Heaven

[Faith1960]

Is St.Thomas, St Thomas Aquinas or a different saint? Father first told me that he’d say the part of the article I c&pd for him, under “Is Heaven a Place?” "Reflects Church teaching " but among other things told me I should stick with the writings of “experts such as St. Thomas and Blessed John Paul.”

In his next email he told me that he “isn’t a theologian but that the priest (in the article) is attempting to explain heaven, which is impossible. His terms are not heretical but only another attempt to explain the inexplicable.”

I asked him if what the author said doesn’t reflect what Church teaching says after all? And he said that he’s “not saying anything about the priest (bloggers) theology, he’s proposing an explanation of heaven” and for me “to read the CCC.”

I’m.not sure if he views heaven as being a glorified place or not.

Anyone?

 

[Faith1960]

The Holographic Principle was most notably expounded by the Dutch Nobel-Laurite (1999 Nobel Prize) physicist Gerard 't Hooft

The idea was later expanded upon by the physicist Leonard Susskind.

While parts of this idea are accepted as settled science, the logical conclusions of the idea are not. The conclusion of the idea is basically that all of three-dimensional space which we occupy (which is often expressed as 3+1 dimensional space, where time is the “+1” dimension, but is not properly a “fourth” dimension) is REALLY a two-dimensional (plus 1 dimension) “hologram.”

Just as a 3D hologram is described by a combination of two-dimensional definitions, all of space and reality that we know is just a “hologram” described by definitions that could be simply be equated as “words” (“bits” of information, circumscribed about a “boundary layer” of data that describes us, but which we can never quite reach because our efforts to reach that boundary contribute to our own self-knowledge, meaning the boundary is ever expanding as our knowledge of it increases).

Where have I heard this before? Long before Nobel-laureate physicists? Oh, yeah, now I remember:

I don’t know what religion Gerard T’hooft was (he was Dutch, and probably not Catholic). I DO know that his most famous disciple, the physicist Lenny Susskind, was an atheist of Jewish descent (I know this because I read it in his own semi-autobiographical book, The Black Hole War). I don’t know if either of them ever realized that, if I were to try to explain humanity to ancient peoples, I could hardly come up with a better explanation that they would understand.

Heaven IS a glorified place. But it is a place beyond our comprehension.

Heresay? I daresay your Kindle has some spell check issues worse than my iPad! Anyway, I can’t imagine why it would be heresy to believe heaven is a glorified place.

The Church does not teach that ANYTHING that we can even IMAGINE is comparable to heaven. It is NOT an all-night pizza buffet with free beer.

A multimeter? Do you mean a micrometer (a device to measure distance?) Or a multi-meiter (a device to measure voltage and resistance?)

Or, do you mean a “multiverse” - a hypothetical physics model that supposes that EVERY quantum possibility (which numbers in the billions of billions (etc) per second) spawns an entire alternate universe). Such a physical model has been called “ontologically extravagant,” but we have no math to completely discredit it. But it is far less likely than the full adaption of the holographic principle (which seems far more mathematically compatible, as, indeed, major parts of it are considered settled fact within the scientific community).

Please define your terms. And, realize that some of us who participate on this Forum are educated and informed about the latest developments in quantum theory.

As for your last paragraph. I’m not.

 

[Faith1960]

The Holographic Principle was most notably expounded by the Dutch Nobel-Laurite (1999 Nobel Prize) physicist Gerard 't Hooft

The idea was later expanded upon by the physicist Leonard Susskind.

While parts of this idea are accepted as settled science, the logical conclusions of the idea are not. The conclusion of the idea is basically that all of three-dimensional space which we occupy (which is often expressed as 3+1 dimensional space, where time is the “+1” dimension, but is not properly a “fourth” dimension) is REALLY a two-dimensional (plus 1 dimension) “hologram.”

Just as a 3D hologram is described by a combination of two-dimensional definitions, all of space and reality that we know is just a “hologram” described by definitions that could be simply be equated as “words” (“bits” of information, circumscribed about a “boundary layer” of data that describes us, but which we can never quite reach because our efforts to reach that boundary contribute to our own self-knowledge, meaning the boundary is ever expanding as our knowledge of it increases).

.

Might heaven be there? Or does that theory ( again, waaay over my head)
even allow for heaven to be a reality?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Might heaven be there? Or does that theory ( again, waaay over my head) even allow for heaven to be a reality?

Are you trying to locate heaven relative to our position? In other words, suppose you had a starship capable of infinite speed. Do you suppose that you could point in a particular direction and somehow “arrive” at heaven?

