors is that we live in a physical world in which He is invisible and intangible - because the physical is unable to see or touch the spiritual or the divine.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Freddy: The point is that a life of service in that realm is immensely interesting and fulfilling.
Serve whom? We're not going to serve other people anymore, because there's no more hunger and no more pain. So I guess you mean serving God? Kneeling and singing to Him, that's what we're going to do all the time? Is that what's going to make me happy?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Freddy: The point is that a life of service in that realm is immensely interesting and fulfilling.
Serve whom? We're not going to serve other people anymore, because there's no more hunger and no more pain. So I guess you mean serving God? Kneeling and singing to Him, that's what we're going to do all the time? Is that what's going to make me happy?
Yes, useful service to others and to God is the source of all happiness. It's the way life works, as much in this world as the next.

I don't mean slavery. I mean activity that has a point and a purpose, that has potential results that are beneficial, that is interesting and meaningful. Life is no fun without a point, as you indicate in your post.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Freddy: Yes, useful service to others and to God is the source of all happiness.
I definitely agree with this.

But what would the point of serving others if they have no needs? And what needs would God have?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But what would the point of serving others if they have no needs? And what needs would God have?
It's all about the needs that are inherent in love.

Love seeks to make the object of its love happy, and is willing to work hard to make that happen.

Love also wants to be freely joined with the object of its love.

So the whole enterprise is about joining everyone together and making everyone happy. This involves every form of useful service that has been invented. Every form of purposeful activity plays a role in this grand scheme. It's one large community, segmented into an infinite number of smaller units, all for the purposes of God's love.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I think that Wright has heaven all wrong. The more daring and divergent alternative, which is also completely biblical, is that people enter a spiritual realm called heaven when they die and stay there forever.
But what about the resurrection of the body?
The resurrected body is spiritual, as Paul said.
The entire doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is that it is not only a spiritual resurrection.

If this was the case, Christianity offers nothing different from the doctrine of the eternity of the soul that the Greeks believed.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

One of those factors is that we live in a physical world in which He is invisible and intangible - because the physical is unable to see or touch the spiritual or the divine.
The resurrection of Jesus was physical as well as spiritual. There are over ten resurrection appearances in the Gospels and the emphasis in most of them is eating fish and touching (etc.). Jesus is not only a spiritual body.

The incarnation prefigures this. It was precisely the meeting place of heaven and earth.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You seem to be missing the "both/and" option--
That was supposed to be implicit in the "not necessarily mutually exclusive", though I appreciate it wasn't very clearly worded.
"Not necessarily mutually exclusive" doesn't really fit the Ladd/Wright paradigm. It's not just saying "these 2 different views of heaven are both right". None of the options you outlined, even in combination, really describes that conception of the Kingdom of God as "now and not yet". You really have to get at the notion of "the place where God reigns" and the intersection of "heaven and earth". It's a different paradigm, not just moshing together two others.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You seem to be missing the "both/and" option--
That was supposed to be implicit in the "not necessarily mutually exclusive", though I appreciate it wasn't very clearly worded.
"Not necessarily mutually exclusive" doesn't really fit the Ladd/Wright paradigm. It's not just saying "these 2 different views of heaven are both right". None of the options you outlined, even in combination, really describes that conception of the Kingdom of God as "now and not yet". You really have to get at the notion of "the place where God reigns" and the intersection of "heaven and earth". It's a different paradigm, not just moshing together two others.
To clarify my own post: the "both/and" I was referring to is the notion that the Kingdom is "both now and not yet" (to use Ladd's phrasing).
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The entire doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is that it is not only a spiritual resurrection.

If this was the case, Christianity offers nothing different from the doctrine of the eternity of the soul that the Greeks believed.
Not just the Greeks. It is popular worlwide.

Yes, well I could be wrong. Obviously I am disagreeing with the idea that doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is not only a spiritual resurrection as it applies to each one of us.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection of Jesus was physical as well as spiritual. There are over ten resurrection appearances in the Gospels and the emphasis in most of them is eating fish and touching (etc.). Jesus is not only a spiritual body.
Jesus was certainly resurrected physically. That is because He is God and His physical body was actually glorified so that it was divine.

As such it could be seen and touched by the disciples, but it could also be taken into heaven. Physical bodies can't normally be taken into heaven.

I don't think that anyone believes that Jesus' body is still around on earth somewhere that we could find it, see it and touch it ourselves.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The entire doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is that it is not only a spiritual resurrection.

If this was the case, Christianity offers nothing different from the doctrine of the eternity of the soul that the Greeks believed.
Not just the Greeks. It is popular worlwide.
But the source is indisputably Greek philosophy. Which doesn't make it wrong, of course, but it does give Christians cause to wonder to what degree we have altered the ancient and biblical doctrine of resurrection of the dead to fit a notion that is clearly extra-biblical. fwiw, I would agree that, in this case, what has been added is distorting biblical revelation and our interpretation in ways that aren't particularly helpful.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection of Jesus was physical as well as spiritual. There are over ten resurrection appearances in the Gospels and the emphasis in most of them is eating fish and touching (etc.). Jesus is not only a spiritual body.
Jesus was certainly resurrected physically. That is because He is God and His physical body was actually glorified so that it was divine.

As such it could be seen and touched by the disciples, but it could also be taken into heaven. Physical bodies can't normally be taken into heaven.

I don't think that anyone believes that Jesus' body is still around on earth somewhere that we could find it, see it and touch it ourselves.
The point, though, is that since Jesus is "the firstfruits of the resurrection" we should expect our resurrection to take a similar form.

[ 21. May 2012, 14:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You seem to be missing the "both/and" option--
That was supposed to be implicit in the "not necessarily mutually exclusive", though I appreciate it wasn't very clearly worded.
"Not necessarily mutually exclusive" doesn't really fit the Ladd/Wright paradigm. It's not just saying "these 2 different views of heaven are both right". None of the options you outlined, even in combination, really describes that conception of the Kingdom of God as "now and not yet". You really have to get at the notion of "the place where God reigns" and the intersection of "heaven and earth". It's a different paradigm, not just moshing together two others.
Fair enough. As I say, it was a rather old commentary.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not just the Greeks. It is popular worlwide.
But the source is indisputably Greek philosophy.
The source is not indisputably Greek philosophy. The belief in a spirit world that people enter at death is common to all ancient cultures. It is also commonly believed by most people today in most world religions.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which doesn't make it wrong, of course, but it does give Christians cause to wonder to what degree we have altered the ancient and biblical doctrine of resurrection of the dead to fit a notion that is clearly extra-biblical. fwiw, I would agree that, in this case, what has been added is distorting biblical revelation and our interpretation in ways that aren't particularly helpful.
The belief that people enter heaven or hell after death is not an extra-biblical distortion. It is explicitly biblical. Many passages throughout the Bible speak of a spiritual realm that is inhabited by angels and demons, and many passages seem clearly to say that we enter this realm when we die. Many passages talk about people going to heaven or hell after death.

