Time runs out when you die, but not in purgatory?

[jonathan_hili]

An additional concern would be: how is it meaningful to say those in heaven or hell have free will? If freedom of the will is integral to our humanity, but those in hell can’t repent and those in heaven can’t sin, how can we say there are any true human beings in either place? Indeed, some would have us believe God values freedom to an extreme extent, maybe more than anything else, certainly more than our happiness or eternal beatitude. But, should we believe he won’t tolerate it in his own house? Why not? Is it impossible because there is no “time” in the afterlife? I submit that many aspects of an authentic human existence aren’t possible without time either. Is it because the people in both places simply happen to continuously choose their respective fates, but they retain the intrinsic ability to either repent or sin, though it never happens (i.e. “locked from the inside”)? It seems like a few thousand years of fiery torture would change anyone’s mind!

I agree with you that a “timeless” - in the sense of non-consecutive moments - reality for human beings, even glorified ones, makes very little sense. However, this could be the case for disembodied human souls, and so the current state for those in heaven and hell, and indeed purgatory, if it is not understood in a temporal sense.

As for free will in the afterlife, you make some good points. Christians believe that throughout this life we are transformed by God’s grace, their willful actions, response to God and so on, so that when we die (perhaps better, are directly in God’s presence) our wills are not so much “fixed” as (as C.S. Lewis once said) we have become a certain kind of person who either loves God or hates God. Now, because our death means a naked encounter with God, those who love God will be enraptured even more and continue to do so and their wills will freely continue to will such love of God; however, those who hate God will - confronted with the reality of God - hate Him and freely continue to hate Him. You cannot freely change their minds because they have become the kind of people who hate God (by which I mean not necessarily a conscious loathing of God, which may be quite rare, but rather a hatred of God’s essence, in particular, love). The “few thousand years of fiery torture” is (when not taken literalistically) such continuous hatred in God’s presence.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I agree with you that a “timeless” - in the sense of non-consecutive moments - reality for human beings, even glorified ones, makes very little sense. However, this could be the case for disembodied human souls, and so the current state for those in heaven and hell, and indeed purgatory, if it is not understood in a temporal sense.

As for free will in the afterlife, you make some good points. Christians believe that throughout this life we are transformed by God’s grace, their willful actions, response to God and so on, so that when we die (perhaps better, are directly in God’s presence) our wills are not so much “fixed” as (as C.S. Lewis once said) we have become a certain kind of person who either loves God or hates God. Now, because our death means a naked encounter with God, those who love God will be enraptured even more and continue to do so and their wills will freely continue to will such love of God; however, those who hate God will - confronted with the reality of God - hate Him and freely continue to hate Him. You cannot freely change their minds because they have become the kind of people who hate God (by which I mean not necessarily a conscious loathing of God, which may be quite rare, but rather a hatred of God’s essence, in particular, love). The “few thousand years of fiery torture” is (when not taken literalistically) such continuous hatred in God’s presence.

If it is possible for there to be “the kind of people who love God” who also retain free will and full humanity, then why didn’t he exclusively create those people in the first place? It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, especially the victims of sin, and those suffering endless torment.

Must remember: the Catholic Church insists that there will be bodies in both heaven and hell. Bodies take up space. Space doesn’t exist without time, and time doesn’t exist without space (according to my understanding of our latest scientific theories, please correct me if I’m wrong).

By insisting that bodies exist in hell and heaven, the Catholic Church has put themselves in a precarious philosophical position, and have adopted a baggage-laden metaphysics with many difficult implications.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If it is possible for there to be “the kind of people who love God” who also retain free will and full humanity, then why didn’t he exclusively create those people in the first place? It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, especially the victims of sin, and those suffering endless torment.

Must remember: the Catholic Church insists that there will be bodies in both heaven and hell. Bodies take up space. Space doesn’t exist without time, and time doesn’t exist without space (according to my understanding of our latest scientific theories, please correct me if I’m wrong).