Such an idea would be unsupported by either theology or physics.

Theology offers little insight, beyond the fact that it is beyond our understanding.

Physics offers us a glimpse to things that are beyond our understanding, but admits that we cannot ever “really” understand them.

Consider the idea of “Flatland” - a world of two-dimensional stick figures and structures. They cannot perceive us, but we can perceive (view) them (though we cannot directly interact with them). They might be equated to drawings or paintings or (more modernly) movies or TV images.

We can look at a drawing, but the drawing can never look at or comprehend us. We can view a movie, but the actors can never view (and react to) us.

 

[Faith1960]

Are you trying to locate heaven relative to our position? In other words, suppose you had a starship capable of infinite speed. Do you suppose that you could point in a particular direction and somehow “arrive” at heaven?

Such an idea would be unsupported by either theology or physics.

Theology offers little insight, beyond the fact that it is beyond our understanding.

Physics offers us a glimpse to things that are beyond our understanding, but admits that we cannot ever “really” understand them.

Consider the idea of “Flatland” - a world of two-dimensional stick figures and structures. They cannot perceive us, but we can perceive (view) them (though we cannot directly interact with them). They might be equated to drawings or paintings or (more modernly) movies or TV images.

We can look at a drawing, but the drawing can never look at or comprehend us. We can view a movie, but the actors can never view (and react to) us.

I don’t know. Just trying to understand what it is, where it could be. Trying to understand if its a physical location or a spiritual one. And if its spiritual, where did Jesus and Mary go?

 

[Faith1960]

Also, I just read something that said according to the Bible the universe is infinite. Where does it say this and does science support it?

 

[Faith1960]

Another question, sorry… This article says heaven is a spiritual realm not a physical one. Is that true and if so, how can it be true since Jesus and Mary were taken up there?

creationrevolution.com/2011/05/is-heaven-the-center-of-the-universe/

 

[Faith1960]

Pope JPII said “heaven is neither an abstraction or a physical place in the clouds.” What’s abstraction mean?

 

[fhansen]

Pope JPII said “heaven is neither an abstraction or a physical place in the clouds.” What’s abstraction mean?

I think he meant there’s simply nothing we can compare or relate it to.

 

[Faith1960]

I think he meant there’s simply nothing we can compare or relate it to.

spirit or soul. That makes more sense to me. Now, as far as Jesus and Mary, it it fair to say that they were taken up but since their bodies were glorified, (spiritual) that’s how their bodies can be there?
Or is a glorified body not spiritual?

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul rather than places as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him.

 

[Faith1960]

fhansen;11583444:

I think he meant there’s simply nothing we can compare or relate it to.

spirit or soul

. That makes more sense to me. Now, as far as Jesus and Mary, it it fair to say that they were taken up but since their bodies were glorified, (spiritual) that’s how their bodies can be there?
Or is a glorified body not spiritual?

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul rather than places as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him.

Ok I’m again. Just read that Jesus’ body was a real body with blood and bones, but glorified…So are His and Marys glorified bodies real bodies spiritual or what?

 

[fhansen]

Faith1960;11585805:

Ok I’m again. Just read that Jesus’ body was a real body with blood and bones, but glorified…So are His and Marys glorified bodies real bodies spiritual or what?

They’re different than ours but I don’t know that we can know much more than that-and I’m not sure why it matters. Can’t we just trust that it will be fantastic, however God does it?

 

[Faith1960]

Faith1960;11586662:

They’re different than ours but I don’t know that we can know much more than that-and I’m not sure why it matters. Can’t we just trust that it will be fantastic, however God does it?

I agree, I’m sure it’ll be fantastic but it is bugging me and is like to understand it better.

 

[Faith1960]

fhansen;11586720:

I agree, I’m sure it’ll be fantastic but it is bugging me and im trying to understand it better.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Also, I just read something that said according to the Bible the universe is infinite. Where does it say this and does science support it?

The Bible does not say that - at least not in such clear terms.

Recent scientists (within my lifetime) once thought the universe was infinite (but almost entirely empty). Modern physicists have speculated that the universe is neither infinite nor of fixed size, but “space” grows as matter moves into it. Thus, since the matter of the universe (galaxies, etc) is ever expanding (and will never contract), the volume of space is ever expanding.

This is a matter of considerable interest and controversy among current physicists. Nobody today, however, believes that the universe is of finite and unchanging volume. This was the view of classical (Newtonian) physicists, but it is not believed within the scientific community today. The majority of physicists today think that the volume of space expands as matter moves into it, but there is no overall consensus.