The only contradiction is a few passages that speak of our resurrection. They do give the impression that we rise again in this world. Those passages are open to interpretation, and they need to be interpreted to fit with the passages that seem to say that we enter heaven or hell after death.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Jesus was certainly resurrected physically. That is because He is God and His physical body was actually glorified so that it was divine.
Ooh, not sure I agree with that last phrase.
I believe that Jesus is still fully human as well as being fully God, though he is indeed now glorified. To say that his physical body is now 'divine' certainly makes the incarnation just a temporary experience which I don't believe is the case.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not just the Greeks. It is popular worlwide.
But the source is indisputably Greek philosophy.
The source is not indisputably Greek philosophy. The belief in a spirit world that people enter at death is common to all ancient cultures. It is also commonly believed by most people today in most world religions.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which doesn't make it wrong, of course, but it does give Christians cause to wonder to what degree we have altered the ancient and biblical doctrine of resurrection of the dead to fit a notion that is clearly extra-biblical. fwiw, I would agree that, in this case, what has been added is distorting biblical revelation and our interpretation in ways that aren't particularly helpful.
The belief that people enter heaven or hell after death is not an extra-biblical distortion. It is explicitly biblical. Many passages throughout the Bible speak of a spiritual realm that is inhabited by angels and demons, and many passages seem clearly to say that we enter this realm when we die. Many passages talk about people going to heaven or hell after death.

The only contradiction is a few passages that speak of our resurrection. They do give the impression that we rise again in this world. Those passages are open to interpretation, and they need to be interpreted to fit with the passages that seem to say that we enter heaven or hell after death.
Sorry, sloppy writing on my part. What I should have said is that the belief in heaven as a non-physical spiritual realm the way that it is currently envisioned by most of the Western world is primarily Greek in origin.

Again, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong or bad, but does make it worthy of reconsideration re: how well it aligns with the biblical passages you're referencing. fwiw, I don't think it lines up nearly as nicely as you're suggesting.

[ 21. May 2012, 16:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Jesus was certainly resurrected physically. That is because He is God and His physical body was actually glorified so that it was divine.
Ooh, not sure I agree with that last phrase.
I believe that Jesus is still fully human as well as being fully God, though he is indeed now glorified. To say that his physical body is now 'divine' certainly makes the incarnation just a temporary experience which I don't believe is the case.
Yes, I'm pretty sure my idea of this is unorthodox.

I do believe that Jesus is still fully human, but that He "glorified" that human, making it also fully divine.

The meaning is really that God Himself is visible in Jesus Christ - specifically in the acocunts of His life and teachings in the Bible, or the Word of God.

In any case His physical body is not hanging around somewhere in a physical form that could be found and seen. So Christ's humanity does not reside in the physicality of His body.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sorry, sloppy writing on my part. What I should have said is that the belief in heaven as a non-physical spiritual realm the way that it is currently envisioned by most of the Western world is primarily Greek in origin.
I'll go with that.

Still, the reason that it finds wide acceptance is not because of the way the Greeks put it, but because it has always been a widely accepted idea in most cultures.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong or bad, but does make it worthy of reconsideration re: how well it aligns with the biblical passages you're referencing. fwiw, I don't think it lines up nearly as nicely as you're suggesting.
I think it does, and that the idea of a universal bodily resurrection has much more trouble aligning with other passages that give the impression that we enter heaven or hell when we die.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sorry, sloppy writing on my part. What I should have said is that the belief in heaven as a non-physical spiritual realm the way that it is currently envisioned by most of the Western world is primarily Greek in origin.
I'll go with that.

Still, the reason that it finds wide acceptance is not because of the way the Greeks put it, but because it has always been a widely accepted idea in most cultures.
The notion that there is a spiritual realm is found in most cultures, but the specific version of that belief that we find in the West is more specifically influenced by Greek philosophy. Which I guess is what you just said. : )


QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong or bad, but does make it worthy of reconsideration re: how well it aligns with the biblical passages you're referencing. fwiw, I don't think it lines up nearly as nicely as you're suggesting.
I think it does, and that the idea of a universal bodily resurrection has much more trouble aligning with other passages that give the impression that we enter heaven or hell when we die. [/QUOTE]

Obviously I disagree, but we'd probably have to go to a verse-by-verse slinging match to duke that out, which is best saved for another forum. I will concede that both notions find witness in the Bible as well as church tradition. For the most part, though, the focus of Scripture seems to be on this life. It seems to be enough to simply know that there is a "next life", and that God is there.

[ 21. May 2012, 17:39: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I will concede that both notions find witness in the Bible as well as church tradition. For the most part, though, the focus of Scripture seems to be on this life. It seems to be enough to simply know that there is a "next life", and that God is there.
Yes, the focus of Scripture is on this life.

Which goes back to Evensong's orginal quote from NT Wright:
quote:
Once the Kingdom is complete, he said, the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth. "What we are doing at the moment is building for the Kingdom," Wright explained.
NT Wright is not saying anything new here. I've heard this endlessly on the Ship whenever the topic of the afterlife comes up.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I always understood the spiritual body of the risen Christ to incoporate the resurrected physical. So 'spiritual' in this context was not meant to exclude the physical, but to include it in a 'first fruits' kind of way. Jesus' resurrection typifies the pattern of 'it is sown as a physical body, it is raised as a spiritual body'. A body which is still thoroughly physical, but spiritually 'raised' to a new way of being human eternally.

I, too, have always thought of heaven as a 'now and not yet' thing. Jesus said that people had the kingdom 'within them' that it was 'breaking through'; also likened it to a banquet, a time of accounting. A kingdom of place as well as a kingdom of 'reign'.
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Freddy: The point is that a life of service in that realm is immensely interesting and fulfilling.
Serve whom? We're not going to serve other people anymore, because there's no more hunger and no more pain. So I guess you mean serving God? Kneeling and singing to Him, that's what we're going to do all the time? Is that what's going to make me happy?
You can serve someone even if they have no needs and aren't suffering. Performing beautiful music, creating a lovely garden, painting a gorgeous picture -- all forms of service if you want to look at it that way.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong or bad, but does make it worthy of reconsideration re: how well it aligns with the biblical passages you're referencing. fwiw, I don't think it lines up nearly as nicely as you're suggesting.
I think it does, and that the idea of a universal bodily resurrection has much more trouble aligning with other passages that give the impression that we enter heaven or hell when we die.
They're not mutually exclusive.

