If heaven does exist, do you want to be there?

[Trurl]

Oh, it’s not all harp-playing, you know - Tertullian opined that one of the pleasures of heaven would be taking the opportunity to look down over the walls and gloat at the suffering of all the poor wretches in hell. Probably not a particularly surprising speculation, coming from someone whose compatriots frequently enjoyed such things as gladiatorial matches, animal fights and vicious public executions…

There are three possibilities:

1. The inhabitants of heaven enjoy the fate of the ones in hell. That would make them twisted and sick. Disgusting. I would never want to have anything with such sickos (except having a baseball bat in my hand ).
2. The inhabitants of heaven feel sorry and compassion toward those who are being tortured eternally (especially for someting like one unrepented masturbation). That would make them decent fellows and as such they would not want to be part of such a horrible state of affairs. I am sure they would revolt. I sure would.
3. They are brainwashed into not caring any more. Effectively losing their “humanity”.

I am not sure which is the worst of these scenarios.

 

[jochoa]

There are three possibilities:

1. The inhabitants of heaven enjoy the fate of the ones in hell. That would make them twisted and sick. Disgusting. I would never want to have anything with such sickos (except having a baseball bat in my hand ).
2. The inhabitants of heaven feel sorry and compassion toward those who are being tortured eternally (especially for someting like one unrepented masturbation). That would make them decent fellows and as such they would not want to be part of such a horrible state of affairs. I am sure they would revolt. I sure would.
3. They are brainwashed into not caring any more. Effectively losing their “humanity”.

I am not sure which is the worst of these scenarios.

Interesting thoughts! Have you considered possibility 3b?

3b) Since the heavenly inhabitants have done everything a person can do to share the means to the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, to the point where the only thing separating others from heaven is their free-willed decision to do the means to experience heaven, therefore, the heavenly inhabitants can be at peace knowing it is not their desire nor reason for the others to miss out. Effectively gaining their “divinity”.

Or would you still consider that “brainwashed into not caring any more”?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Or would you still consider that “brainwashed into not caring any more”?

There’s one thing I have a hard time shaking with the questions on how some one will react to something after they’ve experienced a death of their body. I’ll grant for a moment that one’s consciousness and identity survive their death (obviously not a personal belief, but for the sake of discussion I’ll grant that).

While we are alive out reactions and behavior are influenced by chemical states. A person may react a certain way before they’ve had their coffee, after they’ve had their coffee, after they’ve had too much coffee, as their hormone levels change through out life, when they are under the influence of medication and other behavior altering substances, so on. Some reactions can also be muted by preventing certain chemical states from being achieved. For example certain beta blockers have an impact on how one may react in fear inducing situations. So long as you are embodied your behavior is influenced by the state of this body. Having never experienced consciousness without a body (and thus without a chemical state) the question of how one would [re]act when completely free of the influence of their body is a foreign one to me. There’s never, to the best of my knowledge, been any type of study of the psychology of the disembodied to collect information on such things. I find it to be a rather odd thing to consider.

For me it’s an oddity on par with some of the pictures that have been painted of hell where immaterial fire is burning one’s immaterial soul (I know this isn’t the current Catholic concept of hell, but using it for an example). It sounds easy enough to understand until one starts to think about what it suggest. Fire is primarily an electrical phenomenon. The colours at the base of the flame (blues and whites) are from photons that are released as molecular bonds are breaking. Many of the other colors (reds and orange) are from hot particles that are releasing their energy as photons as they cool. After understanding what fire is and hearing that there’s a place of fire that hasn’t material substance starts off sounding like an impossibly concept; at least when these key words are used to mean what they usually mean.

 

[Trurl]

Interesting thoughts! Have you considered possibility 3b?

3b) Since the heavenly inhabitants have done everything a person can do to share the means to the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, to the point where the only thing separating others from heaven is their free-willed decision to do the means to experience heaven, therefore, the heavenly inhabitants can be at peace knowing it is not their desire nor reason for the others to miss out. Effectively gaining their “divinity”.

Or would you still consider that “brainwashed into not caring any more”?

Yes, I would. In the unlikely event that there would a heaven and a hell as traditionally depicted, and if I would be assigned to this heaven, I would be unable to simply “write off” those exposed to eternal torture. What you call “divinity” I call “inhuman” and “inhumane”.

 

[jochoa]

There’s one thing I have a hard time shaking with the questions on how some one will react to something after they’ve experienced a death of their body. I’ll grant for a moment that one’s consciousness and identity survive their death (obviously not a personal belief, but for the sake of discussion I’ll grant that).

