Does everyone want eternal life?

[4love2God]

Daddygirl said** : “what I don’t understand is…if these saints have been told by God about purgatory…and then these saints “discussed” aspects of purgatory and “reported” details to someone…who exactly did these saints discuss it with and to whom did they report their details to?”**

OK, a little Saints 101.
Of the 10,000-or-So Saints canonized by the Catholic Church, more than 100 of them were personally visited by Jesus Christ (while they were still alive), and were told whatever Jesus chose to share with them.

Many of these “LUCKY” people wrote down what happened in their Conversation (or 100 Conversations) with Jesus
There are 100s of books written by Saints while they were alive and well.
If you buy one of them, it will (ALSO) tell of their meetings with God about Purgatory (like mgoforth pointed out about St Faustina, who write a Diary for 4 years).

This “Purgatory” book I have just distills the part of their Revelation that relates to Purgatory.
It talks about 80 Saints, and the quotes in their books about Purgatory.
Sort of like the Top Ten List of Purgatory facts (except it’s more like a Top 1000 List).

 

[Robert_Sock]

“Just as a blind man is unable to form any idea about colors, or a deaf person to fathom what it means to hear sounds… so the body cannot comprehend the delights of the soul… For we live in a material world, and the only kind of pleasure we can understand is that experienced through our body. But the joys of the spirit are everlasting and ceaseless. There is no resemblance of any kind between the enjoyments of the soul and those of the body.”
–Maimonides

Ill take the Hereafter to this life anytime. I’m ready!

LOVE!

 

[steve_b]

Eternity is an idea that we as humans cannot grasp, but does the notion of eternal life really appeal to everyone? Would we have any concept of time passing as we did in our earthly existence?

I’m honestly not sure how I feel about it. Maybe eternal rest is the preferable choice.

Thoughts?

At our conception we are body and soul. The body is mortal, it has a beginning and an end. God is the one who gives us our soul. It has a beginning but no end… making us immortal. i.e. we all will live forever. So the question is, where will that be…forever?

The last 4 things

1. 
   *]death
   *]judgement
   *]heaven
   *]hell
   
   ALL of us will experience 3 out of the 4. Both heaven and hell exist and are forever. So I will do everything possible to avoid hell. So it matters to get things right this side of eternity. As for what forever is like, I trust God has great things planned for those who love Him, and it will be fantastic

 

[oldcelt]

At our conception we are body and soul. The body is mortal, it has a beginning and an end. God is the one who gives us our soul. It has a beginning but no end… making us immortal. i.e. we all will live forever. So the question is, where will that be…forever?

The last 4 things

1. 
   *]death
   *]judgement
   *]heaven
   *]hell
   
   ALL of us will experience 3 out of the 4. Both heaven and hell exist and are forever. So I will do everything possible to avoid hell. So it matters to get things right this side of eternity. As for what forever is like, I trust God has great things planned for those who love Him, and it will be fantastic

1. 
   I am glad that your faith makes you happy, but it is faith. My faith varies from yours, and I am quite content, but it is faith. I can’t prove anything about an afterlife anymore than anyone else.
   
   We are all on the same train, but none of us can factually say where it is going.

 

[esieffe]

The eternal life in heaven slot works just fine for me.

:harp:

 

[steve_b]

I am glad that your faith makes you happy, but it is faith. My faith varies from yours, and I am quite content, but it is faith. I can’t prove anything about an afterlife anymore than anyone else.

We are all on the same train, but none of us can factually say where it is going.

As I told a friend of mine, who is an atheist, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Both can’t be right both can’t be wrong. It’s one and not the other.

So I said to him, over a beer and ribs on a hot Texas evening,

IF you are right and I am wrong, there is no harm no foul. We just die and that’s it for all eternity. It’s like we were never here.

IF I’m right and you are wrong, you have left yourself with no contingency plan for eternity. No get out of going to hell card.

Faith is a gift. Ask for it and God won’t deny you. My friend unfortunately is still an atheist. The one and only God is too inconvenient for his life style. So I keep him in my prayers

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As I told a friend of mine, who is an atheist, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Both can’t be right both can’t be wrong. It’s one and not the other.

Pascal’s wager doesn’t tend to be very convincing. In the absence of convincing information that rules out other possibilities it seems to take on the form of a false dichotomy. I thought about explaining further why it’s not convincing, but that’s a topic that’s been discussed almost to exhaustion in these forums (1, 2, 3, … ).

A different argument may be needed to be effective in beginning to convince your friend.

 

[CarmelJerome]

Eternity is an idea that we as humans cannot grasp, but does the notion of eternal life really appeal to everyone? Would we have any concept of time passing as we did in our earthly existence?