I would argue biblically it goes like this:

1) Die
2) Sleep
3) Physically resurrected on the Last Day (both the good and the bad)
4) Changed body (as per Christ) and exist in either Heaven or Hell.

There will be a new heavens and a new earth, as our bodies are new. There will be a new creation (us included) where God will reign supreme (unlike now where creation is still broken).

[ 22. May 2012, 01:38: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong or bad, but does make it worthy of reconsideration re: how well it aligns with the biblical passages you're referencing. fwiw, I don't think it lines up nearly as nicely as you're suggesting.
I think it does, and that the idea of a universal bodily resurrection has much more trouble aligning with other passages that give the impression that we enter heaven or hell when we die.
They're not mutually exclusive.

I would argue biblically it goes like this:

1) Die
2) Sleep
3) Physically resurrected on the Last Day (both the good and the bad)
4) Changed body (as per Christ) and exist in either Heaven or Hell.

There will be a new heavens and a new earth, as our bodies are new. There will be a new creation (us included) where God will reign supreme (unlike now where creation is still broken).
I've never heard anyone make that argument. Steps 1-3 usually go w/ the "physical resurrection of the dead" paradigm, but then you exist not in heaven or hell, but in the New Creation-- the new heaven & earth. This seems particularly consistent with the view of the afterlife (such as there is) in the OT.

There is a contingent of Christians who do make the "both/and" argument, but it usually looks more like this:

1) Die
2) "Immortal soul" is transported to heaven or hell
3) Physically resurrected on the Last Day (both the good and the bad)
4) Changed body (as per Christ) joined to immortal soul and exist in the New Creation
 
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
The material from Ladd' s article can be found here:

Quote
We may now summarize our findings as to the difference between the basic Greek and Hebrew dualism. Greek dualism is that of two worlds, the visible and the invisible, the phenomenal and the noumenal, becoming and being, appearance and reality. Man belongs to both worlds by virtue of the fact that he is both body and soul or mind. "God" can be known only by the control of the bodily appetites, that the mind may be free from material pollutions to contemplate the divine realities. Finally, the soul must escape from the wheel of bodily existence to return to the divine world where it really belongs.

The Hebrew view is not a dualism of two worlds, but a religious dualism of God versus man. Man is God's creature; creation is the realm of God's constant activity; and God makes himself known and speaks to men in the ebb and flow of history. Man is not a bipartite creature of the divine and human, of soul and body; in his total being he is God's creature and remains a part of creation. Therefore the redemption of man and the redemption of creation belong together. Salvation consists of fellowship with God in the midst of earthly existence and will finally mean the redemption of the whole man together with his environment. At the heart of the Old Testament view is God — a living personal being — who visits man in earthly existence to establish fellowship with himself and who will finally visit man to establish his perfect rule and redemption in the world.

In sum, the Greek view is that "God" can be known only by the flight of the soul from the world and history; the Hebrew view is that God can be known because he invades history to meet men in historical experience.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXIX/29-2.htm
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Freddy: Love seeks to make the object of its love happy, and is willing to work hard to make that happen.
But in Heaven, everyone is already going to be happy.

quote:
Lothiriel: You can serve someone even if they have no needs and aren't suffering. Performing beautiful music, creating a lovely garden, painting a gorgeous picture -- all forms of service if you want to look at it that way.
This explanation does more for me than Freddy's. I'm a composer, so spending an eternity creating music... yeah, I could dig that.

But of course this leaves many questions: many kinds of music draw on the whole range of human experience: joy, sadness, love, longing... I don't think I'd like any kind of music very much where we'd leave a big chunk of these emotions out. I'm not even sure if music of this sort would have any meaning.

Also, part of the fulfillment of composing music, is overcoming the frustration, the dead ends, the writers block. I don't think they will be there anymore in a state of perfect happiness.

And third, part of the joy of creating music is when there is an audience that appreciates it. But how much will this appreciation be worth if the audience is already happy by default?

The idea of Heaven as a place more or less the same as were we are now, but just with all hunger, pain, unhappiness taken away, doesn't appeal to me much. It looks nice at first sight, but when you look deeper it just doesn't hold up to me.

I believe in life after death. But these pictures of it are too simple to me. I believe very strongly that it will be something that our logic can't describe.
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
I'm not sure where the "happy by default" notion comes from. No more death and pain, and "God shall wipe away all their tears" -- so the bad stuff disappears, but does "happy" necessarily follow from absence of bad stuff? Maybe the happiness comes from getting to do the things you love for all eternity.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I'm afraid my reservations are still valid even if you define Heaven as "a place just like here, but with our emotions restricted to the range between mild boredom and down-and-out exultation."
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
I don't think anyone is saying that heaven is just like earthly life only better. It's Lewis's whole chocolate and sex analogy that someone mentioned upthread. We're the children who don't know what sex is like, so we think of heaven in terms of the chocolate we're familiar with, except that, unlike the boy in the analogy, we know that our imagination falls far short. Of course the new creation will be far beyond what we can imagine -- but if we're going to talk about it, we need to use words, and our words are about the present creation.

So even to talk about happiness (or boredom) is to try to apply an earthly emotion to the unimaginable, and it would be only the vaguest shadow of what is to come.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe in life after death. But these pictures of it are too simple to me. I believe very strongly that it will be something that our logic can't describe.
I can relate to that. I have no doubt that the full intensity and richness of the heavenly life is beyond human imaginings.

One factor to consider is the concept of happiness itself. What is it? Where does it come from? What makes it more or less deep or full?

I think that happiness is always a relative concept. It is not something that we either have or lack, but something we have more of or less of. Its whole nature is also involved with causes. That is, things going on have happiness attached to them. It is a product of something else, it is not a pure state that exists in and of itself. It ebbs and flows by its very nature.

For example, happiness is caused by fulfilling activities and the sense of accomplishment that accompanies them. Similarly it comes with the periods of rest and entertainment that follow those activities. Endless entertainment is no better vehicle for maintaining happiness than endless activity or endless idleness. It is also caused by relationships and the things that happen in relationships. Happiness also depends on variety and progress.

I do think that the life of heaven is very similar to the life of this world. But there are fundamental differences that make it infinitely more pleasing. I will list them, just to respond to your comment that "these pictures of it are too simple to me."

