Are you at a point in your life where you're convinced you'll go to heaven?

[Gucci Uomo]

"The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult and left untried." - G. K. Chesterton

I think it's very difficult to be a Christian. Many people attempt to adjust the Truth to themselves, instead of adjusting themselves to the Truth. That's one of the reasons why faith is rejected in our post-modern world, where words mean nothing and where objective morality is replaced with personal preferences.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by johnapril

Afterlife is something man thinks up to divert attention from the more important and interesting things happening down here. All the rest of that is mental masturbation. I mean, people have elevated conversation about all sorts of things. What makes anyone believe the afterlife is any different?

What's wrong w/ masturbation? Seriously?
But even more seriously, I agree that an afterlife can be a distraction from what's going on here. Hell and heaven are symbols. The point is that our actions here and now have ultimate consequences. Again it's both/and. Life and afterlife.

Philosoph, I don't know the University of Dallas very well, but Matt Ogilvie teaches theology or pastoral ministry there and he's a Lonergan scholar. I don't know more about him. I never studied Thomas in the context of philosophy. I would assume his philo is mostly a product of Aristotle and Neoplatonism. Was there much more at his time?

I took a look at the U Dallas website. I like how they quote Thomas on respecting one's opponent.

You mention "tension" in Catholic doctrine. I agree. Tension is the result of paradox and difficult truths. Sometimes truth is simple, and sometimes it's complex. Ockham's Razor is not universally applicable.

Mysticism is important and related. Karl Rahner, whom I mentioned, said that if there are to be Christians in the 21st century, they will need to be mystics.

Coho, There's a lot of good to existentialism. Did you see my post in your existentialism thread? To Nietzsche's question, I would say neither/nor, rather than both/and.

I'm a huge fan of the Jesuits. Their spirituality of "finding God in all things" and being true to one's deepest desires (since that's where God speaks to you) is excellent. We need to follow our deepest desires, to ask the deepest questions, and to examine our deepest doubts.

Where are you studying?

 

[emptym]

Gucci Uomo:

Yes and no to GKC. Christianity has not been tried, true. But this is because Christians themselves tend to do it all wrong. Christians themselves turn people off. This is coming from a very committed Christian.

Same to your points about post-modernity, yes and no. Life isn't usually about simple either/ors. We do need to adjust ourselves to the truth, but the Truth adjusts itself to us too. I truly hate relativism, but things are relative to a degree.

 

[Philosoph]

That wasn't quite the kind of tension I was talking about. Here's what I mean:

You're arguing that we should regard heaven and hell as states of being and/or as symbols. Fine. But what about that anecdote about Jesus ascending bodily to heaven? If he ascended bodily, and bodies are extended in space and time, then heaven would have to be the kind of place a body could go, that is, a place extended in space and time. So where is heaven? Astronomical observations of the galaxy haven't found it yet... and even if Jesus were traveling at the speed of light, he'd still be within the galaxy today. Of course, this is ridiculous. The Hubble telescope is not going to find a heaven up there in the stars. I don't know where you've studied and what you're hearing, but the Church I'm familiar with is still insisting on this literal truth, which can't possibly hold up in the modern world.

Here's the problem then: Either heaven is non-empirical (your claim falls here) or it is empirical (heaven is physical). The idea of an empirical heaven is ridiculous, so heaven must be non-empirical, as you're arguing. But the Church is still requiring belief in the empirical heaven. That's what I'd call a contradiction, not a paradox.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the "tension" in a properly understood spiritual paradox. But it's ruined by this insistence on literal dogmatic claims. You can hold a paradox in tension and gain some meaning from it, but the literal claims try to nail it down and concretize it. This makes it a contradiction. And that's a problem.

I would very much agree with Rahner that if Christians are going to survive, mysticism is how it must be, since the literal dogma cannot be held by a rational person with the kind of knowledge we have in this day and age.

 

[emptym]

The church does not affirm a body exactly like our bodies, and I don't think it ever has.

In fact, 1 Cor. 15:44 calls it a "spiritual body."

Where are you getting this "literal," "empirical" body from?

You might consult a copy of the catechism.

It's best to understand things before judging their truth, and
to know the truth of things before judging their value.

 

[Coho]

I agree, partly. I think that all actions have consequences but only to the immediate context of current existence and future events. I don't believe in an ethereal realm where actions on earth hold penal/reward significance. The reason Christianity has such a large following is that it holds the promise of eternal happiness in exchange for ephemeral discomfort.

