Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we want our loved ones to get to Heaven?
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 1 of 14 (522446)
09-03-2009 12:55 PM


{Please see and heed the content of message 2, or risk suffering the consequences - Adminnemooseus}
In the Eternal Life (thanks, but no thanks) thread iano and I had a short back and fort about whether we ought to want our loved ones to get into Heaven, seeing as when we are in Heaven, we supposedly will not feel any regret or sorrow over loved ones that fail to make it there with us. It was suggested that this be moved to its own thread, so here we are.
Let's assume for the sake of argument the following:
1) When we get to Heaven there will be no sorrow or regret.
2) Some of those we now consider loved ones will not be in Heaven with us.
3) The reason we don't feel sorrow or regret over #2 is because #2 is truly not a justification for those emotions. IOW, it's not because God zapped our memories or forced our attitudes to conform to this against our will.
My contention is that, given the above and for-knowledge of the above, it is irrational to want our loved ones to get to Heaven, because the other outcome must be at least equally as desirable or we would have justification for regret/sorrow after the fact. Any desire by us to want our loved ones to get to Heaven, while understandable in human emotional terms, is not warranted.
Faith and Belief? This is my first attempt at starting a thread so I'll defer to the moderators.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : In red note at top.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-04-2009 12:05 AM Aware Wolf has replied
 Message 9 by tuffers, posted 09-04-2009 12:04 PM Aware Wolf has not replied
 Message 12 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 1:20 PM Aware Wolf has replied
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 2:18 PM Aware Wolf has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 14 (522533)
09-03-2009 9:28 PM


"There is no such thing as heaven" types should not post in this topic
This topic is aimed at those who believe in heaven, or at least can grant such for the sake of the discussion. If you are not one of those people, please DO NOT post in this topic.
"There is no such thing as heaven" type messages are off-topic.
Adminnemooseus

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 14 (522536)
09-03-2009 9:33 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Should we want our loved ones to get to Heaven? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 4 of 14 (522562)
09-04-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aware Wolf
09-03-2009 12:55 PM


In accordance with instructions from message 2, I will "grant for the sake of discussion" a concept of eternal afterlife in some condition called "heaven", and I understand that this is posited as one "afterlife alternative," the other alternative being some other condition (not as advantageous in some way as "heaven"), or simply "not being." (Maybe there are multiple alternatives, but regardless how many, the condition called "heaven" is to be considered the most advantageous.)
Now, as per instructions in the OP, I would "assume for the sake of argument," these three additional points, but I hope to make sure I understand them properly, so I'll paraphrase in the hope of confirming (or correcting) my (mis)understanding:
  • the "heaven condition" involves sensations or other states of awareness that never include sorrow or regret;
  • whatever the criteria may be that qualified us for this condition, these are likely to disqualify some of people that we held dear during our lifetimes;
  • the absence of sorrow and regret from our own heaven condition entails an understanding on our part that the exclusion of our former loved ones from heaven is "just", in the sense of being correct, appropriate, "ok", and so on.
I hope someone will correct me if I've got any of that wrong.
I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that "it is irrational to want our loved ones to get into heaven." The only time it makes sense to talk about what we want for our loved ones is while we are still alive and among them. And during that time, it is both rational and entirely natural to want our loved ones to get into heaven: this term refers, by definition, to the most advantageous (desirable, sought-for) condition for afterlife, and while we are among our loved ones in life, one of the entailments of this emotional attachment is (or should be) that we want these people to achieve the best possible outcome (and we'd want to share it with them, naturally).
I would assert that the capacity for deep affection toward others, including the desire for these others to get as much benefit in general as possible, is a basic trait for many people (perhaps not all). For these folks, whatever is considered good and advantageous is what we want for our loved ones. It cuts across all religious creeds and applies equally to atheists and agnostics as well -- we have this in common.
Anyway, I think there may be some "issues" with those three premises. The concept of love (in the sense of deep, mutually beneficial affection) seems twisted or defective if it does not include a sense of sorrow or regret when we see our loved ones being denied what we would want them to have. Puts me in mind of the image of Christ saying "love me or burn." Makes no sense, really -- it seems absurd.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-03-2009 12:55 PM Aware Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-04-2009 12:22 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 5 of 14 (522616)
09-04-2009 9:22 AM


I would like to ask what you will be doing once you're there? IOW What is the purpose of going to heaven and what is the new song that those who go there, sing?

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-04-2009 9:55 AM Peg has replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 6 of 14 (522629)
09-04-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Peg
09-04-2009 9:22 AM


Beats the heck out of me. Are you setting something up to tie in to the OP? I can try and formulate an answer if that would help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Peg, posted 09-04-2009 9:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Peg, posted 09-04-2009 9:59 AM Aware Wolf has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 7 of 14 (522635)
09-04-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Aware Wolf
09-04-2009 9:55 AM


AwareWolf writes:
Beats the heck out of me. Are you setting something up to tie in to the OP? I can try and formulate an answer if that would help.
not really
im not equipped to answer the op because im not going to heaven...but if I was, i'd want to know what i was going to be doing there lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-04-2009 9:55 AM Aware Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-04-2009 10:36 AM Peg has not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 8 of 14 (522639)
09-04-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peg
09-04-2009 9:59 AM


I guess I don't know how to respond and stay on topic both, so I'll take a pass...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peg, posted 09-04-2009 9:59 AM Peg has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 9 of 14 (522669)
09-04-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aware Wolf
09-03-2009 12:55 PM