As I understand it, all the differences have to do with what it means to exist in a "spiritual" realm as opposed to the physical world.It might seem fruitless to try to list things like this, and it must seem like pure conjecture. But I list them to respond to the idea that logic can't describe the joy of heaven. While I agree that in many ways heaven is beyond our imagining, I do think that we can gain a logical understanding of it. We can at least imagine why a spiritual heaven is superior to a physical one.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
On the other hand, maybe not. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
quote:


1) Die
2) "Immortal soul" is transported to heaven or hell
3) Physically resurrected on the Last Day (both the good and the bad)
4) Changed body (as per Christ) joined to immortal soul and exist in the New Creation
Yeah, this is pretty much how I see it, with a few refinements. One is that the "heaven" or Hell" to which the immortal soul is transported are not two separate places, but two ways of percieveing the divine. The second is that once you are in that realm, you are outside of "time" as we know it. or perhaps I should say "space-time". so from that point it's purely a matter of convenience for us temporally limited beings to talk of something happening before/after something else. It's all happening all the time, sort of.

I am not entirely wedded to the following idea, but it is one that I've entertained from time to time, and flows from the above "outside time" concept. That is, since we are outside time, we can transcend time, and thus visit any time we wish. not physically, though. so perhaps our "guardian angels" are ourselves? This doesn't entirely mesh with other things I believe, so I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I think that in some way shape or form this is part of it all.

and I'm not sure how the concept of the multiverse fits in, and whether there are separate eternities for each, or whether we ultimately rejoin any of the other versions of ourselves that may or may not exist in other parts of the multiverse, if such a thing exists, or whether each of these is in essence a separate person, thus a separate immortal soul. Things I sometimes ponder during my long commute to work.

All I feel that I know for sure (or as for sure as is possible) is that there is a God who is merciful, and that therefore we all exist in some form after death. and by all I really mean all.. anything with a conscious awareness of "self".
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Freddy: On the other hand, maybe not. [Hot and Hormonal]
You made it sound like some kind of art summer camp. I admit that it has its appeal.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I've never heard anyone make that argument. Steps 1-3 usually go w/ the "physical resurrection of the dead" paradigm, but then you exist not in heaven or hell, but in the New Creation-- the new heaven & earth.
Really? I thought this was kosher Wright:

See John 5

Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

So it's at resurrection that we are sorted. In your view the new creation would encompass those in "heaven" but those destined for "hell" are not included.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

There is a contingent of Christians who do make the "both/and" argument, but it usually looks more like this:

1) Die
2) "Immortal soul" is transported to heaven or hell
3) Physically resurrected on the Last Day (both the good and the bad)
4) Changed body (as per Christ) joined to immortal soul and exist in the New Creation
In this paradign, heaven and hell exist before the general resurrection. Is that right?

If so, what happens to those in hell? They just stay there in their disembodied state?

That seems to disregard the John 5 passage above.

How do those that espouse the above view make sense of this?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] I've never heard anyone make that argument. Steps 1-3 usually go w/ the "physical resurrection of the dead" paradigm, but then you exist not in heaven or hell, but in the New Creation-- the new heaven & earth.
Really? I thought this was kosher Wright:/QB]
I don't think so. Simply Christian argues strongly for a physical resurrection in the "new heaven and earth", w/o any intervening separation of the "immortal soul".


quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QB] [QUOTE]
So it's at resurrection that we are sorted. In your view the new creation would encompass those in "heaven" but those destined for "hell" are not included./QB]
Not my view. I was simply reporting a very common view.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
cliffdweller: 1) Die
If you don't mind, I'll try to wait a bit before doing this [Biased]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] I've never heard anyone make that argument. Steps 1-3 usually go w/ the "physical resurrection of the dead" paradigm, but then you exist not in heaven or hell, but in the New Creation-- the new heaven & earth.
Really? I thought this was kosher Wright:/QB]
I don't think so. Simply Christian argues strongly for a physical resurrection in the "new heaven and earth", w/o any intervening separation of the "immortal soul".
[Confused]

I thought that's what I said in my four points above?? There is no separation. Just die, sleep, resurrect, then go off to wherever in the transformed body.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Things I sometimes ponder during my long commute to work.
On the way to work hey?

Impressive. Most people think of Lamb Chops or what's on telly tonight. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] I've never heard anyone make that argument. Steps 1-3 usually go w/ the "physical resurrection of the dead" paradigm, but then you exist not in heaven or hell, but in the New Creation-- the new heaven & earth.
Really? I thought this was kosher Wright:/QB]
I don't think so. Simply Christian argues strongly for a physical resurrection in the "new heaven and earth", w/o any intervening separation of the "immortal soul".
[Confused]

I thought that's what I said in my four points above?? There is no separation. Just die, sleep, resurrect, then go off to wherever in the transformed body.
I thought you were arguing for "4) Changed body (as per Christ) and exist in either Heaven or Hell." whereas Wright would see the resurrection taking place on the New Earth. That was my point-- that the sleep/physical resurrection paradigm is usually paired with "the restoration of earth", whereas the immediate translation of an immortal soul is usually paired with the heaven/hell (as a separate place/dimension) paradigm. When they're moshed together usually the immortal soul/heaven or hell piece gets swapped out for the "sleep" part.
 
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] I've never heard anyone make that argument. Steps 1-3 usually go w/ the "physical resurrection of the dead" paradigm, but then you exist not in heaven or hell, but in the New Creation-- the new heaven & earth.
Really? I thought this was kosher Wright:/QB]
I don't think so. Simply Christian argues strongly for a physical resurrection in the "new heaven and earth", w/o any intervening separation of the "immortal soul".


quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:

So it's at resurrection that we are sorted. In your view the new creation would encompass those in "heaven" but those destined for "hell" are not included./QB]
Not my view. I was simply reporting a very common view.
Quote
Jesus' resurrection marks the beginning of a restoration that he will complete upon his return. Part of this will be the resurrection of all the dead, who will "awake," be embodied and participate in the renewal. John Polkinghorne, a physicist and a priest, has put it this way: "God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom.
N T WRIGHT IN TIME MAGAZINE
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Ah! My bad. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Things I sometimes ponder during my long commute to work.
On the way to work hey?

