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

[petra22]

But why does it have to be outside of Scripture since that is what Scripture is ALL about? Yes, people have been arguing about the afterlife for ever… Jesus came to put the matter to rest. Yes there is an afterlife. “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

Listen and be persuaded… Jesus spoke to us. He died, rose and lives. It’s up to your free will.

 

[inocente]

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?

Seven days ago, a friend asked me to get him some baking powder. When I took it to his house, he earnestly told me that when mixed with lemon juice, it kills cancer. He heard it on the internet. His wife then scolded me for having a bottle of water in my car. Causes cancer, she heard it on the internet.

As the final arbiter of the ideas I accept or reject, when someone I don’t know on the internet exhorts me to believe everything he tells me but cannot back it up even one word of it, guess my conclusion.

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.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5092.htm

Googled ‘aquinas heaven’ and got the same link. Only trouble is, it’s not relevant to the OP (it’s headed “Whether the human intellect can attain to the vision of God in His essence”).

The section on the resurrection in S.T. Supplementum Tertiæ Partis might be more useful, although it’s also not really relevant to the OP as he bases it on his reading of scripture, rather than on first principles. Not sure if it’s out of favor with current theologians as it contains ideas such as limbo, and for Thomas heaven was still a place, and is in time, with saints coming back to earth for visits, i.e. as ghosts.

 

[inocente]

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”?

Nice idea but no, the interlinear is “And he said to him, Truly to you, I say, today with me you will be in Paradise” - http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/23-43.htm

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.

The commentaries all have different ideas on how to interpret that verse, and yours is different again. - http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/20-17.htm

I guess that post-Galileo, some theologians decided they could no longer justify heaven and hell as places within time, but I think that scripture does treat them as places in which time passes.

 

[MonteRCMS]

What causes increased confusion instead of increased clarity … is that Thomas Aquinas wrote in LATIN.

Thomas Aquinas did not write in English.

And Latin is a language that has many nuances that are not available in English.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Of course, Jesus didn’t use English either.

 

[inocente]

Of course, Jesus didn’t use English either.

Sssh. Some posters believe he spoke in KJV ye olde English.

 

[HarryStotle]

Please try to keep up instead of letting your attachment to your perspective get the better of you.

You responded to my post thusly…

HarryStotle:

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?

You asked me to cite a body of work which would support that in the afterlife, God himself would “keep us eternally and meaningfully happy.”

I responded with (quoting Aquinas, the principal philosopher of Catholic thought):

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.

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.

Only trouble is, it’s not relevant to the OP (it’s headed “Whether the human intellect can attain to the vision of God in His essence”).

 

[HarryStotle]

Continued from last…

Now whether the thoughts of Aquinas are relevant to the OP is not left to you to determine.

Here is the opening post:

How are we so sure, aside from Scripture, that the afterlife exists and we want to be on the right side of it?

Seems to me that Aquinas positing that the afterlife (eternal life) consists of “God…[being] 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… …our intellect will at length attain to the vision of the Divine essence” is a most germane point.

The section on the resurrection in S.T. Supplementum Tertiæ Partis might be more useful, although it’s also not really relevant to the OP as he bases it on his reading of scripture, rather than on first principles. Not sure if it’s out of favor with current theologians as it contains ideas such as limbo, and for Thomas heaven was still a place, and is in time, with saints coming back to earth for visits, i.e. as ghosts.

Who cares what those “current theologians” to whom you seem deeply committed have to opine on Aquinas’ more esoteric thoughts. This is irrelevant to the point In question.

Again, my initial point remains in place.

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.

According to Aquinas, the afterlife consists in union with the essence of God through our intellectual faculty by which we can apprehend the eternal essence of God himself. God himself (who you admit can never be bored or dissatisfied) will be our ultimate happiness.

That point seems very germane to the OP, whether or not you agree to it or are wont to admit it.

Kindly refrain from posting your charming anecdotes about what your friends and acquaintances glean from Internet posts and address the point made by Aquinas directly, or we’ll simply assume you have nothing substantive to add to the matter.

 

[inocente]

Please try to keep up instead of letting your attachment to your perspective get the better of you.

Please try to keep up? Who are you to make remarks like that? We only met a couple of days ago, you marking your territory or something?

Who cares what those “current theologians” to whom you seem deeply committed have to opine on Aquinas’ more esoteric thoughts. This is irrelevant to the point In question

I guess those who care whether the Church has or has not stood still for 700 years.

According to Aquinas, the afterlife consists in union with the essence of God through our intellectual faculty by which we can apprehend the eternal essence of God himself. God himself (who you admit can never be bored or dissatisfied) will be our ultimate happiness.

That point seems very germane to the OP, whether or not you agree to it or are wont to admit it.

Kindly refrain from posting your charming anecdotes about what your friends and acquaintances glean from Internet posts and address the point made by Aquinas directly, or we’ll simply assume you have nothing substantive to add to the matter.

