4 ms·

Just an opinion here. The article says a number of things about the Christian Heaven. But fails to recognize the premise is that people who go there are chang

Just an opinion here. The article says a number of things about the Christian Heaven. But fails to recognize the premise is that people who go there are changed. On the inside. There is peace, on the outside, because there is peace in the heart, on the inside. There is contentment, because it is on the inside. There isn't a lust for power and control over other people's lives. Nor any shortage of resources. And the biggest thing described as great about Heaven is being in God's presence. Not material things or power. The problem with all other utopias is that they seem to imagine something that people create without a change on the inside. People have tried to create ideal kingdoms for millennia. The problem is that its seeds of destruction are on our insides. It is us that is the problem.

jmawesome 8y ago
The idea of peace in the heart in Christian Heaven is an idea entirely absent in the New Testament. Peace, in the NT, is always interpersonal--and it's this very thing that causes conceptions of heaven to fail. To describe it as peaceful, as tranquil is not the point. To describe it as peaceful, where all have been reconciled and relationships have been restored starts to capture an essence of what the purpose is.
- rcoveson 8y ago
  Would it be fair to describe it as a place where nothing ever happens?
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    Actually, there's a lot of activity, responsibility, and work to be done once heaven arrives. A few thoughts: In the final state, there will be new heavens and a new earth (i.e. a very physical Earth like we know it now, with mountains, trees, grass, animals) -- a sort of Eden restored, but better, since God's throne and presence will be on the earth, instead of in a separate place (Revelation 22, Isaiah 11). There will be cities to rule, a lot of responsibility and work to do, many "ages to come" in which things will change (scripture references provided on request). Imagine the grandeur of Tolkien's and Lewis's fantasy novels -- the ages upon ages of interesting history and characters. I honestly don't understand how the narrative will work without any antagonists present, because we presently understand narratives via conflict and resolution. The "they lived happily ever after" seems rather bereft of content, and is kept for the very end of stories. I suspect that's because we have yet to see what the great, true "happily ever after" looks like. However, the boredom with eternity that Orwell alludes to will not be present, simply because of the person of God. He is full of infinite love, creativity, power, etc... and he will be the delight of all who are there -- that sort of ever-flowing fountain of life and "newness". Indeed, without God himself, everything would get incredibly dull after a while. Jesus says as much in his prayer to the Father in John 17: ".. and this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." The "life" here is love, joy, and peace, not merely length of days.
    - Kye 8y ago
      >> "I honestly don't understand how the narrative will work without any antagonists present, because we presently understand narratives via conflict and resolution. The "they lived happily ever after" seems rather bereft of content, and is kept for the very end of stories." There are other ways to tell a story. For example, you've probably run into kishōtenketsu without realizing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish%C5%8Dtenketsu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish%C5%8Dtenketsu
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > Peace, in the NT, is always interpersonal Yes. And the NT concept of peace is primarily expressed in reconciliation between God and his people. As Romans 5 puts it, "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we stand."
darkmighty 8y ago
That sounds fair, but it seems would argue just as well for the boredom of being eternally in a 'state of peace', no other activities suggested. If this peace is forced upon you, isn't it just a forced eternal torpor? And you've just shifted the problem of describing what is great about heaven to describing what is great about 'being in God's presence'. And I assume here you'd use words 'blissful', 'undescribable', etc. which are exactly the trouble words Orwell highlights. I think what's missing here is the real perspective that hapiness is an evolutionary mechanism. All forms of contentment are made to get us to do things, be sucessful animals, reproduce as much as possible, etc. Some forms of displeasure are absolute (e.g. chronic pain), but most forms of hapiness are relative. It wouldn't be useful if hominids were in permanent depression for not having air conditioning in their huts or tasty food every meal. For nature it's ideal if you have a stable baseline that directs you toward achievable goals, and be neither permanently blissful or depressed. That's not to say that, objectively, we couldn't come up with a pretty good scheme where people are actually healthy, happy and content a lot of the time, and which isn't entirely trivial. I have friends that more or less fit in that description. Some small problems colour their lives but generally they're in a pretty good state, compared to what I can imagine is achievable. Giving tem one bajillion dollars probably wouldn't change that state much, it could even make it a little worse by completely ridding them of problems. By that I mean to say, there are things we can do to make the world better without getting into an actually miserable eventless existence. Physical pain, in particular chronic pain is an example of a bad state in an absolute sense. Total social isolation is equally bad. You can provide reasonably challenging work, etc. We also have plenty of depressed people with access to extremely favorable living conditions but lacking certain stimuli that makes us happy. And I think we should strive for that environment. There's a possible conclusion from the essay that either we're going to reach a state of permanent, problem-free torpor from complete lack of resource constraint; or we'll have to force ourselves into a generally harsh lives with a few joys here and there. I think this doesn't have to be a problem: I believe we can realize a future where everyone is in excellent health, with pretty good access to food and diverse sources of pleasure, entertainment, art, etc., have good social contact, is challenged at work or education, and which it is is fun and worthwhile. It doesn't need to last forever to be excellent. I'd merrily live for 1000 years in this world. I make no claims about the necessarily political and economic systems to achieve this goal (and those are of no importance comparing to approaching it).
PeterisP 8y ago
To that regard, there's the Serenity prayer that starts with "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, ...", and one such thing certainly is "... seeds of destruction are on our insides. It is us ..." Yes, there are many human behaviors that hamper creating ideal kingdoms. However, these drives and motivations and everything else related is fundamentally a part of how we're built, part of what we are. An individual can change, but humanity at its core can not, there are some aspects dominated by culture but the major factors (including many of the "seeds of desctruction") are innate to almost all humans or even to almost all mammals. We can imagine many societies that would function great if humans were different; but we aren't. Perhaps we'll be able to design creatures with different minds that lack these defects, using some advanced genetic engineering or cybernetic enhancements or something else - but those creatures would not be entirely humans, homo sapiens, it wouldn't be us, they'd be something different. Heaven or some other Utopia involving people 'changed on the inside' doesn't work for people. It works for some beings that are not people any more, even if they were once, because their core, their essence, their motivations and feelings has been substantially, fundamentally changed. Heaven is for angels; I'm not one, and I can't be one - if I'd become one, that wouldn't be me anymore.
int_19h 8y ago
> The problem with all other utopias is that they seem to imagine something that people create without a change on the inside. Not at all. So much so that we even have a term for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Man_(utopian_concept) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Man_(utopian_concept)

