Urgent: why does the afterlife matter? Why do we care?

[po18guy]

So, life sucks and then you die? Why live a bitter joke?

 

[inocente]

So, life sucks and then you die? Why live a bitter joke?

Sure you can live by wishful thinking. If makes you happy, why not?

 

[po18guy]

Your flippant retort aside, I am almost certainly happier after three cancers than you are without. But, it is not me that makes the difference, but grace through faith which I have received. And, as to wishful thinking, it is the person who ignores mountains of evidence, believing against evidence who truly engages in wishful thinking.

 

[HarryStotle]

No, God can’t get bored. God is perfection, and any change would make God less perfect, so God never changes. Perfection can’t get bored.

I suppose, then, that if God has no problem with living eternally and not being bored or dissatisfied, that would entail he could find a way to keep us eternally and meaningfully happy.

 

[inocente]

Your flippant retort aside, I am almost certainly happier after three cancers than you are without. But, it is not me that makes the difference, but grace through faith which I have received. And, as to wishful thinking, it is the person who ignores mountains of evidence, believing against evidence who truly engages in wishful thinking.

Eagerly awaiting.

 

[inocente]

I suppose, then, that if God has no problem with living eternally and not being bored or dissatisfied, that would entail he could find a way to keep us eternally and meaningfully happy.

Please cite the body of work which tells you these things about the afterlife. Or are these your private views?

 

[HarryStotle]

Hmmmm.

Let me think on this…

If God himself were to offer you eternal life, you will insist on consulting a “body of work” as proof that his offer is genuine?

As if all those contributors together who assembled the “body of work” could possibly be guarantors of the offer, whereas God not so much.

How would you recognize God or his work without a “body of work?”

How do you even recognize the truth found in the “body of work” without some kind of internal (to you) corroboration?

Seems to me there is no way of getting around the problem of our individual responsibility for recognizing the truth or recognizing God in our lives.

It is still you who have to assent to the authority of the “body of work” over the authority of God who might appear to you or might influence your thought processes. Either way, it is you who holds the final say. On what grounds do you select the “body of work” over inspiration? Or inspiration over “body of work?”

 

[ChunkMonk]

For me, at least, I need to beliebe in an afterlife. Life on Earth is not all peachy for some of us, so the hope of Heaven is the hope that perhaps the suffering was leading toward an important end.

And He’ll serves the same purpose. It is comforting to think that all evil will eventually be made to suffer and all the good it tasted and took advantage of will be taken away from it.

As to how I am so sure… I think it is natural in man to deaire and believe in an afterlife. It is too ubiquitous to be simple imagining.

 

[Diamantina]

And He’ll serves the same purpose. It is comforting to think that all evil will eventually be made to suffer and all the good it tasted and took advantage of will be taken away from it.

True enough, but I find it hard to believe that people who have committed a finite number of sins will be punished eternally. Yes, I think that the Church states that a soul in Hell who has committed even one unforgiven mortal sin is infinitely offensive to God, but I keep thinking that nobody – even Hitler – could commit an infinite number of sins.

I am inclined to universalism, though I try to suppress it. I can understand the concept of souls in Purgatory till the end of the physical universe (which would take billions of years, would it not?), but the concept of souls being in Hell forever is hard for me to swallow. If St. Gregory of Nyssa could imagine even Satan being forgiven… (Yes, I know that not everything that canonized saints have stated is automatically acceptable to the Church, and I know that one reason why Origen is not a canonized saint is because of his universalism.) I apologize for any statements opposite to Church doctrine.

 

[po18guy]

Awaiting what? Death? Methinks that, if you were truly at peace; if you had found what is completely satisfying in this life, you would either 1) not be here or 2) zealously instructing others in “the way.”

Peace, faith, hope and love are yours for the asking. It will not be forced upon you.

 

[LilyM]

HarryStotle:

And I thought I was being Aristotelian

Hate to break it to you but he wasn’t a Catholic. And he thought there were five elements. And that flies form spontaneously. Not exactly an authority on the afterlife.

Interesting how all of your complaints in your initial post were about how “boring” eternity will be and yet you accuse me of being the “consumerist.” Aren’t you the one who went on and on about how excruciating the experience of eternity would be? That sounds much more like a “consumerist” complaining with buyer’s regret than the point I was making.

I suppose if you take “satisfaction” at its most literal and hedonistic you might have the impression that my argument could be read that way, and given that you defined lack of fulfillment as boredom, I can see how you would fall into that trap.

Hang on. People tell me (well, you tell me) that Catholic philosophers have worked out everything about the afterlife. Now you say it’s your argument.

How come I can’t buy a book telling me everything I ever wanted to know about the afterlife? Clue: In 2000 years, never been written.

No, actually, I take satisfaction to be related to the wholeness of the being of the individual in question, in the sense of what it means to be fully human. Given that we have a kind of “open architecture” or open nature into which God himself can slip and become fully human while remaining fully divine, that seems to entail that what it would take to fully satisfy or complete our nature is intimate union with God himself, I.e., the beatific union. So let’s not reduce the idea to crass commercialism.