Originally Posted by emptym

But even more seriously, I agree that an afterlife can be a distraction from what's going on here. Hell and heaven are symbols. The point is that our actions here and now have ultimate consequences. Again it's both/and. Life and afterlife.

 

[Philosoph]

I don't have the time or the inclination to go looking up Biblical references. And I don't make it a habit to remember those references offhand. I'm speaking from a lifetime, albeit a relatively short one, listening to this stuff being preached at me.

I get the "empirical body" from the teaching of the Incarnation. Someone, somewhere, told me that Jesus was both man and God, and that his body was like ours. Meaning that whatever else it was, it was an empirical body extended in space and time.

I was also told that the Ascension is the culmination of the Incarnation, fulfilling it by establishing physical contact with God through Jesus (in an empirical human body). And he's also supposed to return in the manner he left (bodily).

I don't know where exactly you're getting your interpretation, but either you're out of touch with what the Church is actually saying to its members (as opposed to what theologians are arguing about), or the Cistercians in my area are committing a number of heresies. That would be unfortunate, since one of their seminaries is right across the street. It's this simple: either Jesus had a body or he did not. If he did, then that body would have been spatiotemporally extended by definition. Then if Jesus did ascend bodily, and/or if Mary was assumed body and soul, then heaven would have to be a spatiotemporal place. My point was that this of course makes no sense.

When all is said and done, I'm not really concerned with what the Church says is true or with its theological wordplay. I'm interested in whether what it says makes any rational sense, which is not what I find to be the case. And even if what the Church says is true, it will not be true simply because it says it. I also don't buy the "faith isn't supposed to be rational" claim, because it requires belief in positive claims which violate the principle of sufficient reason.

If Christians are going to become mystics, then they'd have to eventually adopt an understanding similar to that of the East. However, as it currently stands, Christianity is very much not the same as Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, etc. I've tried to explain how they are different, but apparently it hasn't worked very well. You seem to be trying to find your own faith in places where it does not belong, and it seems that you haven't really understood the distinctions I've been trying to make. Perhaps someone else would like to give it a shot.

 

[emptym]

^ Jesus' body was identical to ours, before his death. But his resurrected and ascended body is like and dislike ours. This is official doctrine. Now whether or not the people you have encountered have mis-taught this or you have misunderstood this, I cannot say. Check out the concept "resurrected body" in the Catechism or the Catholic encyclopedia.

You wrote: "It's this simple: either Jesus had a body or he did not."
Again, it's not that simple. Catholic doctrine is not about easy either/ors, but difficult both/ands. And this is not merely my opinion.

On rationality: There's an old distinction between things being rational in themselves, and things being rational to me. Is it not a rational position to be humble and to know that if something doesn't make sense to me now, it doesn't mean it's not true and rational in itself? As Hamlet said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I find these words very helpful. I've had lots of doubts myself over the years. But if one pursues a question, there are satisfying answers. Of course, then new questions arise...

Your point about Mary is good and interesting. The doctrines around her are not my specialty. Off the top of my head, I'd say that the understanding of her literally ascending to a physical place called heaven was a rational attempt made to understand a question with the science available at the time. Our science today includes the belief that while physical things seem solid, they are made of atomic parts in motion and indeed ultimately, perhaps, of energy. It would be interesting to apply this science toward a rational understanding of a doctrine held in faith.

You're right that Xy is "not the same" when it comes to mysticism. But there is a likeness regarding mysticism, and it is strong. Mysticism is an old and rich tradition in the church, not a fringe or heretical group. Several mystics (Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, etc.) are recognized as "Doctors of the Church" -- the official category of theologians.

I think I've understood the distinctions you've tried to make. They are common. But they are common misunderstandings of what the official position is.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by Coho

I agree, partly. I think that all actions have consequences but only to the immediate context of current existence and future events. I don't believe in an ethereal realm where actions on earth hold penal/reward significance. The reason Christianity has such a large following is that it holds the promise of eternal happiness in exchange for ephemeral discomfort.

You know the Native American "web of life" view -- that all we do affects all there is? I think modern physics agrees. You've mentioned liking Aristotle's ethics. As you know, we learn from him, as well as from existentialists, that when we choose an object or an action, we are also choosing ourselves. Our actions shape who we are. And since we are political and social animals, an individual's choices affect not only the individual, but also the society. The consequences of actions are very, very far-reaching. Environmentalism is an example of an area that understands this.