By insisting that bodies exist in hell and heaven, the Catholic Church has put themselves in a precarious philosophical position, and have adopted a baggage-laden metaphysics with many difficult implications.

https://jorgeschulz.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1010672-bigthumbnail.jpg

Fifty-five percent of people here disagree with and they DO believe space can and does exist without time:

debate.org/opinions/can-space-exist-without-time

 

[jonathan_hili]

If it is possible for there to be “the kind of people who love God” who also retain free will and full humanity, then why didn’t he exclusively create those people in the first place? It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, especially the victims of sin, and those suffering endless torment.

It may be logically possible but not metaphysically possible. Someone like W.L. Craig believes that such a universe may not be feasible, for instance, that such a universe would be populated by very few people. I think such possibilities are difficult to guess at.

However, I wouldn’t call people “victims” of sin. A sin, to be a sin, is the committing of a willful moral wrong. Someone who is unaware of what they are doing, or that it is wrong, are not sinning, though what they are doing may be objectively immoral.

Must remember: the Catholic Church insists that there will be bodies in both heaven and hell. Bodies take up space. Space doesn’t exist without time, and time doesn’t exist without space (according to my understanding of our latest scientific theories, please correct me if I’m wrong).

By insisting that bodies exist in hell and heaven, the Catholic Church has put themselves in a precarious philosophical position, and have adopted a baggage-laden metaphysics with many difficult implications.

https://jorgeschulz.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1010672-bigthumbnail.jpg

What’s difficult about it? I am not suggesting that embodied souls inhabit a timeless and spaceless reality.

Hmm I’m not sure if time could exist without space. If time is the measurement of change, it may be possible for there to be time without space, for instance, the change in an enumerated series being counted successively by a disembodied mind.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Fifty-five percent of people here disagree with and they DO believe space can and does exist without time:

debate.org/opinions/can-space-exist-without-time

I do not think truth is decided by vote. That said, I do not understand the science very well. I have been assured that space and time exist only together, based on our best scientific understanding, but it is possible that understanding is false and later experiments will reveal the truth.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I do not think truth is decided by vote. That said, I do not understand the science very well. I have been assured that space and time exist only together, based on our best scientific understanding, but it is possible that understanding is false and later experiments will reveal the truth.

I’m not sure about this but aren’t space and time philosophical rather than scientific concepts?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It may be logically possible but not metaphysically possible. Someone like W.L. Craig believes that such a universe may not be feasible, for instance, that such a universe would be populated by very few people. I think such possibilities are difficult to guess at.

Yes, I am familiar with Craig’s argument. I won’t comment on it here since I think it would take too long and be off topic, but his point is a good one and very thought provoking.

However, I wouldn’t call people “victims” of sin. A sin, to be a sin, is the committing of a willful moral wrong. Someone who is unaware of what they are doing, or that it is wrong, are not sinning, though what they are doing may be objectively immoral.

There is an horrific story in the NY times about ISIS fighters who kidnap, rape, and sell women as sex slaves. One woman described the repeated ritualistic prayer/rape of a 12 year old girl. She is a victim of sin, that is what I mean. Would that those ISIS fighters had never been born at all! That girl would have escaped a painful, humiliating, and spirit shattering suffering. The ISIS fighter would have escaped the eternal torment surely awaiting those who perpetrate such crimes. It would have been an absolute net gain for goodness and happiness in the world. Think of all the victims of brutal, humiliating, savage, and disgusting crimes all throughout human history: and then consider the perpetrators, swirling and burning in an endless hell. It all could have been avoided if God chose to create only those who “are the kind of people who love God.”

*Note: I do not believe this is actually possible. I am playing “devil’s advocate” by responding with a possible rejoinder to the idea that those in heaven will have free will and just so happen to always choose rightly. Personally, I believe that the people in the World to Come will be overwhelmed by knowledge of and love for God, such that they will be transformed into a different kind of human being. I do not think these transformed beings will have “free will” in any meaningful sense. I think the kind of “free will” we have is what remained after we ate from the tree of judgment without first eating from the tree of life.