While we are alive out reactions and behavior are influenced by chemical states. A person may react a certain way before they’ve had their coffee, after they’ve had their coffee, after they’ve had too much coffee, as their hormone levels change through out life, when they are under the influence of medication and other behavior altering substances, so on. Some reactions can also be muted by preventing certain chemical states from being achieved. For example certain beta blockers have an impact on how one may react in fear inducing situations. So long as you are embodied your behavior is influenced by the state of this body. Having never experienced consciousness without a body (and thus without a chemical state) the question of how one would [re]act when completely free of the influence of their body is a foreign one to me. There’s never, to the best of my knowledge, been any type of study of the psychology of the disembodied to collect information on such things. I find it to be a rather odd thing to consider.

For me it’s an oddity on par with some of the pictures that have been painted of hell where immaterial fire is burning one’s immaterial soul (I know this isn’t the current Catholic concept of hell, but using it for an example). It sounds easy enough to understand until one starts to think about what it suggest. Fire is primarily an electrical phenomenon. The colours at the base of the flame (blues and whites) are from photons that are released as molecular bonds are breaking. Many of the other colors (reds and orange) are from hot particles that are releasing their energy as photons as they cool. After understanding what fire is and hearing that there’s a place of fire that hasn’t material substance starts off sounding like an impossibly concept; at least when these key words are used to mean what they usually mean.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You have a very interesting perspective. Do you believe humans have the ability to choose their wants?

 

[Poseidon]

From the descriptions of heaven I’ve heard it seems like spending eternity in mass in a giant beautiful cathedral. It would be interesting for a while, just to look around and hear the beautiful music, but it’d get really boring after not too long.

Of course if the only other option is being tortured forever then I’d choose heaven. Boredom is better than being flamethrowered (forever).

If I could add a third option - reincarnation - I’d take that over either of those two. Even if it was reincarnation as an animal (actually especially then) I would choose that. There are a few animal species I’d love to try out. Could you imagine how much fun it would be to be a dolphin? Or a dog? Or live my entire life soaring over the ocean as a wandering albatross? I think I’d choose this option even if it meant I’d die along with the world, and cease to exist.

 

[jochoa]

Yes, I would. In the unlikely event that there would a heaven and a hell as traditionally depicted, and if I would be assigned to this heaven, I would be unable to simply “write off” those exposed to eternal torture. What you call “divinity” I call “inhuman” and “inhumane”.

Thanks for further discussion. Please consider the following thought experiment:
If you told me not to place my bare hand in a small fire,
Then you showed me images of the consequences of accidents involving burn victims,
And then you showed me what happens to a small piece of wood or an animal to be cooked when placed directly in fire,
And you ensured you knew that I knew the consequences I would experience from placing my bare hand in fire for a prolonged period of time,

And then I freely chose, generally knowing the consequences to come, to place my bare hand in a small fire for a prolonged period of time,

Would you be able to “write me off” from the exposition to the torture I am about to experience?

 

[Poseidon]

Thanks for further discussion. Please consider the following thought experiment:
If you told me not to place my bare hand in a small fire,
Then you showed me images of the consequences of accidents involving burn victims,
And then you showed me what happens to a small piece of wood or an animal to be cooked when placed directly in fire,
And you ensured you knew that I knew the consequences I would experience from placing my bare hand in fire for a prolonged period of time,

And then I freely chose, generally knowing the consequences to come, to place my bare hand in a small fire for a prolonged period of time,

Would you be able to “write me off” from the exposition to the torture I am about to experience?

Except that most people don’t “know the consequences to come.” I don’t believe in hell, so I don’t “know” that it’s a consequence. It can’t be a consequence because it’s imaginary.

Also, if you showed me a fire and pictures of burned hands then you’re giving me concrete evidence of what is to come. The day Satan appears to me and gives me a photo album of his exploits in hell I’ll believe in him, but until then I’m going to continue thinking of the Christian hell in the same way I think of the Norse, Buddhist, Muslim, and every other hell - as imaginary places used to scare people into obedience.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You have a very interesting perspective. Do you believe humans have the ability to choose their wants?

Hmmm…the short answer is “not sure.”

The expanded answer:

People’s wants may be multilayered and hierarchical. There are some primal (foundational) wants for which one normally has little conscious influence, such as a want for food, water, to escape extreme cold or heat, some psychological wants (want to feel safe, desire for sex, a dislike of pain, so on) and so on. It may be possible to influence the intensity of these wants (I’ll call them firmwired, but not hardwired).