I would include these consequences (affecting one's being/essence, and one's community's and environment's being/essence) when I say actions have ultimate consequences. They affect all of creation, or "this life."

Now is there an afterlife, and do our actions have consequences for an afterlife?
My answer would be yes. The basic understanding of the afterlife is being judged by God, and God is truth, love, justice, beauty, etc. I think that when we die, and "stand before" God, we will "know as we are known." We will see ourselves as we truly are. We will see all the consequences of all the choices we have made.

To the degree we have chosen justice and love and helped people, we will be happy.
To the degree we have rejected these things and harmed people, we will be in pain, and the pain could be excruciating.

But maybe there is no afterlife, and the grave is our ultimate horizon. I hope not.

 

[Philosoph]

Again, I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. It doesn't matter whether you want to say that Jesus' body was like ours or not. It doesn't matter if you call it a spiritual, divine, or an empirical body. The point is that if Jesus had a body, any body, then that body must necessarily have the characteristics contained in the definition of "body." That is, unless you're going to equivocate on "body" and introduce some other definition for it, in which case the Incarnation is going to be pretty sticky for you. Principle of non-contradiction?

Also, your description of being humble and content with the recognition that certain things are beyond your understanding presupposes that you believe in the truth of those things which you cannot understand. If you have not already accepted their truth without debate, there is no compelling reason to adopt belief.

There is a prevailing dogmatically supported view within the Church that those who disagree with its positions are simply mistaken. If they would only understand better they would realize how very true and right the Church is. This ignores the other possibility: that the Church's dogmas and doctrines simply no longer make sense in the world today. Its claims are no more immune to reason than anyone else's.

You seem to support a mystical approach to understanding Christianity, but you can't have it both ways. Either you're going to understand your religion symbolically, or you're going to support its literal, historical claims. I think you're confusing these in your last post, where you refer to the afterlife as a temporal state after bodily death in which we will be judged by an individual God, which will affect our future state. This is not a symbolic understanding of heaven.

 

[skalogre]

To clarify on my prior, smiley only, post:

To think you'll go to "heaven" means you would believe in it existing. Which would mean believing in some supernatural being of sorts. Which cannot be proven to exist. So I don't.
The whole point of faith is believing despite the lack of evidence (leap of faith? bad pun). I cannot do that.

P.s. except for His Noodliness. Him I fear

 

[emptym]

I think it matters a lot whether or not Jesus had a body identical to ours or a body that is like ours. I also think one can distinguish between the body Jesus had before death and the body Jesus had after death. But if keeping things simple makes you happy, be happy.

My desire to be humble does apply to religion and things beyond human understanding in general, but it also applies to truths about nature and science. I know that there are things that are true that I do not understand. Some of these things I may someday understand, and some I may not. I just know that there are things that I thought were "stupid" that I later realized were profound. My calling them stupid at the time only revealed my own stupidity. When one has been proven wrong in the past, one knows one may be proven wrong in the future, and one becomes humbler. This is applicable not only to religion, or to science, but to all areas of knowing. This, I think is one of Plato's points in the Apology, when he talks hyperbolically about the wise man knowing he knows nothing. It is also the point of my John Wheeler (of my signature line). And he was a physicist.

Btw, I have never called for accepting truth w/o debate. Debate is essential, as are doubt and questions. Part of why I believe much of what I believe is that I have gone through doubt. I have pursued questions, and I have gotten answers. I didn't think I would become a theologian until I was 26. Now this doesn't mean I know everything, but after 12 years of grad studies and teaching, I do know some things. And it doesn't mean I don't continue to debate, and to doubt, and to question. I do. That is what mature faith is about. It's about friendship and love more than rules, punishments, and rewards. The Law is not opposed to Love. Life is a process. Laws are good, and they are particularly good for kids -- as Aristotle would say -- to train us in virtue. But are rules always good? No. Are they always bad? No. This is true about the rule-makers. Are they always right? No. Are they always wrong? No. The truth is often complicated. Things are not always either/or, black and white. There are many shades of grey. Mature faith, and mature human life is like this: living in complexity.

