Do We Need To Be "Rethinking Heaven"?

[E. Nato Difficile]

TIME Magazine seems to think so.

The basic problem I see is that simply giving an ancient superstition a New Age makeover doesn't make the concept of Heaven any more meaningful or internally coherent. It simply whitewashes the ethical dilemma of believing in a reward or punishment (even if it's not after you die) for your behavior. A lot of nonbelievers say that's a big problem with religion that's rarely addressed: if religious people are motivated by the prospect of reward, then they're just as materialistic as anyone motivated by greed or lust.

Belief in what's right should be its own reward. Shouldn't it?

-Nato

 

[PolyHedral]

(Could someone copy the article for those of us who are not Time subscribers?)

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me possible that the notion of heaven is ultimately derived from the feelings of bliss often associated with certain kinds of mystical experiences, and from the notion that such feelings of bliss could be made to endure so that one lived in a state of constant bliss.

It seems possible the notion of heaven is derived from that, but there's no way of telling whether it actually is derived from that.

 

[zenzero]

Friend E.ND,

Do We Need To Be "Rethinking Heaven"?

Can only state that *THINKING* in itself is what keeps individuals from heaven or that garden of eden.
One needs to still the mind [thoughts] to realize IT.
Thinking never has/never is/never will help to understand what *heaven/hell* means.
Religions all over directly or indirectly wants every individual to realize IT.

Love & rgds

 

[Bob Dixon]

"Lord, if I worship you because I hope for Heaven, exclude me from Heaven.
If I worship you from fear of Hell, burn me in Hell.
If I worship you for your own sake,
Grant me thy beauty."
-Rabia al-Basri

Just puttin' that out there.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

"Lord, if I worship you because I hope for Heaven, exclude me from Heaven.
If I worship you from fear of Hell, burn me in Hell.
If I worship you for your own sake,
Grant me thy beauty."
-Rabia al-Basri

Just puttin' that out there.

Still expecting the big payoff of God's beauty, though, isn't he?

Just sayin'.

-Nato

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me possible that the notion of heaven is ultimately derived from the feelings of bliss often associated with certain kinds of mystical experiences, and from the notion that such feelings of bliss could be made to endure so that one lived in a state of constant bliss.

It seems possible the notion of heaven is derived from that, but there's no way of telling whether it actually is derived from that.

If the notion of heaven is somehow derived from the bliss commonly associated with some sorts of mystical experiences, then it would be counter-productive to desire heaven, since desiring a mystical experience tends to inhibit one's having one.

 

[HerDotness]

Can only state that *THINKING* in itself is what keeps individuals from heaven or that garden of eden.

Seems weird to me that anyone would seek to discourage thinking when that process is what has produced some of the greatest works of humankind.

A good many of my most awe-filled moments have resulted from reasoning and reaching a conclusion or insight that came as a profound revelation to me. Thus, one of the last things I'd seek to do would be to downplay the importance of reasoned thought.

 

[Sunstone]

Seems weird to me that anyone would seek to discourage thinking when that process is what has produced some of the greatest works of humankind.

Common everyday thought involves subject/object perception. That is, involves the perception of a "subject" -- an "I", a self, an ego, an observer, etc -- that in some sense experiences an "object" -- a thing apart from and distinct from the subject.

Subject/object perception is incompatible with the mystical experience that ZenZero is here calling "heaven" or "the garden of Eden", for during that experience, there is an end to subject/object perception.

 

[Antibush5]

This is obviously a piece of rope!
Actually its a drum!
You fools, can't you see that its a fan?
In reality is an elephant being groped by a bunch of blind men, poor elephant.

 

[Quintessence]

(Could someone copy the article for those of us who are not Time subscribers?)

Yeah, I can't really comment in an informed fashion without reading the article. I "share" a Time subscription with some friends, but they don't usually send me their magazines more than once every six weeks or so. I won't get this one for a few weeks at least.

There is a question I can ask though: what's wrong with being motivated by the prospect of reward or gain (be it personal, familial, tribal, cultural, environmental, or whatever)? Aren't most of us motivated by this regardless of our religious beliefs?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Yeah, I can't really comment in an informed fashion without reading the article. I "share" a Time subscription with some friends, but they don't usually send me their magazines more than once every six weeks or so. I won't get this one for a few weeks at least.

Sorry, I read it at the doctor's office.

There is a question I can ask though: what's wrong with being motivated by the prospect of reward or gain (be it personal, familial, tribal, cultural, environmental, or whatever)? Aren't most of us motivated by this regardless of our religious beliefs?