I see you missed my point. Never mind.

As for you laying down the law about what you will permit me to write, I’ve tried to stick to the subject while wading through your preachy tone and personal comments, but bye.

 

[HarryStotle]

I guess those who care whether the Church has or has not stood still for 700 years.

I would suppose the Church has stood still for the last 2000 years since it was founded on rock.

Recall Christ’s admonition regarding building a house on a solid foundation rather than on sand or some other shifting substructure. Of course those concerned with belonging to something progressive that hasn’t “stood still” in order to keep up with the times may not see it that way.

What was that you said about my having to stay amused and preoccupied by turning God into the next new consumer “good” to keep me entertained so as not to suffer from eternal boredom? You were projecting, weren’t you?

Ah, now I see where you are coming from…

… And where you will go next.

Wait for it…

 

[HarryStotle]

We only met a couple of days ago, you marking your territory or something?

Well, that’s rich, given your avatar.

 

[Techno2000]

A deep friend recently asked me eternal life matters and why heaven matters. I realized I had never thought about it aside from wanting to go to heaven and not hell, and it’s just a deep question. So…what do you think the answer is? Why don’t we just let things be? How are we so sure, aside from Scripture, that the afterlife exists and we want to be on the right side of it?

Hope springs eternal, a believer doesn’t have to settle for a dirt nap, there’s light at the end of the tunnel for us… that’s why it’s important.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If anyone actually saw hell, the choice would be easy.

 

[ANV]

I care because I don’t want to live for ever. Most people do and that’s their reason to care.

 

[anna]

A very deep question. I have one response. Jesus said " I go to prepare a place for you."

 

[inocente]

A very deep question. I have one response. Jesus said " I go to prepare a place for you."

Thank you for that. When I read the NT for the first time as an adult, not expecting much, I was very surprised that it’s an exposition on love beyond love. I’ve known people who died, and none wanted to live forever. So I hope love beyond love will respect their wishes.

 

[Techno2000]

Some people say we’ll dance around singing God’s praises. But try doing it. It gets boring very quickly. If it’s boring after a few days, imagine after a trillion years. Other people say there’s no time in the afterlife, but a frozen mind in a frozen body doesn’t sound very desirable.

From what I read from private revelations is that in Heaven everything always seems new to you, for all eternity.

 

[inocente]

inocente:

Some people say we’ll dance around singing God’s praises. But try doing it. It gets boring very quickly. If it’s boring after a few days, imagine after a trillion years. Other people say there’s no time in the afterlife, but a frozen mind in a frozen body doesn’t sound very desirable.

From what I read from private revelations is that in Heaven everything always seems new to you, for all eternity.

Sounds like what people tell me about heroin though. Hedonistic. I mean if you get to heaven by loving your neighbor, is heaven about feeling good egotistically or about helping others?

 

[HarryStotle]

Sounds like what people tell me about heroin though. Hedonistic. I mean if you get to heaven by loving your neighbor, is heaven about feeling good egotistically or about helping others?

Twice you have dismissed Aquinas when he addressed precisely this point.

His point that “the ultimate perfection of a thing consists in its being united to its principle” implies that it cannot be about hedonism since being united to the “Divine essence,” God himself, means each of us will become fully what we have been created and intended to be. That means what we desire will come from the “effective principle” that creates us fully, the “Divine essence” which will live fully in and through each of us by loving union with us.

We will not remain what we think or want ourselves to be in a crass hedonistic sense, but will become ultimately perfect in and through our union with God, who is Love. What we will desire will be what God desires in, through and for us. By completely losing ourselves we will find ourselves, completely.

A desire for heroin has little or nothing to do with a desire to become fully who we are to be according to the perfect and perfectly loving will of the omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. As long as we are corrupted, imperfect and incomplete we can only will and desire imperfectly that which cannot fulfill us. Only our completion and perfection will make it possible for us to will and desire that which perfectly fulfills and completes us.

Your “is heaven about feeling good egotistically or about helping others?” dilemma is resolved by the fact that you will feel perfectly good by the perfect goodness of all those who surround you. What is “egoistic” about feeling good because of the perfect goodness of others?

 

[Techno2000]

What’s the point? What’s the point of existing forever when you’re just repeating ad infinitum the same experience you already had on the first day?

An Unpublished Manuscript on Purgatory

Excerpt :

I am going to try to make you understand, as far as you can upon earth, what Heaven is like. There are ever new feasts which succeed each other without interruption. There is happiness, always new and such, it would seem, as has never been enjoyed. It is a torrent of joy which flows unceasingly over the elect. Heaven is above all and beyond all — GOD: God loved, God relished, God delighted in; in one word, it is to be satisfied with God without ever being satisfied!

Library : An Unpublished Manuscript on Purgatory | Catholic Culture