Impressive. Most people think of Lamb Chops or what's on telly tonight. [Big Grin]
Oh, I do that too.. but one can only stretch that out for so long.. and my commute is an hour each way! eventually the mind starts pondering all sorts of things, such as what I would do with magic powers, or what I would do with unlimited money (or putting various limitations on either of the above), and eventually, even theology. but "what's for dinner" definitely comes first :-)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Freddy: On the other hand, maybe not. [Hot and Hormonal]
You made it sound like some kind of art summer camp. I admit that it has its appeal.
I was afraid I had killed the thread with my "art summer camp" view.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
4) Changed body (as per Christ) and exist in either Heaven or Hell
I fully believe in a resurrection to a renewed earth, rather than pie in the sky when we die. The idea of the immortal soul is much more Greek than Hebrew, and probaly would have meant nothing to Jesus. But I have a serious problem with God resurrecting people to suffer eternal damnation. If He does that, then He is the author of that torture, and no fit god. Conditional immortality, which N T Wright has suggested as a possibility in the past, answers this question. The original idea of resurrection was that God MAY resurrect any of us as a reward for a life lived in obedience to Him. If someone doesn't merit life eternal, why not leave him dead? It's easier and quite merciful!
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If someone doesn't merit life eternal, why not leave him dead? It's easier and quite merciful!
Unless the damnation and suffering are self-inflicted, in which case it could very well be something the sufferer would prefer over oblivion. I fully believe in an eternal Hell, but as a place where an infinitely loving and merciful God provides as much of a semblance of happiness as the inhabitants thereof allow him to. The reason for Hell as a separate "place" is to prevent its inhabitants from suffering even more as a result of being in the presence of God and those who choose to embrace him. The question is how much real happiness does being selfish and depraved allow for?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The question is how much real happiness does being selfish and depraved allow for?
Yes, that's the question. It assumes that unhappiness is inherent in selfishness, as opposed to the image of eternal violent retribution that is the usual image of hell.

To me it is helpful to realize that the biblical images of hell are not literal descriptions but vivid metaphors.

Just as there are better and worse places in this world, the same is true in the next. People choose to live where they do for their own reasons, pursuing their own idea of happiness.

Biblical descriptions group and label these destinations for theological reasons and for the sake of the clarity of the message. But in order to grasp how this can actually work, and how a loving God can allow it, I think that it works better to see the sorting and distinctions involved as things that are completely organic.

That is, as I see it heaven and hell are not situations that are imposed by God but conditions that arise through natural and normal processes, as they function in a spiritual environment.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Unless the damnation and suffering are self-inflicted, in which case it could very well be something the sufferer would prefer over oblivion.
I can't imagine many people choosing conscious eternal torment over oblivion. Oblivion can't hurt! Even if suffering is self-inflicted, I couldn't worship a god who allows it to happen.

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The reason for Hell as a separate "place" is to prevent its inhabitants from suffering even more as a result of being in the presence of God and those who choose to embrace him.
If you believe this, then you are at odds with Orthodox Christianity, which sees heaven and hell as the same placve, both in the presence of God. God's love is experienced as eternal bliss to the chosen, and as eternal torment to the rejects. I have problems with both models. Would the bliss of the saved be that good if they are surrounded by people writhing in torment who they can't help, and who God refuses to help? Especially loved ones. I doubt it! Yet my monist instincts refuse to allow me to believe that there is an eternal dualism between the presence of God and those banished from it. The god presiding over this would have made an awful mess of his creation.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Once the Kingdom is complete, he said, the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth.
Gosh. It's going to be awfully crowded.
Nope if you check Revelation - the New Earth has no sea. Plenty of space then.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Unless the damnation and suffering are self-inflicted, in which case it could very well be something the sufferer would prefer over oblivion.
I can't imagine many people choosing conscious eternal torment over oblivion. Oblivion can't hurt! Even if suffering is self-inflicted, I couldn't worship a god who allows it to happen.
What if the sufferer refused to agree that he was suffering, or that making a few simple changes would greatly improve his situation?

This is a common state with people on earth. Why should it be different in the next life?

God allows this to happen because fundamentally a God of love allows people to do as they wish, whether it is really the best thing for them or not.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Would the bliss of the saved be that good if they are surrounded by people writhing in torment who they can't help, and who God refuses to help? Especially loved ones. I doubt it!
Don't you think that the "writhing in torment" imagery is put that way for effect? I don't think that anyone literally burns for eternity.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...the sleep/physical resurrection paradigm is usually paired with "the restoration of earth", whereas the immediate translation of an immortal soul is usually paired with the heaven/hell (as a separate place/dimension) paradigm.

When they're moshed together usually the immortal soul/heaven or hell piece gets swapped out for the "sleep" part.
I have wondered about this. For those who believe in the physical resurrection it would seem to make sense that they would live in heaven until they are brought back to life again in the New Earth.

That would fit better with the apparent descriptions of an immediate life after death in the Gospels - "today you will be with Me in paradise" etc.

Yet the dominant view has been that they "sleep." [Confused]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...the sleep/physical resurrection paradigm is usually paired with "the restoration of earth", whereas the immediate translation of an immortal soul is usually paired with the heaven/hell (as a separate place/dimension) paradigm.

When they're moshed together usually the immortal soul/heaven or hell piece gets swapped out for the "sleep" part.
I have wondered about this. For those who believe in the physical resurrection it would seem to make sense that they would live in heaven until they are brought back to life again in the New Earth.

That would fit better with the apparent descriptions of an immediate life after death in the Gospels - "today you will be with Me in paradise" etc.

Yet the dominant view has been that they "sleep." [Confused]
Because it fits better with the Hebrew train of teaching. As noted before, the immortal soul immediately in heaven is the more Greek pov. We find hints of both in Scripture, so it's certainly possible to mosh them together, but most theologians tend to follow one line or the other.
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's a good thing many people go to Hell then, to avoid the restored earth becoming too full. I for one will want to have a nice peace of land with my mansion, so can't have to many buggers around here [Roll Eyes]
There is no hell, in the traditional sense of everlasting, conscious torment. The saved get eternal life, and the unsaved cease to exist. That's Biblical: all the images of the fate of the lost are of destruction: fire, mainly. Nothing lasts long in fire. If eternal torment was the fate of the lost, the images would be of dungeons, chains and torture implements.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Steve H: There is no hell, in the traditional sense of everlasting, conscious torment. The saved get eternal life, and the unsaved cease to exist. That's Biblical: all the images of the fate of the lost are of destruction: fire, mainly. Nothing lasts long in fire. If eternal torment was the fate of the lost, the images would be of dungeons, chains and torture implements.
(Did you miss the irony in my post, or are you pulling my leg? [Biased] )

I guess I like your take on what happens to the 'unsaved' more than the traditional versions that depend on torture and eternal suffering. But I'm afraid it doesn't take away all of my problems.