Then there are wants that directly or indirectly support these needs. One might want a house in a certain neighborhood to increase feelings of safety. One may want higher income to afford that house. One may want to improve the physical appearance to attract a mate. It may be possible to convince some one that the feeling of safety and security can be achieved without the higher income and residence in that neighborhood. This might on one level constitute a person changing her wants. But underneath she is still trying to satisfy the same foundational needs. One could argue that her deepest wants haven’t changed, though her strategy for satisfying these wants have changed.

I think that a person that sees themselves as capable of changing their wants may have less control of doing so than they see them selves to be able to. To complicate this further some times these underlying needs can compete with each other and different people may have different intensities of these wants. Some one’s desire for food could lead to the person being overweight and influence their success at finding a mate. Social pressures from the community may influence which want is pursued more intensely; if she is the only person among her social circle that hasn’t found a mate and if she feels left out then she may end up not satisfying the food-want to make herself more attractive. If most of her social group is single and if there isn’t as much pressure then she may allow the food need to be satisfied while jeopardizing her chances of getting a mate.

One may not be aware of all of the needs and wants that she is trying to satisfy. These considerations and others (that I haven’t expressed here) make this simple sounding question difficult.

 

[Jimdandy]

OK, now I am perplexed-all ya’ll Catholics do attend and participate in the Holy Mass, correct?

(I am there with Jesus and all the Angels and Saints-where are you?)

sigh…sometimes I just don’t get the why of the question… +JMJ+ Pray for us

 

[Trurl]

jochoa:

Thanks for further discussion. Please consider the following thought experiment:
If you told me not to place my bare hand in a small fire,
Then you showed me images of the consequences of accidents involving burn victims,
And then you showed me what happens to a small piece of wood or an animal to be cooked when placed directly in fire,
And you ensured you knew that I knew the consequences I would experience from placing my bare hand in fire for a prolonged period of time,

And then I freely chose, generally knowing the consequences to come, to place my bare hand in a small fire for a prolonged period of time,

Would you be able to “write me off” from the exposition to the torture I am about to experience?

Poseidon answered it beautifully.

Let me give another example. We are walking together in the desert on a hot day. We see something in the distance, which looks like a lake. I assert that there is only a mirage there, while you say that it is a real lake. You say, that you will prove it to me that there is real lake out there and not a mirage.

Case #1. We keep on walking and walking for days and days, and the “lake” never gets closer. In this case I am justified to discard your assertion, and keep on maintaining that we only see a mirage.

Case #2. We keep on walking and in about an hour we get to the lake. We sip a little water, we take a dip in the water, we hear the sound of the waves… In this case it would be totally irrational for me to deny the existence of this lake, and maintain, that “maybe” we are mistaken. Nothing beats a good, unmistakeble physical evidence.

And that is what is missing. You keep on asserting that there a lake out there, and if only we would be willing to walk, and walk, then “eventually” we would get there. I ask: “how long”? You answer, “I don’t know”. I ask if you have ever been to the lakeshore? You say: “no, but you have heard about this lake from other people, and you trust them”. I ask if those people have ever been at this “lake”? You answer: “no, they have not been there either”. So, finally I ask, if there ever was someone at this lake. If you are honest, then you would say: “I don’t know, but I believe, since there is this story, propagated across the millenia, which says so”. (There are intellectually dishonest (or simply idiotic) people that keep on asserting that they “know”. Such people do not merit attention.)

The point is that it is all a mirage and stories about that “lake”. There is no way to get there. And then comes the insult added to the injury. It is also asserted (very forcefully) that if you do keep on denying the existence of that “lake”, then you “obstinately refuse the light” and thus you “choose” to be burned forever. And this is called “infinite, divine justice and mercy”. Do you see why the reaction is: “Sheeesh!”.

 

[jochoa]

Except that most people don’t “know the consequences to come.” I don’t believe in hell, so I don’t “know” that it’s a consequence. It can’t be a consequence because it’s imaginary.

Since you declared, “except that…,” we can deduce that if you ensured the only thing separating me from not experiencing the painful consequences of placing my bare hand in fire for a prolonged period of time, is my free-willed decision to either keep my hand away or place my hand into the fire. It would be perfectly valid for you not to have any strife over the “hell” of pain I will experience, if I choose to do it.

Therefore, possibility 3b is perfectly valid. I would also agree that your application of this principle in terms of heaven and hell are also valid.

The next question I have for your consideration is: Are you interested in ways of deducing the consequences of heaven and hell, respectively?