What’s difficult about it? I am not suggesting that embodied souls inhabit a timeless and spaceless reality.

Hmm I’m not sure if time could exist without space. If time is the measurement of change, it may be possible for there to be time without space, for instance, the change in an enumerated series being counted successively by a disembodied mind.

Some people do insist that heaven and/or hell are timeless and spaceless realities. If you don’t then you have no conflict with Catholic teaching. However, by agreeing with Catholic teaching you have many difficult things to explain, because human bodies can exist only within a narrow spectrum of space. We need very specific levels of heat, gravity, and pressure. We need a certain composition of air to breathe, nutrition, etc. We can withstand only so much suffering before we either go insane or become catatonic. In order for us to withstand endless torment in hell, it appears that God will have to miraculously restore and sustain us, or else surely we would be destroyed by such immense suffering over a long period of time. This implies that God is an active participant in hell. Even if he is not the torturer per se, he is the one who enables the torture to continue indefinitely. The argument that people “torture themselves” in hell is only a half-truth, if they have bodies that occupy time and space. Are there sandwiches in hell, or does God miraculously sustain the damned in order to preserve them for more self-torture? If there are sandwiches, are there farms? There are many more problems proceeding from the idea that human bodies exist in hell.

 

[Brendan]

One of the arguments on a different thread for why people go to hell is because “time runs out when you die, there is no more chance to repent.” But since purgatory is a temporal place, time goes on for the people who go there; so couldn’t God give anyone a chance to repent by sending them there?

The only ones in Purgatory are the one who are bound for Heaven, those who died in a state of Grace.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I do not think truth is decided by vote. That said, I do not understand the science very well. I have been assured that space and time exist only together, based on our best scientific understanding, but it is possible that understanding is false and later experiments will reveal the truth.

They aren’t deciding by vote. LOL They are putting up valid arguments as to WHY space can exist without time. I would have to vote with the fifty-five percent. God can do anything. He is not limited by the laws of physics that limit human beings.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Some people do insist that heaven and/or hell are timeless and spaceless realities. If you don’t then you have no conflict with Catholic teaching. However, by agreeing with Catholic teaching you have many difficult things to explain, because human bodies can exist only within a narrow spectrum of space. We need very specific levels of heat, gravity, and pressure. We need a certain composition of air to breathe, nutrition, etc. We can withstand only so much suffering before we either go insane or become catatonic. In order for us to withstand endless torment in hell, it appears that God will have to miraculously restore and sustain us, or else surely we would be destroyed by such immense suffering over a long period of time. This implies that God is an active participant in hell. Even if he is not the torturer per se, he is the one who enables the torture to continue indefinitely. The argument that people “torture themselves” in hell is only a half-truth, if they have bodies that occupy time and space. Are there sandwiches in hell, or does God miraculously sustain the damned in order to preserve them for more self-torture? If there are sandwiches, are there farms? There are many more problems proceeding from the idea that human bodies exist in hell.

We don’t really know what the resurrected and glorified body will need or be able to live with or without. Or how much suffering a body in hell will be able to endure. No one can say.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

They aren’t deciding by vote. LOL They are putting up valid arguments as to WHY space can exist without time. I would have to vote with the fifty-five percent. God can do anything. He is not limited by the laws of physics that limit human beings.

It isn’t a question of the limitations of God, but the limitations on human beings. General Relativity suggests that in order for matter to exist, there must also be space and time. Human bodies are made out of matter, by definition. This is a problem for those who insist that bodies exist in heaven and hell. It is entirely possible, and likely, that General Relativity is not correct about things, and not complete. However, it does have good predictive power, and it is able to be tested by experimentation. As I understand it, according to this theory, time is just an aspect of space (space-time). Here is a good explanation with very clear graphics:

youtube.com/watch?v=sryrZwYguRQ

 

[PumpkinCookie]

We don’t really know what the resurrected and glorified body will need or be able to live with or without. Or how much suffering a body in hell will be able to endure. No one can say.