In any case, I guess I'll always stay rather vague on what I think will happen after death. I don't think we have a way of really knowing, so I just put my trust in the One who's in charge of these things.
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
Yes, I did miss the irony, I confess. I didn't read your post properly: I just read the first bit, and jumped in with my hobby-horse.
I'm glad you like my take on the afterlife; I like your vagueness. I think we should be fairly vague. I'm certain there is no traditional hell, but I'm not clear what happens to the saved, and I'm a bit suspicious of those who are.

[ 30. May 2012, 11:11: Message edited by: Steve H ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In any case, I guess I'll always stay rather vague on what I think will happen after death. I don't think we have a way of really knowing, so I just put my trust in the One who's in charge of these things.
I'm guessing that this is the majority opinion on this issue.

And yet most people on earth have expectations of some particular form of afterlife, whether paradise, reincarnation, or bodily resurrection.

Are the epistemological issues with "knowing" really that great, though?

Christianity has always accepted that it is possible to "know" this kind of information by reliance on the Bible. The problem has been only that the biblical information on the topic is scant, metaphorical and seemingly contradictory.

So I don't think the issue is that it is not theoretically possible to have the information. The issue is that there is not a trustworthy source - as there would be if the Bible was clear, explanatory, and consistent on the topic.

There has been no lack, however, of authors claiming to offer information about heaven. From current popular works like "Heaven is for Real" and "Closer to the Light" to ancient works like "The Tibetan Book of the Dead".

The problem isn't that there aren't people claiming to know the answers, or that the answers are theoretically impossible to know. The problem is that we don't at this point have confidence in any particular answer.

Why not look for the information rather than assuming - not unreasonably - that we have no way of really knowing?
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
My conundrum, as someone who dutifully recites the Creed each week, is that, like a previous poster, I can't fathom a "new earth" that will hold all the bodily resurrected in Christ and be anything anyone would want to spend eternity in/on; otherwise it sounds more like hell to me. This might be a function of my LCMS childhood, with its emphasis on literal interpretation of Scripture.

Now, if you want to argue that the "new heaven and new earth" are in some alternative reality that is physical as well as spiritual but is not here, on the third rock from the sun...I can dig that.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Freddy: Why not look for the information rather than assuming - not unreasonably - that we have no way of really knowing?
I don't really see the point. If there is any information on the afterlife, it's highly fragmentary and contradictory at the very least, so it doesn't really help.

And anyway, I think I'd prefer a bit of a surprise when I get there.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
There is no hell, in the traditional sense of everlasting, conscious torment. The saved get eternal life, and the unsaved cease to exist. That's Biblical: all the images of the fate of the lost are of destruction: fire, mainly. Nothing lasts long in fire. If eternal torment was the fate of the lost, the images would be of dungeons, chains and torture implements.
Uh no. That's not biblical. The fire is unquenchable and the torment is forever.

Tho interestingly the naughty angels are kept in chains until the day of judgement in 2 Peter.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Freddy: Why not look for the information rather than assuming - not unreasonably - that we have no way of really knowing?
I don't really see the point. If there is any information on the afterlife, it's highly fragmentary and contradictory at the very least, so it doesn't really help.
Well, obviously a person would choose what to believe.

We don't just accept all information that comes to us. We have standards for what is acceptable, what is possibly true, what is sheer speculation.

But it's not necessarily fragmentary and contradictory. That's not really the issue. The issue is whether there is any information out there that is true, or could possibly be true, and whether it is sensible and explanatory.

The point is very clear. If you are going on a journey that will last forever, and you have no clue whether or not to bring a swimsuit, you run the risk of living in eternal regret.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
quote:
We don't just accept all information that comes to us. We have standards for what is acceptable, what is possibly true, what is sheer speculation.
The issue is that in traditional Protestant thinking, and when it comes to a discipline like exegesis, we're all pretty much stuck to living with the tension of vague/contradictory allusions to the afterlife in Scripture. Luther, among others, was critical of the sort of extra-biblical problem-solving speculation among theologians that led to all sorts of whiffy Church doctrines.

I'd also disagree that how one understands the afterlife has some impact on his/her soteriological status. At least on my side of the street we don't believe that God's grace is contingent upon people thinking the "right" things about God, heaven, hell, etc. When all is said and done we're left to fall back on God's mercy and the Christian hope, grounded in the Gospel, that God loves us, means us well, wants to save us and has done/will do whatever it takes to effect that.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'd also disagree that how one understands the afterlife has some impact on his/her soteriological status.
I agree with this to a point. My belief is that everyone who loves God and their neighbor, in accord with the two great commandments, is saved regardless of their formal religious standing. So it doesn't matter what we know or think about the afterlife in order to enjoy it.

On the other hand, eternity is not an unimportant aspect of a person's overall belief structure. It can be seen as a key element in making sense of existence itself. If we have no idea of what the point of it is then we will say things like "What's the point?" I think that this is a meaningful question to most people.

Having a belief in an afterlife that makes sense is an important part of belief because many people reject belief because it doesn't offer meaningful answers. People disbelieve and even mock the gruesome images of the afterlife that seem to be offered to them in Scripture. For example I love this mock sermon from "Cold Comfort Farm".

Who will believe in Christianity if this is all we can offer?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The fire is unquenchable and the torment is forever.
The fires are certainly eternal. But does that mean that any given soul's stay therein will be?
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The fire is unquenchable and the torment is forever.
The fires are certainly eternal. But does that mean that any given soul's stay therein will be?
Quite. Where in the Bible does it say "the torment is forever"?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Where in the Bible does it say "the torment is forever"?
“Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25.41-46
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
What is the difference between non-rehabilitative punishment and torture? And why do you think God is in the business of torturing people?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
What is the difference between non-rehabilitative punishment and torture? And why do you think God is in the business of torturing people?
To me it is helpful to realize that the biblical images of hell are not literal descriptions but vivid metaphors.

Just as there are better and worse places in this world, the same is true in the next. People choose to live where they do for their own reasons, pursuing their own idea of happiness.

Biblical descriptions group and label these destinations for theological reasons and for the sake of the clarity of the message.

But in order to grasp how this can actually work, and how a loving God can allow it, I think that it works better to see the sorting and distinctions involved as things that are completely organic.

That is, as I see it heaven and hell are not situations that are imposed by God but conditions that arise through natural and normal processes, as they function in a spiritual environment.

So it's not eternal torture. It's people doing what they wish to do, even if far less than ideal.
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'd also disagree that how one understands the afterlife has some impact on his/her soteriological status.
I agree with this to a point. My belief is that everyone who loves God and their neighbor, in accord with the two great commandments, is saved regardless of their formal religious standing. So it doesn't matter what we know or think about the afterlife in order to enjoy it.