Sure we are. But morality isn't about reward and reinforcement. If someone believes because he's gunning for the big payoff (as Pascal's Wager makes plain), then he should admit that. And that's not morality, that's just conditioned behavior.

-Nato

 

[lunamoth]

The upshot of the article is that heaven is perhaps not so much a distant reward for some that is in the future or apart from here/now, but that heaven is also for the here and now, and that loving/ healing/ helping each other and the Earth is part of this. It is related to the social gospel that also inspired things like the civil rights movement and today inspires Earth stewardship and environmentalism, a growing green movement in many churches.

 

[cablescavenger]

TIME Magazine seems to think so.

The basic problem I see is that simply giving an ancient superstition a New Age makeover doesn't make the concept of Heaven any more meaningful or internally coherent. It simply whitewashes the ethical dilemma of believing in a reward or punishment (even if it's not after you die) for your behavior. A lot of nonbelievers say that's a big problem with religion that's rarely addressed: if religious people are motivated by the prospect of reward, then they're just as materialistic as anyone motivated by greed or lust.

Belief in what's right should be its own reward. Shouldn't it?

-Nato

Heaven is just the sky.

I would question how many people think heaven is in our atmosphere, and I suspect the answer would be few people. If that is the case, then heaven has already had a new age makeover.

 

[Me Myself]

Belief in what's right should be its own reward. Shouldn't it?

Absolutely.

 

[Quintessence]

Morality isn't about reward and reinforcement. If someone believes because he's gunning for the big payoff (as Pascal's Wager makes plain), then he should admit that. And that's not morality, that's just conditioned behavior.

Are we sure? Couldn't someone's system of ethics (such as morals, but also possibly virtues) be geared towards payoffs? For example, reciprocity is a concept found universally across human cultures: I do something for you, you do something for me. Reciprocity is a payoff system that helps structure our societies. I see how this can be interpreted as conditioned behavior, but can't it also be seen as ethical? Could we posit that all ethics boil down to conditioned behavior?

 

[Erebus]

Belief in what's right should be its own reward. Shouldn't it?

Why?

Also what do you consider "right"?

 

[CarlinKnew]

And that's not morality, that's just conditioned behavior.

Is there a difference?

 

[zenzero]

Friend HerDotness,

Seems weird to me that anyone would seek to discourage thinking when that process is what has produced some of the greatest works of humankind.

A good many of my most awe-filled moments have resulted from reasoning and reaching a conclusion or insight that came as a profound revelation to me. Thus, one of the last things I'd seek to do would be to downplay the importance of reasoned thought.

It means the contribution made by Jesus, Gautama, Lao Tzu are all useless??
The important point to be remembered is that one evolves with knowledge and for this *thinking* is a faculty used where study is from the outside as friend Sunstone explained about subject and object as two and the other way is when that *thinking mind* is transcendent the subject/object are in oneness and one is enlightened on the subject through that oneness.
Pre-historic cultures [globally] were advanced in all spheres of life including botony., mathematics, astronomy, animal husbandry, farming, fishing, food preparation, construction, military skills etc.
We call the period pre-historic as humans in those days passed their skills orally and writing had not developed. In those days they learned everything from existence itself, directly and that leaning/knowledge in through meditation and meditation is again as friend Sunstone explained is reached when the gap between subject and object is no more. Knowledge thus acquired remains forever if in next life [well that is another topic]

Love & rgds

 

[Thief]

Heaven would be a location?....a state of mind?....a resurrection?

We seem to have proximity here in this life.
Would you not be beside yourself to awaken somewhere....
and your physical body is no longer with you?.....literally.

Yet this must happen.
When your body fails, there will no doubt be a moment of confusion.
Your bodily senses will fade....quickly.

If you retain any thought or feeling, it would be you....still living.
But not as a mortal.

I don't lean to bodily resurrection, though I won't dismiss it altogether.
It could be entertaining in some distant future to revisit this life.

It is often said, 'flesh cannot inherit the kingdom'.
I strongly suspect this to be the case.

You came into this life naked, and into the arms of someone who cared.
You leave this world naked, and hopefully, Someone will care.

They will have the advantage, knowing the territory, the language and the scheme of things.

Communication would be more direct.
Here in this life...I write, you read...I speak, you listen....and the same in return.
This won't happen in the next life.
They will be able to see you as you really are, as if you were made of glass.

Heaven could then well be, a sharing of dreams.