Also, if you showed me a fire and pictures of burned hands then you’re giving me concrete evidence of what is to come. The day Satan appears to me and gives me a photo album of his exploits in hell I’ll believe in him, but until then I’m going to continue thinking of the Christian hell in the same way I think of the Norse, Buddhist, Muslim, and every other hell - as imaginary places used to scare people into obedience.

Please consider the following: Satan will not reveal his exploits because he wants you to believe in him.

Thank you very much for the extended discussion! I thoroughly appreciate your time and perspective!

 

[jochoa]

Hmmm…the short answer is “not sure.”

The expanded answer:

People’s wants may be multilayered and hierarchical. There are some primal (foundational) wants for which one normally has little conscious influence, such as a want for food, water, to escape extreme cold or heat, some psychological wants (want to feel safe, desire for sex, a dislike of pain, so on) and so on. It may be possible to influence the intensity of these wants (I’ll call them firmwired, but not hardwired).

Then there are wants that directly or indirectly support these needs. One might want a house in a certain neighborhood to increase feelings of safety. One may want higher income to afford that house. One may want to improve the physical appearance to attract a mate. It may be possible to convince some one that the feeling of safety and security can be achieved without the higher income and residence in that neighborhood. This might on one level constitute a person changing her wants. But underneath she is still trying to satisfy the same foundational needs. One could argue that her deepest wants haven’t changed, though her strategy for satisfying these wants have changed.

I think that a person that sees themselves as capable of changing their wants may have less control of doing so than they see them selves to be able to. To complicate this further some times these underlying needs can compete with each other and different people may have different intensities of these wants. Some one’s desire for food could lead to the person being overweight and influence their success at finding a mate. Social pressures from the community may influence which want is pursued more intensely; if she is the only person among her social circle that hasn’t found a mate and if she feels left out then she may end up not satisfying the food-want to make herself more attractive. If most of her social group is single and if there isn’t as much pressure then she may allow the food need to be satisfied while jeopardizing her chances of getting a mate.

One may not be aware of all of the needs and wants that she is trying to satisfy. These considerations and others (that I haven’t expressed here) make this simple sounding question difficult.

Thank you very much, my friend, for further discussion! I really liked your distinction of firmwired and hardwired because we have the option of updating the firmware! I think I understand what you are saying, and I would express them as:

Humans by nature are created with the wants for greater happiness and greater peace.
Humans have natural tendencies to fulfill these wants from genetic, upbringing, and past experiences.
Humans have the option to change their natural tendencies to the optimal means to fulfill the wants of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace through the discipline of sacrificing personal desires for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the self.

Thoughts?

 

[jochoa]

And that is what is missing. You keep on asserting that there a lake out there, and if only we would be willing to walk, and walk, then “eventually” we would get there.

Excellent points, my friend! However, please consider my answers:

I ask: “how long”?

I respond, “Be patient and want to do the work to get there for we will get there in time.” Followed with, “This will ensure you are peaceful and enjoying the time.” And, “Besides if we do not make it, we are going to die anyway, so we might as well try to make the trip as peaceful and joyful as possible!”

I ask if you have ever been to the lakeshore?

I respond, “Definitely! Haven’t you ever been having fun without anyone losing peace?”

So, finally I ask, if there ever was someone at this lake.

Stating truth I say, “Sure! Have you ever met Jesus? He is the one who told me and demonstrated to simply be patient and kind for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace.”

… about that “lake”. There is no way to get there.

There is a way: All you have to do is always freely be and spread the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit (memory of your person), thoughts, and will equally towards others and your self for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace. Then to ensure you are correct, solve how a person shares the means to experience limitless happiness with unbreakable peace, given the person initially exists in absolute solitude. The solution will reveal the Church of God!

And then comes the insult added to the injury. It is also asserted (very forcefully) that if you do keep on denying the existence of that “lake”, then you “obstinately refuse the light” and thus you “choose” to be burned forever.

Please consider the following. When people speak hatefully to me, I try to recognize the following: Although their intention is righteous, they have yet to learn the means to be more polite in their presentation, so I try to remain patient and enjoy the conversation because in doing so, I will only enjoy the time I am living more. Therefore, I interpret your passage as: "It is also asserted that if you do keep on “believing there is no ‘lake’ to the point that you stop seeking the ‘lake’, then you are ‘closing’ yourself ‘off’ to the ‘possibility of the reality of the ‘lake’, and therefore your only option is to ‘remain in the desert’’.”

And this is called “infinite, divine justice and mercy”. Do you see why the reaction is: “Sheeesh!”.

Given your understandings, I definitely see why your reaction is “Sheesh!” I hope you will remain open to the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, for it really exists, but it does take an open-mind with great discipline to find it.