Freddy - As you're quoting chapter and verse, I find your position difficult. I presume you are taking your two commands from Jesus' teaching and so accept scripture as the word of God? How can you then not believe that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation? John 14 v 6, I am the way, the truth and the life, one comes to the Father except through me?

How would you judge who has loved God and his neighbour enough to get into heaven? This leaves no room for grace, christ and the cross. I don't get it.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The fire is unquenchable and the torment is forever.
The fires are certainly eternal. But does that mean that any given soul's stay therein will be?
Quite. Where in the Bible does it say "the torment is forever"?
Besides Freddy's quote there are others:

And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell,* 48where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched. Mark

If the fire is never quenched and the worm never dies...I would assume one keeps burning?

Not quite sure what the worm reference is to.

Or 2 Thessalonians:

These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
What is the difference between non-rehabilitative punishment and torture? And why do you think God is in the business of torturing people?
I don't think she is in the business of torturing people. I was just pointing out what the bible says. [Razz]

Personally I don't think the images of eternal punishment fit at all with the rest of the images of God in the bible.

I do think we will be held accountable somehow and there may be some kind of hell - but not eternal. Ridiculous.

I actually think the Catholics got it right when they invented purgatory.

Makes much more sense.
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
What is the difference between non-rehabilitative punishment and torture? And why do you think God is in the business of torturing people?
Personally I don't think the images of eternal punishment fit at all with the rest of the images of God in the bible.

I do think we will be held accountable somehow and there may be some kind of hell - but not eternal. Ridiculous.

I actually think the Catholics got it right when they invented purgatory.

Makes much more sense.
Just because something in the Bible doesn't fit in with the world view you like doesn't mean it can be discarded. When God reveals his name in Exodus 34, one his qualities is that he does not let the guilty go unpunished.

Like you pointed out with purgatory, we are not in a position to start choosing and defining what is true or what we choose to believe from the Bible. Eg: God has chosen to reveal his character and identity in the Bible using the male pronoun, to do otherwide because it fits our world view is a slippery slope where we are the judge of scripture. Truth is, scripture is the judge of us.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Just because something in the Bible doesn't fit in with the world view you like doesn't mean it can be discarded.
I didn't say that. I said I don't think the image of eternal torment fits with the image of God in the rest of the bible.

The bible critiques itself.

And I think purgatory makes alot of biblical sense. God wants to save us, not condemn us.

Rehabilitation in purgatory is the possibility. Very biblical idea.

[ 31. May 2012, 03:39: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
[Tangent] So where does the cross of christ fit in purgatory? [/Tangent]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
[Confused]

That would depend on where you think it fits in the world.
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
I don’t want to sound facetious, but I take my view of the cross from the Bible and here’s where I think the Bible says it fits into the world – Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinners (we all are). He was punished on the cross, took the wrath of God in the place of people. The Bible teaches that this leads to forgiveness and imputed righteousness for those who’ll accept it with sincerity, repentance and thanks. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. That’s where the cross fits into the world.
I can’t see how that fits into purgatory which has no foundation in scripture.

Whenever talking about end times/ judgement, scripture always talks about 2 specific groups – in/ out, sheep/ goats, wheat/ chaff etc. It doesn’t mention or develop a concept of being able to move between them. If you can show a systematic theology of purg from the scriptures, then please do.
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Where in the Bible does it say "the torment is forever"?
“Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25.41-46
Everlasting punishment, not everlasting torture. The punishment is annihilation, and it's everlasting because it's final - there will be no future resurrection.
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
What is the difference between non-rehabilitative punishment and torture? And why do you think God is in the business of torturing people?
To me it is helpful to realize that the biblical images of hell are not literal descriptions but vivid metaphors.

Just as there are better and worse places in this world, the same is true in the next. People choose to live where they do for their own reasons, pursuing their own idea of happiness.

Biblical descriptions group and label these destinations for theological reasons and for the sake of the clarity of the message.

But in order to grasp how this can actually work, and how a loving God can allow it, I think that it works better to see the sorting and distinctions involved as things that are completely organic.

That is, as I see it heaven and hell are not situations that are imposed by God but conditions that arise through natural and normal processes, as they function in a spiritual environment.

So it's not eternal torture. It's people doing what they wish to do, even if far less than ideal.
That's a damn sight less biblical than my conditional immortality! You seem to be suggesting a whole spectrum of after-life conditions, whereas the Bible clearly divides them into two - for the saved and the lost respectively.
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The fire is unquenchable and the torment is forever.
The fires are certainly eternal. But does that mean that any given soul's stay therein will be?
Quite. Where in the Bible does it say "the torment is forever"?
Besides Freddy's quote there are others:

And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell,* 48where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched. Mark

If the fire is never quenched and the worm never dies...I would assume one keeps burning?

Not quite sure what the worm reference is to.

Or 2 Thessalonians:

These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
Whatever else the images of worm and fire are, they are images of destruction, not of continuing misery. Presumably they never die and are never quenched because they've always got new material to work on, like the fire in the rubbish-tips outside Jerusalem that may have inspired the image. However, I think we're starting to get a bit too nit-picking in our exegesis here. The point is that the images are of destruction, not of conscious, continuing misery - fire and worms, not dungeons and torture implements.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I don’t want to sound facetious, but I take my view of the cross from the Bible and here’s where I think the Bible says it fits into the world
I don't want to sound facetious either, but I also take my view of the cross from the Bible. I just take a more well attested and earlier one than yours; Christus Victor.

I'm still not quite sure how its effects would change in purgatory though....

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

Whenever talking about end times/ judgement, scripture always talks about 2 specific groups – in/ out, sheep/ goats, wheat/ chaff etc. It doesn’t mention or develop a concept of being able to move between them. If you can show a systematic theology of purg from the scriptures, then please do.
True. Judgement does seem to be rather black and white in the New Testament.

There are certainly any number of passages however that speak of God's mercy and Grace.

Off the top of my head I'm imagining the cycles of sin/wrath/repentance/forgiveness that happen over and over in the Old Testament stories. God never gives up on his people. He always keeps going and remembers his covenant of mercy even though they continually get it wrong ( bit like the disciples in the New Testament huh?).