jmawesome 8y ago

The idea of peace in the heart in Christian Heaven is an idea entirely absent in the New Testament. Peace, in the NT, is always interpersonal--and it's this very thing that causes conceptions of heaven to fail. To describe it as peaceful, as tranquil is not the point. To describe it as peaceful, where all have been reconciled and relationships have been restored starts to capture an essence of what the purpose is.

rcoveson 8y ago
Would it be fair to describe it as a place where nothing ever happens?
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  Actually, there's a lot of activity, responsibility, and work to be done once heaven arrives. A few thoughts: In the final state, there will be new heavens and a new earth (i.e. a very physical Earth like we know it now, with mountains, trees, grass, animals) -- a sort of Eden restored, but better, since God's throne and presence will be on the earth, instead of in a separate place (Revelation 22, Isaiah 11). There will be cities to rule, a lot of responsibility and work to do, many "ages to come" in which things will change (scripture references provided on request). Imagine the grandeur of Tolkien's and Lewis's fantasy novels -- the ages upon ages of interesting history and characters. I honestly don't understand how the narrative will work without any antagonists present, because we presently understand narratives via conflict and resolution. The "they lived happily ever after" seems rather bereft of content, and is kept for the very end of stories. I suspect that's because we have yet to see what the great, true "happily ever after" looks like. However, the boredom with eternity that Orwell alludes to will not be present, simply because of the person of God. He is full of infinite love, creativity, power, etc... and he will be the delight of all who are there -- that sort of ever-flowing fountain of life and "newness". Indeed, without God himself, everything would get incredibly dull after a while. Jesus says as much in his prayer to the Father in John 17: ".. and this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." The "life" here is love, joy, and peace, not merely length of days.
  - Kye 8y ago
    >> "I honestly don't understand how the narrative will work without any antagonists present, because we presently understand narratives via conflict and resolution. The "they lived happily ever after" seems rather bereft of content, and is kept for the very end of stories." There are other ways to tell a story. For example, you've probably run into kishōtenketsu without realizing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish%C5%8Dtenketsu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish%C5%8Dtenketsu
TimTheTinker 8y ago
> Peace, in the NT, is always interpersonal Yes. And the NT concept of peace is primarily expressed in reconciliation between God and his people. As Romans 5 puts it, "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we stand."

