Is Heaven even worth it?

[Willamena]

Sin is being apart from God. Heaven is unity with God. How can two mutually-exclusive states exist simultaneously?

By stepping back and realizing the metapicture.

It is human nature to be particular to ourselves. It is also our nature to be one with God. I don't waste much time speculating about the mystery of how all that works out in the end. But I rather suspect it's like true community.

We can return to the "garden" any time; what separates us from it is firm belief in a separation from it.

 

[lunamoth]

We can return to the "garden" any time; what separates us from it is firm belief in a separation from it.

That is part of it, but I would say another part is living out that belief. What you do matters.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So many people batting around so many definitions of heaven, the soul, etc...hard to figure out just what we're talking about...

 

[Willamena]

That is part of it, but I would say another part is living out that belief. What you do matters.

In my vernacular, I would say that there is no distinction to be made between believing in that divide and living out that belief (being separated).

 

[Willamena]

You live your entire life with two natures. No matter which you believe is the true you, in the end you lack a fundamental piece of your existence (as far as you have ever known). Without that sin, you are not who you used to be. Who is to say the side of you that only knows God would notice any difference in Heaven than what it already knows?

Which, to you, is "true you"?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Which, to you, is "true you"?

I tend towards the inclusive side of this debate. I am both. Without either I am not me. It's like growing up without a parent compared to growing up with both. The missing parent might be a great nurturer or an absolute jerk. Either way, you with both is not the same as you with only one.

 

[Willamena]

I tend towards the inclusive side of this debate. I am both. Without either I am not me. It's like growing up without a parent compared to growing up with both. The missing parent might be a great nurturer or an absolute jerk. Either way, you with both is not the same as you with only one.

The symbolism of the Cross is the two lines intersecting parallel: one, eternal life with "God", the other our "earthly" (corporeal) life that is temporal, mortal; where they intersect rests the "Christ", the living-and-dying God. All the symbols relate to you --together they are an image of "you," or more precisely the Christian philosophy as it relates humans to everything (the world).

Stripping "heaven" of literalism (concretized symbolism), I see a metaphoric image of eternity, of that "life" that, for Christianity, is expressed in terms set to contrast and parallel with the world-as-we-know-it, the "earthly existence." For some, like the Catholics, "that" life is more real and important than "this"; for others, like the Protestants, "this" life is more real and important than "that." Each acts according to his beliefs.

Both believe firmly in the divided world, the "mutually exclusive," the "n'ar the twain shall meet" --until death. Death eliminates the "this" leaving nothing but the "that."

The "Christ" to me rests at the intersection as a symbol of the recognition that "this" and "that" are "one", i.e. unity. Two worlds are one. At the risk of launching into lecture, we have many such "two worlds" that compose our paradigms of how we (humans) interact with everything (the world), many such divides: mind/matter, subject/object, inner/outer. The presence of a divide separates "us/me" from "other".

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The symbolism of the Cross is the two lines intersecting parallel: one, eternal life with "God", the other our "earthly" (corporeal) life that is temporal, mortal; where they intersect rests the "Christ", the living-and-dying God. All the symbols relate to you --together they are an image of "you," or more precisely the Christian philosophy as it relates humans to everything (the world).

Stripping "heaven" of literalism (concretized symbolism), I see a metaphoric image of eternity, of that "life" that, for Christianity, is expressed in terms set to contrast and parallel with the world-as-we-know-it, the "earthly existence." For some, like the Catholics, "that" life is more real and important than "this"; for others, like the Protestants, "this" life is more real and important than "that." Each acts according to his beliefs.

Both believe firmly in the divided world, the "mutually exclusive," the "n'ar the twain shall meet" --until death. Death eliminates the "this" leaving nothing but the "that."

The "Christ" to me rests at the intersection as a symbol of the recognition that "this" and "that" are "one", i.e. unity. Two worlds are one. At the risk of launching into lecture, we have many such "two worlds" that compose our paradigms of how we (humans) interact with everything (the world), many such divides: mind/matter, subject/object, inner/outer. The presence of a divide separates "us/me" from "other".

As I have said before and will say again, turn anything into a metaphor and you can live by it. You have extrapolated an AWFUL lot about the nature of Christ from a lunatic being nailed to a torture device and killed.

 

[Willamena]

As I have said before and will say again, turn anything into a metaphor and you can live by it.

I'm not sure what that means.

You have extrapolated an AWFUL lot about the nature of Christ from a lunatic being nailed to a torture device and killed.

Oddly enough, that's precisly who I got it from.

 

[sojourner]

You live your entire life with two natures. No matter which you believe is the true you, in the end you lack a fundamental piece of your existence (as far as you have ever known). Without that sin, you are not who you used to be. Who is to say the side of you that only knows God would notice any difference in Heaven than what it already knows?

No, that's the fallacy. We have one nature. In the end, we always have our fundamental self inside us. Without sin, we can fully let our fundamental self "out." Without sin, we are free to be who we truly are. The mask is not the true self. If you take off the mask with which you've been fooling everyone, you become who you truly are.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I'm not sure what that means.

This sums it up:

Never say anything about a book that anybody with any common sense would say. For example, suppose you are studying Moby-Dick. Anybody with any common sense would say that Moby-Dick is a big white whale, since the characters in the book refer to it as a big white whale roughly eleven thousand times. So in *your* paper, *you* say Moby-Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland. Your professor, who is sick to death of reading papers and never liked Moby-Dick anyway, will think you are enormously creative.