I’m honestly not sure how I feel about it. Maybe eternal rest is the preferable choice.

Thoughts?

We think in terms of time; but ‘Eternity’ is not ‘endless time’ but a state in which we see, as it were, around Time, the way we will see around all that exists in space-time.

I was terrified, from the age of two or three, of the idea that I could be without conscious awareness forever; the things that exist are too beautiful, and to be deprived of the vision of all that is or may be would be a type of damnation of itself.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

but does the notion of eternal life really appeal to everyone? Would we have any concept of time passing as we did in our earthly existence?

I’m honestly not sure how I feel about it. Maybe eternal rest is the preferable choice.

No, it doesn’t appeal to every one. It’s also worth noting that not all communities that believe there is some form of eternal life conceptualize it the same. In the west eternal life tends to be conceptualized through an afterlife that either is vaguely pleasant or absolutely torturous. Though some (like the Jehovah’s witnesses) conceptualize it as a physically life on this earth only without sin.

Some in the east see eternal life as occurring through cycles of death and rebirth, only with the rebirths possibly putting some one in a worst or better position depending on their previous life.

Somewhat unrelated: There have been followers of some religions (or philosophies, depending on your system of classification) don’t see life as eternal. Such as the Cārvāka who thought that the body was the result of a mixture of elements that compose it and with the death of the body also comes the death of the soul.

 

[oldcelt]

No, it doesn’t appeal to every one. It’s also worth noting that not all communities that believe there is some form of eternal life conceptualize it the same. In the west eternal life tends to be conceptualized through an afterlife that either is vaguely pleasant or absolutely torturous. Though some (like the Jehovah’s witnesses) conceptualize it as a physically life on this earth only without sin.

Some in the east see eternal life as occurring through cycles of death and rebirth, only with the rebirths possibly putting some one in a worst or better position depending on their previous life.

Somewhat unrelated: There have been followers of some religions (or philosophies, depending on your system of classification) don’t see life as eternal. Such as the Cārvāka who thought that the body was the result of a mixture of elements that compose it and with the death of the body also comes the death of the soul.

I didn’t know what to expect when I started this thread, but it has been both enlightening and pleasant.

I guess I could call my theory on Heaven as the “Field of Dreams Model.” It’s the place where dreams come true.

 

[steve_b]

Pascal’s wager doesn’t tend to be very convincing. In the absence of convincing information that rules out other possibilities it seems to take on the form of a false dichotomy. I thought about explaining further why it’s not convincing, but that’s a topic that’s been discussed almost to exhaustion in these forums (1, 2, 3, … ).

A different argument may be needed to be effective in beginning to convince your friend.

That’s why I condensed my post to a short reponse. I had many go rounds with my friend previous to recounting that response. God is the one who converts someone anyway. And my friend had his full defensive armour on. Bottomline, God is an inconvenience for him.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Pascal’s wager doesn’t tend to be very convincing. In the absence of convincing information that rules out other possibilities it seems to take on the form of a false dichotomy. I thought about explaining further why it’s not convincing, but that’s a topic that’s been discussed almost to exhaustion in these forums (1, 2, 3, … ).

A different argument may be needed to be effective in beginning to convince your friend.

I don’t think Pascal’s wager alone can convince anyone of God or of the afterlife. I think its just an interesting “what if” scenario. Interestingly, I find the vast majority of Catholic teaching in agreement with my own personal moral beliefs. So, in this case, Pascal’s wager makes a lot more sense- what’s the loss? Not much, and maybe lots of gain. On the other hand, if I believed that sexual promiscuity, homosexuality and abortion were morally okay, then I wouldn’t be much inclined to take on Pascal’s wager, as I would be at risk of losing significantly more.

This is not to imply, in any way, that all or even most atheists are immoral. I happen to know a few good and moral atheists myself. Just that Pascal’s wager makes a lot more sense if your moral stances are already largely aligned with that of the church vs when they are totally incongruent with the church.

And BTW- No, I don’t think everyone wants eternal life. But I think that is mostly due to that life being unsatisfactory. Even if I were an atheist, I would love to be with my loving family and friends sharing wonderful moments for the rest of time. The truth is that those family and friends are often not that wonderful and most moments in my life aren’t that awesome, because they lacking, but I am still grateful for life.

I personally would prefer to die than to live in a Hell, but I would prefer to live forever in a Heaven than to die.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t think Pascal’s wager alone can convince anyone of God or of the afterlife. I think its just an interesting “what if” scenario. Interestingly, I find the vast majority of Catholic teaching in agreement with my own personal moral beliefs. So, in this case, Pascal’s wager makes a lot more sense- what’s the loss? Not much, and maybe lots of gain.