The problem with statements like this is that anyone can make them, so then it becomes a question of the credibility of the one proposing the belief. If I said:

“In the afterlife, we will become chocolate pudding.” And then you said:

“That is 1) impossible, 2) meaningless, 3) ridiculous, and 4) pointless.” But I responded with:

“We don’t really know what our chocolate pudding existence will be like, or what it will mean to be chocolate pudding, or how we will be kept in the eternal refrigerator. No one can say.” You probably wouldn’t accept that right? The RCC has made tremendous claims:

Bodies exist in hell, a place or state of endless torment.
Bodies exist in heaven, a place or state of union with God.

For me to pose questions about the nature of those bodies and the various potential discrepancies with the other claims about heaven and hell is warranted, is it not?

By the way, the overwhelming majority opinion of “debate.org” is that the USA should nuke the entire middle east!

debate.org/opinions/should-america-nuke-the-middle-east

If the contributors to that site don’t have such a good grasp of international politics, what makes you think their opinions about quantum physics are better founded?

Also, I seem to remember the last time we interacted on this forum, you were a theology student. Now you are a professor! Congrats!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The problem with statements like this is that anyone can make them, so then it becomes a question of the credibility of the one proposing the belief. If I said:

“In the afterlife, we will become chocolate pudding.” And then you said:

“That is 1) impossible, 2) meaningless, 3) ridiculous, and 4) pointless.” But I responded with:

“We don’t really know what our chocolate pudding existence will be like, or what it will mean to be chocolate pudding, or how we will be kept in the eternal refrigerator. No one can say.” You probably wouldn’t accept that right? The RCC has made tremendous claims:

Bodies exist in hell, a place or state of endless torment.
Bodies exist in heaven, a place or state of union with God.

For me to pose questions about the nature of those bodies and the various potential discrepancies with the other claims about heaven and hell is warranted, is it not?

By the way, the overwhelming majority opinion of “debate.org” is that the USA should nuke the entire middle east!

debate.org/opinions/should-america-nuke-the-middle-east

If the contributors to that site don’t have such a good grasp of international politics, what makes you think their opinions about quantum physics are better founded?

Also, I seem to remember the last time we interacted on this forum, you were a theology student. Now you are a professor! Congrats!

Thank you. I had to graduate sometime. I managed to string my education out long enough to get a job with the university, though, which is what I wanted since academia is where I belong. By this time it feels like my home.

Physics is probably my worst subject, though it’s fascinating, so I’m just going to say, “Okay, point taken,” on this one.

 

[Brendan]

Some people do insist that heaven and/or hell are timeless and spaceless realities. If you don’t then you have no conflict with Catholic teaching. However, by agreeing with Catholic teaching you have many difficult things to explain, because human bodies can exist only within a narrow spectrum of space.

If you want to talk science, remember that scientific observation is limited. It can only deal with what is measurable within the existing space ime reality. By definition, it can make no determination whatsoever, on what conditions exist outside of our observable reality. let alone what the contitions of life are outside of observable reality.

We can withstand only so much suffering before we either go insane or become catatonic. In order for us to withstand endless torment in hell, it appears that God will have to miraculously restore and sustain us, or else surely we would be destroyed by such immense suffering over a long period of time.

For anyone in Hell to go insane requires a time element of space ime. That would require that such a place as Hell exist within our space ime or in a Universe where such a time element exists. How do you prove or disprove the existence of Hell in our Universe, what planet is it on? What star does it orbit?. If it is a metaphysical reality, then using biological truths dependent on our space ime reality are meaningless. Literally.

Science cannot address such a differing space ime, let alone address the biology of it. So why do you attempt to do what science cannot? It is like using the quadratic equation to compute Love to seven decimal places. Meaningless Or what is the value of 2(Justice x Fortitude) ▲ Mercy

Yes, the quadratic equation is very precise within it’s boundaries, but it cannot address non mathematical realities, correct?