I look forward to further discussion! Thoughts?

 

[Trurl]

Excellent points, my friend! However, please consider my answers:

Thank you.

I respond, “Be patient and want to do the work to get there for we will get there in time.” Followed with, “This will ensure you are peaceful and enjoying the time.” And, “Besides if we do not make it, we are going to die anyway, so we might as well try to make the trip as peaceful and joyful as possible!”

Ah, but that is not the way it goes. I do not have infinite patience to chase a mirage, which may very well not be there. Life is precious and I can think of zillions of better things to do with it.

I respond, “Definitely! Haven’t you ever been having fun without anyone losing peace?”

You forget, the “lake” represents heaven in this little parable. No one has ever been there. It is all hearsay.

Therefore, I interpret your passage as: "It is also asserted that if you do keep on “believing there is no ‘lake’ to the point that you stop seeking the ‘lake’, then you are ‘closing’ yourself ‘off’ to the ‘possibility of the reality of the ‘lake’, and therefore your only option is to ‘remain in the desert’’.”

Not excatly. I stopped wasting my time to chase the mirage, but I am still open to the possibility that someone might have actual, precise information, which is worth to follow and see the result. But “be patient” simply does not cut it. It must have a precise timeline with a definite (and short) ending to it.

Given your understandings, I definitely see why your reaction is “Sheesh!” I hope you will remain open to the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, for it really exists, but it does take an open-mind with great discipline to find it.

To be honest the way that heaven is depicted is totally “unappetizing” to me. It sounds incredibly boring. And I would not want anything “forever” either.

 

[tonyrey]

To be honest the way that heaven is depicted is totally “unappetizing” to me. It sounds incredibly boring. And I would not want anything “forever” either.

To wish to vanish completely is a symptom of vacuity!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Let me give another example. We are walking together in the desert on a hot day. We see something in the distance, which looks like a lake. I assert that there is only a mirage there, while you say that it is a real lake. You say, that you will prove it to me that there is real lake out there and not a mirage. …]

It sounds like you are describing what TheraminTrees had described as the impossible game (here is the abridged version)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Humans by nature are created with the wants for greater happiness and greater peace.

Hmmm…I don’t quite agree with the “created” part but I would agree that many humans have a desire for greater peace and happiness. Not all do, but it’s common.

Humans have natural tendencies to fulfill these wants from genetic, upbringing, and past experiences.

I would agree that natural and nurtured motivations along with past experiences and the expectations formed from them are involved.

Humans have the option to change their natural tendencies to the optimal means to fulfill the wants of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace through the discipline of sacrificing personal desires for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the self.

I can’t quite agree with this. Some ones happiness can be driven by internal and external factors. Ones ability to change these varies. Some have little influence over their external environment. Some have a great amount of influence over their own environment and that of the others that live in their community. Put me in an environment where I have almost no influence over these (such as in a prison in Iran) and I would personally doubt my own ability to achieve happiness. I get the feeling there would be other parties that would occupationally see to me being displeased.

One’s ability to modify their tendencies will also vary. An impulsive person may find himself unable to not act on impulses without the assistance of medication or other trusted ones being involved. There seem to be some biological factors that influence this. Many people can be reliably expected to fail and some behavioural modifications without external intervention. On the opposite end of that a compulsive person may also run into problems with breaking the compulsions. There’s assistance available to some people that wish to break these problems, but not to everyone.

And I must say that I find the concept of “limitless happiness” to be one that is rather alien to me as is “unbreakable peace.”

 

[Pat_Albertson]

I have thought a lot about the possibility of both eternal non-existence and eternal existence. Since this thread is about heaven, I thought I would say that one of the things I have thought a lot about with regard to this issue is the phenomenon of NDEs.

I’m not going to debate whether they are real or not, since that would be off topic, but here is one I recently ran across that I found interesting:
youtube.com/watch?v=xYZoX4N5_YQ

I find the depictions of the afterlife (and heaven) by NDE experiencers to be fascinating, and they depict heaven as a very desirable place to be. I think I would like such an afterlife.

 

[ManRay]

Hmmm…I don’t quite agree with the “created” part but I would agree that many humans have a desire for greater peace and happiness. Not all do, but it’s common.

The problem with this whole scenario is that when a rational human wants something more - it’s is bound to our understanding of reality. The only tools we have to work with. You can’t logically long for something that exists outside of the very logic you would use to long for it - rationally. You can’t logically imagine a happier moment than your happiest moment - there is no frame of reference. You may irrationally claim you can - but that is an impossibility and intellectually dishonest.