It is more a matter of our telos or the realization of our ultimate reason for being, I.e., God’s intended purpose for each of us, that which we can scarce imagine and very likely don’t even clearly desire in this life. Some might even recoil from it ( Think: the light in Plato’s cave that bli nded some while drawing others to it)

All very fine in poetry corner but you didn’t get round to saying what’s the point of a trillion trillion trillion years of it. There isn’t any. Eternal life only works as wishful thinking. As soon as you think about it, it’s crystal clear that God is right to give us limited time, limited time is His gift to us.

(This new CAF editor can’t do mobile so sorry for mistakes. Weekend and here’s what we’re listening to. Might just sound a bit repetitive after a trillion trillion trillion years.)

Eternity is not the same.thing as “a trillion triillion trillion years”.

God created time itself. To exist on the same plane as God is, surely, to exist in a state that is outside of time altogether.

Can we comprehend what it would be like to live outside of time? No, any more than we can truly comprehend what a trillion trilliion trillion years would be like - none of us have experienced anything that comes close to either.

And yes, we will be perfect in Heaven. God perfects those who dwell in His presence. So there is no reason to believe we would be bored or regretful.

 

[inocente]

Hmmmm.

Let me think on this…

If God himself were to offer you eternal life, you will insist on consulting a “body of work” as proof that his offer is genuine?

As if all those contributors together who assembled the “body of work” could possibly be guarantors of the offer, whereas God not so much.

How would you recognize God or his work without a “body of work?”

How do you even recognize the truth found in the “body of work” without some kind of internal (to you) corroboration?

Seems to me there is no way of getting around the problem of our individual responsibility for recognizing the truth or recognizing God in our lives.

It is still you who have to assent to the authority of the “body of work” over the authority of God who might appear to you or might influence your thought processes. Either way, it is you who holds the final say. On what grounds do you select the “body of work” over inspiration? Or inspiration over “body of work?”

I already mentioned the promise, John 5, but I think discussing it would be off-topic as the OP asks “How are we so sure, aside from Scripture, that the afterlife exists”?

That’s why I was asking for what is known about the afterlife. I was told Catholic philosophers have worked it all out but you say there’s nothing you know of that we can consult. Strange. But fair enough, all you’re got is your private view.

 

[inocente]

Awaiting what? Death? Methinks that, if you were truly at peace; if you had found what is completely satisfying in this life, you would either 1) not be here or 2) zealously instructing others in “the way.”

Peace, faith, hope and love are yours for the asking. It will not be forced upon you.

No, you said “as to wishful thinking, it is the person who ignores mountains of evidence…” so I replied “Eagerly awaiting” [your mountains of evidence].

After all, the OP asks “How are we so sure, aside from Scripture, that the afterlife exists and we want to be on the right side of it?”. Both the thread-starter and I eagerly await evidence/proof/something aside from scripture and private opinions that the afterlife exists: So if you’ve mountains of the stuff, lay out your stall.

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s why I was asking for what is known about the afterlife. I was told Catholic philosophers have worked it all out but you say there’s nothing you know of that we can consult. Strange. But fair enough, all you’re got is your private view.

Where did I make the statement that there is nothing I know of that we can consult? That is an odd claim on your part.

In addition, since when is my not being aware of or not providing evidence of some something (for whatever reason) the same as proving an absence of that something?

 

[inocente]

Eternity is not the same.thing as “a trillion triillion trillion years”.

God created time itself. To exist on the same plane as God is, surely, to exist in a state that is outside of time altogether.

Can we comprehend what it would be like to live outside of time? No, any more than we can truly comprehend what a trillion trilliion trillion years would be like - none of us have experienced anything that comes close to either.

And yes, we will be perfect in Heaven. God perfects those who dwell in His presence. So there is no reason to believe we would be bored or regretful.

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”. Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise. (Luke 23)

Which suggests that heaven is inside time. Unless there’s some sci-fi other-dimensional-thing going on. Is it your private view that heaven exists outside time, or are there references you can cite? See, I think it may be incomprehensible simply because it can’t work. We can’t be perfected without change, and we can’t change unless time passes. But more than that, we are creatures created in time; we think, we move, everything we are involves time. Look at the promise in John 5:

Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Note the promise is that you already have eternal life right now, from the moment you believed.

 

[inocente]

Where did I make the statement that there is nothing I know of that we can consult?

When I asked “Please cite the body of work which tells you these things about the afterlife”, you replied without citing anything. Instead you wrote 175 words (post #27) to say I should be content with something you called “inspiration”.

Hang on. I feel inspiration coming on. Inspiration inspires me to ask please cite the body of work which tells you these things about the afterlife.

 

[HarryStotle]

When I asked “Please cite the body of work which tells you these things about the afterlife”, you replied without citing anything. Instead you wrote 175 words (post #27) to say I should be content with something you called “inspiration”.