darkmighty 8y ago

That sounds fair, but it seems would argue just as well for the boredom of being eternally in a 'state of peace', no other activities suggested. If this peace is forced upon you, isn't it just a forced eternal torpor? And you've just shifted the problem of describing what is great about heaven to describing what is great about 'being in God's presence'. And I assume here you'd use words 'blissful', 'undescribable', etc. which are exactly the trouble words Orwell highlights. I think what's missing here is the real perspective that hapiness is an evolutionary mechanism. All forms of contentment are made to get us to do things, be sucessful animals, reproduce as much as possible, etc. Some forms of displeasure are absolute (e.g. chronic pain), but most forms of hapiness are relative. It wouldn't be useful if hominids were in permanent depression for not having air conditioning in their huts or tasty food every meal. For nature it's ideal if you have a stable baseline that directs you toward achievable goals, and be neither permanently blissful or depressed. That's not to say that, objectively, we couldn't come up with a pretty good scheme where people are actually healthy, happy and content a lot of the time, and which isn't entirely trivial. I have friends that more or less fit in that description. Some small problems colour their lives but generally they're in a pretty good state, compared to what I can imagine is achievable. Giving tem one bajillion dollars probably wouldn't change that state much, it could even make it a little worse by completely ridding them of problems. By that I mean to say, there are things we can do to make the world better without getting into an actually miserable eventless existence. Physical pain, in particular chronic pain is an example of a bad state in an absolute sense. Total social isolation is equally bad. You can provide reasonably challenging work, etc. We also have plenty of depressed people with access to extremely favorable living conditions but lacking certain stimuli that makes us happy. And I think we should strive for that environment. There's a possible conclusion from the essay that either we're going to reach a state of permanent, problem-free torpor from complete lack of resource constraint; or we'll have to force ourselves into a generally harsh lives with a few joys here and there. I think this doesn't have to be a problem: I believe we can realize a future where everyone is in excellent health, with pretty good access to food and diverse sources of pleasure, entertainment, art, etc., have good social contact, is challenged at work or education, and which it is is fun and worthwhile. It doesn't need to last forever to be excellent. I'd merrily live for 1000 years in this world. I make no claims about the necessarily political and economic systems to achieve this goal (and those are of no importance comparing to approaching it).

PeterisP 8y ago

To that regard, there's the Serenity prayer that starts with "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, ...", and one such thing certainly is "... seeds of destruction are on our insides. It is us ..." Yes, there are many human behaviors that hamper creating ideal kingdoms. However, these drives and motivations and everything else related is fundamentally a part of how we're built, part of what we are. An individual can change, but humanity at its core can not, there are some aspects dominated by culture but the major factors (including many of the "seeds of desctruction") are innate to almost all humans or even to almost all mammals. We can imagine many societies that would function great if humans were different; but we aren't. Perhaps we'll be able to design creatures with different minds that lack these defects, using some advanced genetic engineering or cybernetic enhancements or something else - but those creatures would not be entirely humans, homo sapiens, it wouldn't be us, they'd be something different. Heaven or some other Utopia involving people 'changed on the inside' doesn't work for people. It works for some beings that are not people any more, even if they were once, because their core, their essence, their motivations and feelings has been substantially, fundamentally changed. Heaven is for angels; I'm not one, and I can't be one - if I'd become one, that wouldn't be me anymore.

int_19h 8y ago

> The problem with all other utopias is that they seem to imagine something that people create without a change on the inside. Not at all. So much so that we even have a term for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Man_(utopian_concept) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Man_(utopian_concept)