Hi Aware Wolf
I don't know if you are familiar with the Ricky Gervais podcasts where he quizzes his "mentally-challenged" friend Karl Pilkington on a number of topics.
Your OP reminds me of an episode where Ricky asks Karl about what he would expect in Heaven.
Karl says, "Will I be able to meet all my old relatives and friends?"
Ricky says, "I guess so."
Karl says, "To be honest, I'd rather they stayed away."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-03-2009 12:55 PM Aware Wolf has not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 10 of 14 (522671)
09-04-2009 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Otto Tellick
09-04-2009 12:05 AM


Otto Tellick writes:
I hope someone will correct me if I've got any of that wrong.
I would say you've got it right.
Otto Tellick writes:
The only time it makes sense to talk about what we want for our loved ones is while we are still alive and among them.
Really? I wouldn't say that's true. Why does it not make sense to talk about what we want for our loved ones when we are in Heaven? It's too late to affect anything, sure, but unless we get turned into emotionless automatons...
Actually, that would solve the dilema nicely, but it's hardly in keeping with Christian theology, to my understanding.
I'm guessing the real reason you have a problem with my conclusion is that it just seems to be obviously wrong. I would agree with this. My whole point is that it throws major suspicion upon the orginal assumptions: there must be something there that isn't right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-04-2009 12:05 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 11 of 14 (522673)
09-04-2009 12:37 PM


Nothing bad at all
Someone close to me once committed a crime (through neglegence) and spent a few years in jail. The facts of the case were clear to everyone and he was absolutely guilt ridden for what he had done: he plead guilty and served his time. There was no question in my mind or his that the sentence was just and appropriate, but it caused me anguish every time I thought about him behine bars, never mind how he felt about it. It seems to me that it is one thing to agree that a situation is just and right, and another thing entirely to feel no regret or sorrow over it. If there is anything at all negative or bad or hurtful about a situation, then we can justifiably feel bad about it.
So for us not to feel any regrets or sorrow over our (previous) loved ones while in Heaven, it seems to me that we must be of the opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with the situation. It isn't enough to think that it is proper and just; the lesser of two evils. We have to think that it is not evil whatsoever.

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 12 of 14 (522681)
09-04-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aware Wolf
09-03-2009 12:55 PM


The way I read the original argument, from iano's perspective, the essential goodness of your loved one gets stripped away before they get sent to their torment...however that is defined...thus feeling regret for your friend being tormented is not justified, since your friend is not the being being tormented.
If I have that right, it still doesn't preclude feeling regret that your friend now doesn't exist. I mean, we feel sad when our friends/loved ones die, even if we believe they have gone to Heaven and are basking in glory and happiness, so just the mere absence of someone causes regret and sadness. If going to heaven somehow removes this from us, then we also lose something essential about ourselves, so not only is the being in Hell not your friend, the being in Heaven is not you...so in otherwords, it doesn't matter where your friend ends up, since he always ends up in the same place you do...nonexistence.
At least, that's the only logical answer I can come up with based on iano's initial argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-03-2009 12:55 PM Aware Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-04-2009 3:27 PM Perdition has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 13 of 14 (522701)
09-04-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aware Wolf
09-03-2009 12:55 PM


Re:Regret.
Hi Aware,
Aware Wolf writes:
Let's assume for the sake of argument the following:
Why assume anything.
Aware Wolf writes:
1) When we get to Heaven there will be no sorrow or regret.
Along with no pain, crying or death.
Aware Wolf writes:
2) Some of those we now consider loved ones will not be in Heaven with us.
Far too many.
And probably some of them not there because of me.
Aware Wolf writes:
3) The reason we don't feel sorrow or regret over #2 is because #2 is truly not a justification for those emotions. IOW, it's not because God zapped our memories or forced our attitudes to conform to this against our will.
The reason we won't have those is found in:
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
It seems like there has been a lot of pain that caused tears to the point God had to remove the source of the pain.
When Christ sets up His 1000 year reign on earth I will be there and I will know all my loved ones that are there and I will also know those who are missing. I then have 1000 years to regret not being the witness I needed to be or being able to convince them of their need of salvation.
On top of that I will be there when they stand before God at the Great White Throne judgment and have them point a finger at me and say why didn't you do what you was supposed to do. If you had I would not be in this situation. I would probably agree with them as I agonized about their fate as I saw them cast into the lake of fire.
Yes there would be much pain and sorrow. In fact too much to bear. Therefore God would have to intervene and remove that pain and sorrow. If He didn't heaven would be one miserable place.
Aware Wolf writes:
Any desire by us to want our loved ones to get to Heaven, while understandable in human emotional terms, is not warranted.
You apparently do not believe in God, heaven or the lake of fire, and you have no concept of what they are or mankind's standing before God the judge.
Heaven = where God and all those who receive His free full pardon will spend eternity in the new heaven and the new earth.
The lake of fire = The devils final resting place and all those who do not exercise their option of receiving God's free full pardon will spend eternity.
A Man/woman has accepted God's offer of a free full pardon.
OR
A Man/woman is condemned already to spend eternity in the lake of fire.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
There is no choice.
Only an option.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-03-2009 12:55 PM Aware Wolf has not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 14 of 14 (522719)
09-04-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Perdition
09-04-2009 1:20 PM


Well, I think you’ve stated iano’s position correctly, and I think your right in saying that it really doesn’t work as a solution to the dilemma. If we just become non-existent in either case, then we don’t even have to bother to ask what our future selves think about it: it’s just the same either way and we shouldn’t even try to get ourselves into Heaven, never mind our loved ones.
If it’s somewhere in the middle — half of ourselves carry on, whatever that means — then I don’t see that as all that different than our entire selves surviving, and we're back to the original situation, in essence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 1:20 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024