I happen to concur with the majority opinion (though my agreement carries no academic weight). Infinity does not occur within the natural world, EXCEPT (as some believe) for the volume of space. I reject the idea of infinity ANYWHERE in the natural world. I therefore believe that the volume of space is finite, but not fixed. It’s like a balloon with perfect elasticity, which can start small but grow indefinitely.

But this view requires the idea of a boundary of space, though it is one that we can never cross - at least in our current form - as we try to cross the boundary, the boundary keeps moving with us. It’s like trying to escape from a perfectly elastic balloon - it cannot be done. If we exert the slightest pressure on the wall, the wall expands before us.

This, of course, presents the ultimate question: what is on the other side of the boundary? If we COULD cross it, what would we find?

Could LIGHT cross the boundary? Remember, the boundary expands as matter moves into it. But is light matter? Yes, and no.

There was, at one time, great debate over whether light was made of particles or waves. We could construct an experimental apparatus easily enough to show it was particles (the famous two-slit experiment). But it took us longer to construct an apparatus that demonstrated it was waves (though we predicted this). If light is particles, it cannot cross the barrier. But, if it is waves, this may be possible (it still has mass-energy, and the eggheads are still trying to figure that out).

The problem is that it is impossible to demonstrate BOTH the particle and wave properties of light in the SAME EXPERIMENT. If you test for particles, you will get 100% particles. If you test for waves, you will get 100% waves. But you can NEVER test for both in the SAME test (we have conclusively proven that this is an impossibility). If you were in a spaceship, very close to the boundary of space, and you shined a light, would the light cross the boundary?

That’s an interesting problem, because this is essentially an experiment that tests both properties at once. If it crosses the boundary, then light is waves and NOT matter. If it expands the boundary, it is matter and NOT waves. OR, it is possible that the boundary can be expanded by EITHER matter OR waves. This is the type of question that keeps physicists up at night.

BUT, light is part of the physical realm. Can a purely spiritual “thing” cross the boundary without interacting with it? Physicists don’t think about that at night (well, most don’t) because they can’t study supernatural (ie, beyond natural) “things” with natural tests (which is the only type of test we can construct). But it is an interesting question, theologically speaking.

 

[Faith1960]

The Bible does not say that - at least not in such clear terms.

What does it say?
.

 

[Faith1960]

The Bible does not say that - at least not in such clear terms.

What does it say about that?

 

[Faith1960]

I just found something else online from a non-Catholic source that says the reason Jesus had flesh abd bones He spoke of after His resurrection was because he didn’t receive Hi s glorified body until He went to heaven. Right? Wrong?

 

[Faith1960]

Not “geographical” in the same way that we use that term now. As a matter of face, I don’t think “geographical” would apply at all in the realm of heaven, which is what we’re talking about.

Part of the problem may be that there is a tendency to think of resurrected bodies in the same way that we think of our bodies now (only nicer ). In other words, we think of then as having many of the same “physical” properties as our unglorified bodies.

For example, we may think of resurrected bodies as somehow having to occupy physical, geographical space/place in the same way as they do prior to resurrection. (Dimensive property of physical objects.) This would be a mistake. Resurrected bodies are different from unglorified bodies - we know this from Scripture. Jesus could pass through a solid door after His resurrection. (Jesus could be present in the same geographical place as the door!) Obviously, our conception of “place” for unglorified bodies does not hold true for glorified bodies. We don’t know how to mentally grasp or explain this difference in “space” occupation – we just know that it is true and it is different from what we experience now. Fr. Ryan (New Theological Movement) refers to this difference in the property of “space” as “glorified space” - to distinguish it from “unglorified space”.

So Jesus and Mary’s bodies are able to have gone to and be in heaven because their glorified bodies are different from unglorified bodies? The Pope said heaven is a place for spirits like angels and our souls. Is the glorified body spiritual? And if so, what about Jesus speaking of His flesh and bones? What about those other two…Enoch and Elijah or whatever their names are. Where did THEY go?

 

[Faith1960]

So Jesus and Mary’s bodies are able to have gone to and be in heaven because their glorified bodies are different from unglorified bodies? The Pope said heaven is a place for spirits like angels and our souls. Is the glorified body spiritual? And if so, what about Jesus speaking of His flesh and bones? What about those other two…Enoch and Elijah or whatever their names are. Where did THEY go?

?