But people want things to be simple. Hillary's good and Huckabee's evil, or vice versa. The Church is perfect, or it's a waste. We often go to extremes. But sometimes that's good.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by skalogre

To clarify on my prior, smiley only, post:

To think you'll go to "heaven" means you would believe in it existing. Which would mean believing in some supernatural being of sorts. Which cannot be proven to exist. So I don't.
The whole point of faith is believing despite the lack of evidence (leap of faith? bad pun). I cannot do that.

P.s. except for His Noodliness. Him I fear

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Some people think God's existence can be proven. I'm not so sure, because I wonder, What can be proven? Ancient philosophers have argued that all of reality may be a dream or the result of an evil trickster. Modern scientists have revived this possibility with their ability to stimulate parts of the brain to make people see and feel things. We all may be "brains in a vat." Thus, we have movies like the Matrix.

A lot of what we know, we actually believe. Most people think they know whom their birth parents are, that the world is round, and that astronauts landed on the moon. Were we there when we were born? Who has actually seen the roundness of the earth or stepped on the moon? We believe these things partly because we have faith in the people who raised us, in scientists, and politicians, and experts of all kinds.

What is faith? Whatever it is, it is not against reason, at least for Catholics and most mainstream Protestants and Jews.

Kierkegaard brought in the leap of faith. It's part of Luther's and Calvin's belief in the extremity of the fallenness of nature. The Catholic church has always held that faith and reason are compatible. Some truths about God are beyond human reason, but many, including God's existence, are not.

 

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by emptym

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some people think God's existence can be proven. I'm not so sure, because I wonder, What can be proven? Ancient philosophers have argued that all of reality may be a dream or the result of an evil trickster. Modern scientists have revived this possibility with their ability to stimulate parts of the brain to make people see and feel things. We all may be "brains in a vat." Thus, we have movies like the Matrix. A lot of what we know, we actually believe. Most people think they know whom their birth parents are, that the world is round, and that astronauts landed on the moon. Were we there when we were born? Who has actually seen the roundness of the earth or stepped on the moon? We believe these things partly because we have faith in the people who raised us, in scientists, and politicians, and experts of all kinds. What is faith? Whatever it is, it is not against reason, at least for Catholics and most mainstream Protestants and Jews. Kierkegaard brought in the leap of faith. It's part of Luther's and Calvin's belief in the extremity of the fallenness of nature. The Catholic church has always held that faith and reason are compatible. Some truths about God are beyond human reason, but many, including God's existence, are not.
By absence of evidence, anything could exist. You know what though? Until you can come up with a scientific experiment that can be replicated you are out of luck; hence faith. Sorry, but that is very different from trying to say that if you have not personally seen the earth from space that it is not round. Smoke and mirrors - same as spoon-bending, mediums and astrologists. And the cop out "as you are human you cannot understand the incogruities" idea that theologians always bring up shows exactly why this will never happen. Just to clarify, I don't care if people believe in a deity or deities. But to try to convince me that it exists logically with NO direct evidence and NO repeatable way to test it is futile. If you have faith believe in it. P.s. don't bring up the Matrix

That is pop-science and pop-psychology at its worst.

 

[Philosoph]

You missed it again. You can distinguish all you like between whether Jesus' body was identical to our or just similar, and between his body before and after death. My point is only that all things that can be identified as bodies have certain specific characteristics. Namely, they are extended in time and space. Are you trying to posit a body that exists outside space and time? If you are, then I'm sorry, but that just doesn't work.

Your comparison between science and religion is not apt. Scientific theories are empirically demonstrable. One common way of putting this is that they are falsifiable: i.e. testable. Nobody believes in scientific principles in the same way he believes in religion. You accept science on the basis of evidence, with the implicit understanding that future evidence could cause you to revise your hypothesis. Religious claims are not testable, though. If you do not assent to their truth a priori, there is no compelling reason for believing them.

It's interesting that you bring up that quite from the Apology, in which the wise man is he who knows he knows nothing. I would say that this kind of thought, is precisely the opposite of making positive claims about what is properly unknowable.

I'm also not trying to "oversimplify." Clarify, perhaps. You listed some propositions: rules are not always good; rules are not always bad; rule-makers are not always good; rule-makers are not always bad. None of these are contradictories, and it's entirely possible to hold them in a logically consistent way. What we can know, we know logically. What we can't know logically, we can't know. Unfortunately, most factual religious doctrines lead to contradictions, which cannot be held. So either the claims are knowable as false, or they are simply unknowable, in which case they are empty and cannot be affirmed.