 

[Gorgias]

The problem with statements like this is that anyone can make them, so then it becomes a question of the credibility of the one proposing the belief. If I said:

“In the afterlife, we will become chocolate pudding.” And then you said:

“That is 1) impossible, 2) meaningless, 3) ridiculous, and 4) pointless.” But I responded with:

“We don’t really know what our chocolate pudding existence will be like, or what it will mean to be chocolate pudding, or how we will be kept in the eternal refrigerator. No one can say.” You probably wouldn’t accept that right? The RCC has made tremendous claims:

Bodies exist in hell, a place or state of endless torment.
Bodies exist in heaven, a place or state of union with God.

For me to pose questions about the nature of those bodies and the various potential discrepancies with the other claims about heaven and hell is warranted, is it not?

It is warranted; but, perhaps, you don’t realize that you’ve answered your questions before you even answered them. Let me remind you:

The problem with statements like this is that anyone can make them, so then it becomes a question of the credibility of the one proposing the belief.

There’s your answer right there. The ‘one proposing the belief’ is God; He has provided His self-revelation through Jesus and through His word in Scripture. So, the ‘credibility’ that God has… is beyond questioning. You might ask about the credibility of the means of transmission of the self-revelation, and that would make perfect sense if that were your question. However, if we accept that it’s God who is providing these assertions, then it’s not a question of “just anyone making” these statements…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It is warranted; but, perhaps, you don’t realize that you’ve answered your questions before you even answered them. Let me remind you:

There’s your answer right there. The ‘one proposing the belief’ is God; He has provided His self-revelation through Jesus and through His word in Scripture. So, the ‘credibility’ that God has… is beyond questioning. You might ask about the credibility of the means of transmission of the self-revelation, and that would make perfect sense if that were your question. However, if we accept that it’s God who is providing these assertions, then it’s not a question of “just anyone making” these statements…

OK you are correct, and I agree with you. If the RCC truly speaks with “the voice of God” then I will accept whatever they say. However, I do not believe they speak with any such authority. Ironically, this is a perfect discussion to have on this day, since today Catholics celebrate a very bold assertion:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

How does this square with your idea that, while there may not be bodies in heaven or hell now there will be at the end of time? The Church has officially proclaimed that Mary’s living body is in heaven now. Once again, bodies require space, space implies both time and place. Hmmm…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If you want to talk science, remember that scientific observation is limited. It can only deal with what is measurable within the existing space ime reality. By definition, it can make no determination whatsoever, on what conditions exist outside of our observable reality. let alone what the contitions of life are outside of observable reality.

For anyone in Hell to go insane requires a time element of space ime. That would require that such a place as Hell exist within our space ime or in a Universe where such a time element exists. How do you prove or disprove the existence of Hell in our Universe, what planet is it on? What star does it orbit?. If it is a metaphysical reality, then using biological truths dependent on our space ime reality are meaningless. Literally.

Science cannot address such a differing space ime, let alone address the biology of it. So why do you attempt to do what science cannot? It is like using the quadratic equation to compute Love to seven decimal places. Meaningless Or what is the value of 2(Justice x Fortitude) ▲ Mercy

Yes, the quadratic equation is very precise within it’s boundaries, but it cannot address non mathematical realities, correct?

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. My basic problem is that I see contradictions arising from these two claims:

1. The afterlife is “timeless”
2. Human bodies exist in the afterlife

I don’t know if proposition 1 is actually Catholic dogma, I think it is merely theological opinion. I’m pretty sure 2 is Catholic dogma. We have a problem here, also, because the Church insists that the suffering of the damned is also physical (not just “separation” or some other abstraction). Human bodies require space time to exist. If you want to say human bodies can exist without space-time, that is fine: but you can’t use the word “human body” to refer to human beings both in space-time AND in this mysterious timeless-spaceless afterlife. Whatever those things are, and whatever the relation to true human beings they bear, you can’t call them human beings because their natures have been radically altered in an unknown way (no space-time). Does that make sense?