In short, ramble all you want. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I'm off-topicing my own topic...crud.

 

[sojourner]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Unless it's a Hoyo de Monterrey Excalibur #1 ... in the Maduro wrapper.
Then it's Heaven-on-a-steek!
[edit]
And it's worth it!

I'm off-topicing my own topic...crud.

Dammit!!! [bangs forehead with palm]

 

[Willamena]

This sums it up:

In short, ramble all you want. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I'm off-topicing my own topic...crud.

Even people with common sense can use metaphors.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Even people with common sense can use metaphors.

Use, but aren't taken as fact. You seem to have missed that fact.

 

[Willamena]

Use, but aren't taken as fact. You seem to have missed that fact.

Hopefully, they are taken as metaphor.

 

[Mudcat]

Heaven has always been explained to me as a place where sin cannot exist. Sin is (as I have been told by many many Christians) part of human nature. In fact it is one of the defining pieces of what Christians call "human nature". When worthy/saved souls enter heaven, something happens to eliminate their sinful nature, thereby altering their human nature.

This all sums up to my question: if you remove a fundamental piece of our inner nature, are you still you? What I mean by that is, people have defined their entire lives by certain things. If sin is a piece of human nature, and that piece is removed, are Christians going to have the same sort of euphoria upon entering Heaven as someone who still knows sin? Would they even care? If lack of sin is all you know and all you can know (after all knowledge of sin is removed, of course), would being in Heaven mean anything at all?

Hi G,

I haven't read the thread in entirety, so please dismiss redundancy if it occurs.

I agree there is no sin in heaven, but I don't think it is due to the removal of our nature, rather an addition to it. The Easter Orthodox have a view that I share, that we Christ believers will be partakers of the divine essence.

To partake in something, then something has to be offered to partake in. I think heaven is the place where God gives us something and that something makes sin entirely untenable. I dunno exactly what it is he gives us.. lots of takes on the afterlife I suppose, but it makes sense to me.

Sort of like why butterflies don't go crawling about on the ground, up trees and weeds munching about on leaves... that sort of thing. Why bother, the cocoon has been broken, they have wings now and it's time to fly and taste the nectar of the flowers.

 

[Acim]

I was all prepared to say something enlightened and poignant, but looks like others on this thread have that covered.

I'll just say that sin isn't part of our (true) nature. More like nature of ego, and is belief in lack. This makes it sound simple, but the conviction in lack can (appear to) turn Knowledge upside down. Where knowing is perceived to be gained in small increments, and never quite adding up to anything complete or fulfilled. Determining that souls are in need of something (due to scarcity principle) to enter heaven.

Whereas Knowledge knows Heaven is now here, all around, seen within. Wholeness in Spirit extends always and in all ways. Takes a bucket load of denial to perceive God and God's Kingdom are nowhere near His Creation (namely You).

 

[ChristineES]

Out of interest, If heaven involves the shedding of earthly desires, would you consider this a good thing?

For example, would losing certain desires be a loss or a relief in your mind (I can understand the reasoning behind either argument, so I'm not going to make fun of you )

I just love the way everyone is twisting my words around to have them mean what they want them to mean. All I said was is that we are flesh and because of this we have desires. Desire isn't necessarily bad at all. The eating of the pie was supposed to be an example of gluttony and not literal at all. I just meant overeating, or overdoing anything at all. It isn't good for us to overdo things. Eating too much is just one example, as a person can get really sick. Drinking too much alcohol can make a person throw up and black out. They're just examples. Pepto Bismal probably sells in the States at Thanksgiving time more than any other time (Just kidding).

As for "heaven", I have no idea what that entails. I have no idea what it would be like. Everyone seems to have their own ideas of what it actually is or is supposed to be. I don't even know what it is or what it's supposed to be. I certainly don't know what someone would feel like or if they'd have desires or if they will remain the same or become different or anything else.

 

[Erebus]

I just love the way everyone is twisting my words around to have them mean what they want them to mean. All I said was is that we are flesh and because of this we have desires. Desire isn't necessarily bad at all. The eating of the pie was supposed to be an example of gluttony and not literal at all. I just meant overeating, or overdoing anything at all. It isn't good for us to overdo things. Eating too much is just one example, as a person can get really sick. Drinking too much alcohol can make a person throw up and black out. They're just examples. Pepto Bismal probably sells in the States at Thanksgiving time more than any other time (Just kidding).

As for "heaven", I have no idea what that entails. I have no idea what it would be like. Everyone seems to have their own ideas of what it actually is or is supposed to be. I don't even know what it is or what it's supposed to be. I certainly don't know what someone would feel like or if they'd have desires or if they will remain the same or become different or anything else.

I didn't mean to twist your words Christine, I thought that was what you were trying to say. Still, thankyou for your answer

 

[haribol]

I cannot conceive the physicality of hell and in fact this is a state of mind and it figurative only. As God is not a physical entity and God is not something you can contain dimensionally and so are ideas of heaven and hell. There is no territorial spaces as heaven and hell and it comes out of you. Anybody living noncompliantly gets dragged to hell but it is not to a different world literally