Anyways, I'm sure the Catholics have got a good explanation. I'll have to look it up someday.
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
Sorry for the multiple posts, but as I've said before, if we had more time to edit, they wouldn't be necessary.
Evensong - on the Catholic view, purgatory is as well as hell, not instead of it. The damned, on their view go to hell; the saved to purgatory first, and eventually to heaven.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
That's a damn sight less biblical than my conditional immortality! You seem to be suggesting a whole spectrum of after-life conditions, whereas the Bible clearly divides them into two - for the saved and the lost respectively.
I think that it's quite biblical.

It's true that the Bible portrays the afterlife in starkly black & white terms. As I said before, though, I think that most people realize that biblical teaching about life after death relies heavily on metaphor and hyperbole. People don't literally "burn." The "fires of hell" describes in vivid terms the hatred that characterizes that place.

I think that the Bible shows that both heaven and hell include a wide spectrum of qualities and conditions. This reflects the enormous variety of human characterisitcs and interests. Some are better and some are worse, but each is different.

The Bible refers to levels of heaven:
quote:
Deuteronomy 10:14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the LORD your God.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
It also refers to levels of hell:
quote:
Deuteronomy 32:22 For a fire is kindled in My anger, and shall burn to the lowest hell.

Isaiah 14:15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.
It only makes sense to believe that neither heaven or hell is uniform. The vastly variegated nature of human nature should lead to similarly varied eternal conditions.

Besides, Jesus makes it clear that the "rewards" and "punishments" of heaven and hell go to each person according to their quality.

This is the Old Testament teaching:
quote:
Psalm 62:12 Also to You, O Lord, belongs mercy; For You render to each one according to his work.

Jeremiah 17:10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.

Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin.

Ezekiel 33:20 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways.”
It is repeated in the New Testament:
quote:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Revelation 20:13 And they were judged, each one according to his works.

Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.
These and other teachings support the idea that heaven and hell are not monochromatic destinations, but reflect a varied universe of conditions and states.

All of this is made possible by the Lord's grace and goodness, so that everyone's place is alloted to them with perfect fairness and precision.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Everlasting punishment, not everlasting torture. The punishment is annihilation, and it's everlasting because it's final - there will be no future resurrection.
I can see your point. It's fair. I've never thought of it that way before.

Yet if punishment is everlasting, then it can't be annihilation. Annihilation is nothingness - not punishment.

And their IS future resurrection for the unjust:

John 5.29: and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Whatever else the images of worm and fire are, they are images of destruction, not of continuing misery. Presumably they never die and are never quenched because they've always got new material to work on, like the fire in the rubbish-tips outside Jerusalem that may have inspired the image. However, I think we're starting to get a bit too nit-picking in our exegesis here. The point is that the images are of destruction, not of conscious, continuing misery - fire and worms, not dungeons and torture implements.
Possible, again. But not the initial and most natural reading I would suggest. It doesn't say the fire is unquenchable because new people to burn are being added. That's an assumption.

And the worm never dying...?

[ 31. May 2012, 13:05: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My belief is that everyone who loves God and their neighbor, in accord with the two great commandments, is saved regardless of their formal religious standing. So it doesn't matter what we know or think about the afterlife in order to enjoy it.
Freddy - As you're quoting chapter and verse, I find your position difficult. I presume you are taking your two commands from Jesus' teaching and so accept scripture as the word of God?
Yes, I take the Old and New Testament as the Word of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
How can you then not believe that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation? John 14 v 6, I am the way, the truth and the life, one comes to the Father except through me?
Yes, one comes to the Father only through Jesus. But there are a number of ways to interpret that.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the one only God of heaven and earth. He is one with the Father. To come "through Him" is to believe and live in the way that He taught. Essentially this is about loving God and the neighbor. This is possible for every person of every religion, but obviously it is more possible for people who know Christ's words.

He said:
quote:
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7.21-23
I take this to mean that doing the will of God is what is important, and that this is what it means to hear Jesus' words and come "through Him" to the Father.
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
How would you judge who has loved God and his neighbour enough to get into heaven?
The biblical image of judgment is standing before God, or before Jesus, and He knows the heart of every person. But I believe that this is imagery describing a more subtle and organic process in which everyone finds their own place, each led by God in his or her own way.

For those who love God this means following Him into the happy life that is called heaven. For those who care only for themselves this means ignoring Him and living as they please, with less happy results.
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
This leaves no room for grace, christ and the cross. I don't get it.
It is all about grace, Christ and the cross.

As I see it, Jesus overcame the power of darkness in order to set people free so that we can choose our own way. All people have been redeemed in this way, and people are saved who live and believe as Jesus taught.

The cross was the final struggle in which Jesus broke the power of hell. In rising again on the third day He taught us the difference between physical death and spiritual life.

God's grace and love are about leading every person to an eternity of their own choosing, and protecting them from the powers that would take away that choice. Whether that choice is objectively good or evil, happy or painful, the choice is left to us because God loves us.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I don’t want to sound facetious, but I take my view of the cross from the Bible and here’s where I think the Bible says it fits into the world
I don't want to sound facetious either, but I also take my view of the cross from the Bible. I just take a more well attested and earlier one than yours; Christus Victor.
Yes! [Angel]
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Everlasting punishment, not everlasting torture. The punishment is annihilation, and it's everlasting because it's final - there will be no future resurrection.
I can see your point. It's fair. I've never thought of it that way before.

Yet if punishment is everlasting, then it can't be annihilation. Annihilation is nothingness - not punishment.

And their IS future resurrection for the unjust:

John 5.29: and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Whatever else the images of worm and fire are, they are images of destruction, not of continuing misery. Presumably they never die and are never quenched because they've always got new material to work on, like the fire in the rubbish-tips outside Jerusalem that may have inspired the image. However, I think we're starting to get a bit too nit-picking in our exegesis here. The point is that the images are of destruction, not of conscious, continuing misery - fire and worms, not dungeons and torture implements.
Possible, again. But not the initial and most natural reading I would suggest. It doesn't say the fire is unquenchable because new people to burn are being added. That's an assumption.

And the worm never dying...?
I can't remember the details - I'll see if I can find them online, and post them if I do - but I've read it argued that "everlasting" and "for ever" are used elsewhere in the Bible to mean "final and irreversible". There's a description in the OT of the destruction of a city which says something like "the smoke of its destruction rises for ever". Obviously that wasn't literally true; the fire burned itself out and then died. What the writer meant, presumably, was that the city destruction was complete and final - it would never be rebuilt. Similarly, one could argue, with the everlasting fire and worm of hell - complete and final destruction, not torture.
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
An excellent article, summarising the two sides of the debate, here. It touches briefly on the point I made above, about the descriptions of the destruction of cities, but doesn't give details, unfortunately.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0