Hang on. I feel inspiration coming on. Inspiration inspires me to ask please cite the body of work which tells you these things about the afterlife.

Oh, I don’t know, I would suppose that ideas and inspirations ought to be judged on their own merit. If you think there is something in error in what I wrote, why not point that out instead of diverting?

Does every idea that enters your brain come with a citation?

No original ideas permitted to appear among the weeds in your grey matter, eh?

Must be wrapped in the comforting warm blanket of a “body of work?”

My point, which you clearly missed, is that you are, as a matter of fact, the final arbiter of the ideas you accept or reject, even those which are part of a body of work.

Now, I guess you could shirk that intellectual responsibility by handing it over to others (composers of bodies of work) to decide for you, or you could put your big boy pants on and address the point on its own merit.

Even points found in bodies of work need to be assessed on their own merit and not merely because they appear in a body of work, no?

 

[HarryStotle]

Please cite the body of work which tells you these things about the afterlife"

Since you asked…

I suppose the “body of work” called the Summa Theologiae would be as good as any coming from a good Catholic philosopher. I have taken the liberty of bold-facing the key ideas.

I answer that, even as we hold by faith that the last end of man’s life is to see God, so the philosophers maintained that man’s ultimate happiness is to understand immaterial substances according to their being. Hence in reference to this question we find that philosophers and theologians encounter the same difficulty and the same difference of opinion. For some philosophers held that our passive intellect can never come to understand separate substances. thus Alfarabius expresses himself at the end of his Ethics, although he says the contrary in his book On the Intelligence, as the Commentator attests (De Anima iii). In like manner certain theologians held that the human intellect can never attain to the vision of God in His essence. on either side they were moved by the distance which separates our intellect from the Divine essence and from separate substances. For since the intellect in act is somewhat one with the intelligible object in act, it would seem difficult to understand how the created intellect is made to be an uncreated essence. Wherefore Chrysostom says (Hom. xiv in Joan.): “How can the creature see the uncreated?” Those who hold the passive intellect to be the subject of generation and corruption, as being a power dependent on the body, encounter a still greater difficulty not only as regards the vision of God but also as regards the vision of any separate substances. But this opinion is altogether untenable. First, because it is in contradiction to the authority of canonical scripture, as Augustine declares (De Videndo Deo: Ep. cxlvii). Secondly, because, since understanding is an operation most proper to man, it follows that his happiness must be held to consist in that operation when perfected in him. Now since the perfection of an intelligent being as such is the intelligible object, if in the most perfect operation of his intellect man does not attain to the vision of the Divine essence, but to something else, we shall be forced to conclude that something other than God is the object of man’s happiness: and since the ultimate perfection of a thing consists in its being united to its principle, it follows that something other than God is the effective principle of man, which is absurd, according to us, and also according to the philosophers who maintain that our souls emanate from the separate substances, so that finally we may be able to understand these substances. Consequently, according to us, it must be asserted that our intellect will at length attain to the vision of the Divine essence, and according to the philosophers, that it will attain to the vision of separate substances.

You may want to read the entire section of the ST dealing with the Resurrection and afterlife.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5092.htm

 

[petra22]

Yes and this reminds me of life in the time of Jesus. There were factions who believed in the afterlife and part who did not. (Sadducee and Pharisee) They argued a lot like they do today… but Jesus came. When I was very young this question kept playing in my mind–Why did Jesus have to die?
Jesus had to die to SHOW us that this life isn’t all there is. There is life after death. He said it, they killed him, he rose from death and lived again.

That’s why it is so important to ask questions about the after life. It’s real, Jesus proved it. Tell your friends about it. And tell them not to miss it for the WORLD!

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Eternity is not the same.thing as “a trillion triillion trillion years”.

God created time itself. To exist on the same plane as God is, surely, to exist in a state that is outside of time altogether.

Can we comprehend what it would be like to live outside of time? No, any more than we can truly comprehend what a trillion trilliion trillion years would be like - none of us have experienced anything that comes close to either.

And yes, we will be perfect in Heaven. God perfects those who dwell in His presence. So there is no reason to believe we would be bored or regretful.

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”. Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise. (Luke 23)

Which suggests that heaven is inside time. Unless there’s some sci-fi other-dimensional-thing going on. Is it your private view that heaven exists outside time, or are there references you can cite? See, I think it may be incomprehensible simply because it can’t work. We can’t be perfected without change, and we can’t change unless time passes. But more than that, we are creatures created in time; we think, we move, everything we are involves time. Look at the promise in John 5:

Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Note the promise is that you already have eternal life right now, from the moment you believed.

Is Jesus saying what you think? Or is it only the promise that is immediate - “I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise”?

Jesus reveals that he himself did not enter heaven immediately upon his death when he tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he has not yet ascended to the Father.

Which hints at an intermediate state.

Certainly purification, however it hsppens, occurs outside of heaven. How it relates to time is unknown and, in any case, really irrelevant to what heaven is like.