The outcome of a loss/gain evaluation is dependent on certain other conditions being evaluated as “true”. Some one that isn’t a Christian might not have already evaluated these conditions that way. It also doesn’t eliminate the possibility of other orthodoxies and orthopraxies of being true. A person can be left noticing that there are people on different paths and different roads, each of which has a person saying “this is the right and only way.” By itself saying “What if you are on the wrong road, you should try my road” doesn’t inform some one to make a better decision about the road. Especially considering that when some one reaches the end of the road they are not known to come back to talk about what they found.

Just that Pascal’s wager makes a lot more sense if your moral stances are already largely aligned with that of the church vs when they are totally incongruent with the church.

I don’t think that brings more sense to the wager. It does potentially lower the number of changes that some one is being asked to do to change path. One the same note I think it is more common for one to go from one denomination to another denomination within the same family of religions than to make the more radical change of going from one religious/ideological/philosophical stance to an entirely different stance. For example, it’s probably easier to convert a baptist to a Jehovah’s Witness than it is to convert a Baptist to Jain.

With the exception of extreme circumstances and experiences people’s way of thinking and acting tends to evolve slowly over time. If some one is being asked to maintain what they are doing but augment it with a few things I think she is more likely to do it than if she is told to do a 180. There’s a book titled “Mistakes were made but not by me” that in part talks about a connection between one’s sense of self affirmation, feeling correct, and some of the cognitive events that seem to occur when some one is told they are doing it wrong. I think some of the information in the book could be helpful in improving how some one goes about convincing some one else.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Pascal’s Wager has two glaring holes that render it useless as an apologetic argument -

1. It makes the subject into a liar (Well, I don’t really believe, but I’ll go ahead and hedge my bet)
2. Pascal’s wager asks: “How do you know you’re right?” However, throughout human existence, there have been 1000’s of gods - Odin, Great Spirit, Ra, Istar, Baal, Shu, Khnum, Ashur, Zeus, Baldur, Mars, Freya, Anu, Aray, Grandmother Spider, Thor, Juno, Tengri, click here for lots, lots more.

The response is “How do you know you’re right?” Any one of those gods in that list could be the One True God.

 

[rossum]

The response is “How do you know you’re right?” Any one of those gods in that list could be the One True God.

And if the God you happen to pick (or that your parents happened to pick) is not the right one, then you will spend an eternity in Hel for annoying the one true Odin.

Better to attend a Mosque on Fridays, a Synagogue on Saturdays and a Christian church on Sundays. Try to find time to fit in a Hindu temple sometime during the week: one temple, thousands of gods. Much better odds of finding the right god among the many on offer.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Does everyone want eternal life?

No.

[The Buddha said:] “What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?”

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

“This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

Both Christians and Buddhists are to love their neighbours as themselves. Since the eternal Christian heaven sits alongside the eternal Christian hell then everyone in heaven is separated from people they love and are aware that people they love are suffering eternally.

You are living in a five star hotel with every possible luxury available as you want it. In the next room your family is screaming in agony as they are being tortured. Are you happy? Do you want this situation to continue eternally? How many tears will you shed for the suffering of those you love?

rossum

 

[Thorns]

I want eternal life, without all the pains and limitations and evils of this world. That place is called Heaven, and yes I want it.

 

[steve_b]

Pascal’s Wager has two glaring holes that render it useless as an apologetic argument -

1. It makes the subject into a liar (Well, I don’t really believe, but I’ll go ahead and hedge my bet)

One can’t be a lier. That won’t work
c:

1. Pascal’s wager asks: “How do you know you’re right?” However, throughout human existence, there have been 1000’s of gods - Odin, Great Spirit, Ra, Istar, Baal, Shu, Khnum, Ashur, Zeus, Baldur, Mars, Freya, Anu, Aray, Grandmother Spider, Thor, Juno, Tengri, click here for lots, lots more. The response is “How do you know you’re right?” Any one of those gods in that list could be the One True God.

Which one cured incurrable sicknessess, and raised people from the dead? Which one rose from the dead himself, then appeard to His disciples all documented by eye witnesses? Given the brutal death one would be expecting for being Jesus disciple, one wouldn’t die a horrible death to lie about it

 

[cheese_sdc]

One can’t be a liar. That won’t work

Exactly, and that objection alone points to the weakness of Pascal’s wager.

 

[VincentChristop]

Time is non existent in the life after. Time is made as a consequence of fear of death.

Man is selfish to fear death, and to plan for death.

Time will exist as long as one fears.