 

[GEddie]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. My basic problem is that I see contradictions arising from these two claims:

1. The afterlife is “timeless”
2. Human bodies exist in the afterlife

I don’t know if proposition 1 is actually Catholic dogma, I think it is merely theological opinion. I’m pretty sure 2 is Catholic dogma. We have a problem here, also, because the Church insists that the suffering of the damned is also physical (not just “separation” or some other abstraction). Human bodies require space time to exist. If you want to say human bodies can exist without space-time, that is fine: but you can’t use the word “human body” to refer to human beings both in space-time AND in this mysterious timeless-spaceless afterlife. Whatever those things are, and whatever the relation to true human beings they bear, you can’t call them human beings because their natures have been radically altered in an unknown way (no space-time). Does that make sense?

The body of the everlasting life is not precisely the standard-issue human body we know now.

Nor is the collinear time all there is to space and time.

Collinear time is physical and cannot exist without matter as we know it (entropy).

It’s mysterious, but that there are bodies in the next life is not a matter of doubt.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Gorgias]

If the RCC truly speaks with “the voice of God” then I will accept whatever they say. However, I do not believe they speak with any such authority.

“Jesus said to [Peter], ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. … And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’” (Matthew 16:17-19)

Jesus Himself said it: Peter speaks as Jesus’ vicar; what he binds and looses on earth (i.e., in the Church), Jesus upholds in heaven. Peter himself created apostolic succession (see Acts 1:21-22; Peter says, “it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us, … become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And the apostles (who themselves were given authority by Christ) responded by praying, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away.”).

Jesus grants the Church authority through the office of Peter; Peter uses it to establish apostolic succession. Therefore, the Church speaks with God’s authority. QED. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Ironically, this is a perfect discussion to have on this day, since today Catholics celebrate a very bold assertion… How does this square with your idea that, while there may not be bodies in heaven or hell now there will be at the end of time? The Church has officially proclaimed that Mary’s living body is in heaven now. Once again, bodies require space, space implies both time and place. Hmmm…

Yes, you’re correct: it does pique one’s interest! And yet, the Church proclaims that something singular has happened here – Mary’s assumption (body and soul) is something different than anything else that’s currently going on. However, it creates an enticing parallelism, doesn’t it? Mary was conceived without original sin by a singular grace of God; and, upon the end of her days on earth, was graced again by a singular grace: she, alone, is held to exist bodily in heaven. “How?”, you might ask? We don’t know; we haven’t been given that information. We know only the ‘what’, not the mechanics of the ‘how’…

(Edited to add: We know for sure that one other person exists in heaven in his glorified body: Jesus. We don’t ask ‘how?’, though, since the answer is trivial: “He’s God! Duh!”
So, if we’re able to accept that Jesus exists bodily in heaven, although humans in heaven do not exist bodily ‘in’ heaven, then it’s not really a stretch to say that Mary could, too, don’t you think? The only question remaining is “does she, really?”… and for a Catholic who believes in Jesus and the Church He founded, the answer is ‘of course’!)

 

[Brendan]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. My basic problem is that I see contradictions arising from these two claims:

1. The afterlife is “timeless”
2. Human bodies exist in the afterlife

This is only a contradiction if one is proposing that the space ime of this universe reality is required in an alternate reality.

How would you go about proving that proposition?

If you want to say human bodies can exist without space-time, that is fine: but you can’t use the word “human body” to refer to human beings both in space-time AND in this mysterious timeless-spaceless afterlife.

My proposition is that the space ime that you are experiencing is not required for a body to exist. All that is required are three spatial dimensions. There is not requirement for a temporal dimension.

The fact that those four are integrated in this universe by no means requires that they be integrated, or even present, in an different reality

Whatever those things are, and whatever the relation to true human beings they bear, you can’t call them human beings because their natures have been radically altered in an unknown way (no space-time). Does that make sense?

No it does not make sense. What is human nature reliant upon a particular space ime reality?