That has always puzzled me. Why not skip straight to heaven?
1 Like
I don’t really get why it is puzzling. The people in heaven wouldn’t be who they are without their lives on earth. There’s no such thing as “skipping straight to heaven” in the sense of getting the exact same outcome without the prior history.
1 Like
That sounds a little bit like the soul building theodicy I’ve heard. But my problem with that answer is, if we assume we lived in a world where we did go straight to heaven, one could ask why we don’t spend our beginning 80 years of eternity in a place with varying degrees of suffering. That person could be answered in the same way: if that were the case, we wouldn’t be who we are now. To me, it doesn’t seem like it actually answers any questions.
Memory is one of the most malleable parts of human existence. I would think that an omnipotent God would be able to provide people with appropriate memories to sustain them in heaven.
Though it has never been made particularly clear why these memories/experiences are such an important part of qualification for heaven. Just as the topic of whether the Free Will that is apparently so vital in this world also exists in heaven seems to be actively avoided.
Well, my apologies for commenting. I was motivated because @Tim made a comment expressing a similar view. The basic shortcomings of religious logic rarely get much exposure in discussions on religion. This is not surprising to me as the mutual incomprehension is an unbridgeable gap. You either see Sagan’s dragon or you don’t. The rest is window-dressing and “live-and-let-live” is the way I deal with it.
I’m also impervious to walls of text written in a language that I don’t understand.
1 Like
As a matter of interest, can any of the agnostics or atheists on this thread say that the attempts at explanation of the Christian eschatology have proven illuminating, rather than “puzzling” and/or evoking head-scratching?
@John_Harshman? @Michael_Okoko? @Faizal_Ali? @Rumraket? @Mercer? @Witchdoc? @SlightlyOddGuy?
1 Like
I’ll have a go.
I’m an atheist and can’t recall a time I was otherwise. I had a vaguely Christian (Church of England) upbringing and education but it was ineffective (even counter-productive) in instilling any religious empathy in me. I suspect this may have been the way it was taught as something to absorb without question - indeed, questioning was discouraged which just turned me into a largely silent “rebel”. I seem to recall thinking at the time (early teens) that if an idea makes sense, it would not need to be enforced.
I’ve mellowed over the years (did I mention live and let live) but I still cringe at being preached to. Amazingly, in my quiet corner of France, prior to Covid, I regularly answered the door to Jehovah witnesses offering the Watchtower and salvation. During these encounters, I’m mildly embarrassed (being English) and minimise engagement by saying that if ! were considering taking up a faith it would more likely be Buddhism (which is possibly even true).
I’m not trying to be offensive so bear with me if this is badly phrased. There are lots of aspects of religions that interest me: the history, the sociology, the involvement in politics and shaping of cultures, the art, the buildings (and especially at PS the phenomenon of YEC which I lived happily ignorant of for the first forty years of my life). But not the belief - I feel no need. I reckon there is a variability in human susceptibility to religious ideas and I’m well toward the “not-at-all-susceptible” end of the scale. So it feels impolite to question others’ beliefs without accepting their conviction as genuine and meaningful to them.
Is it possible for me to have a friendly discussion on personal belief with a committed Christian? There is no possibility of me being persuaded by reasoned argument (this is not a challenge) to Christian belief and I have no wish to attack or undermine anyone else’s personal faith. Are there other benefits to such dialogue other than agreeing to live and let live?
1 Like
And how have children who are too young to suffer or disobey learned “that our sinful and selfish choices result in suffering” and to “want to do things God’s way”?
That was the point of my asking these questions. To see how this all fits together, if in fact it all fits together.
Otherwise, I’m just left “puzzled” and scratching my head over the whole thing.
1 Like
That’s blackmail, because if we don’t choose to be with him, we are doomed.
“God’s way” has been equally responsible for a lot of suffering. I vividly remember someone senselessly murdered hundreds because one man decided to take a census. That’s despicable.
So if you lived in ancient Judah and God told you to slay me, would you follow his will?
We need to ask God this question, because he ignored it and created a perfect couple whom he intended to be selfless
What is wrong with being self-sufficient and independent?
Including those of unbelievers?
1 Like
That was certainly the prooftext I heard growing up in a fundamentalist church. The popular claim was that it meant that “all children under the age of accountability go to heaven.” But in all fairness to the Biblical text, is that what it actually states? Here is the passage:
But why should I fast when he is dead? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me.” (NLT)
This passage makes no mention of heaven nor does it even state that the dead remain conscious due to an eternal soul which survives the deceased body. It simply states that death is a one-way trip and that the only way David will ever join the child is by eventually going to him: by dying. Indeed, the only destination implied by this passage is the grave, not heaven.
I’ve always been frustrated that so many Bible commentators (including some of my favorite former colleagues and friends) don’t even consider that 2 Samuel 12:23 is simply recording what David said after the death of his child. Just because someone’s words are documented in the Bible doesn’t necessarily make them a prophetic utterance meant to convey a doctrinal truth. Indeed, David and various other kings of Israel said all sorts of things which were neither wise nor righteous. So how do we know that David was not simply expressing his grief by articulating what his contemporaries in that culture tended to say after the death of a loved one?
Furthermore, the ancient Hebrews had an idiom which we see translated in a variety of ways in various English Bible translations. Literally, the idiom often appeared in the form “and X slept with his fathers.” It was a euphemism for “and X died.” The idiom reminds us that David would have believed what everybody else in that era believed: eventually everyone sleeps in the grave.
That said, I’m neither denying or affirming any particular spiritual fate for children after their death. I’m simply stating that I don’t see how 2 Samuel 12:23 can be used as a prooftext for the automatic eternal salvation of young children. If such a doctrine is to be found in scripture, it is surely not in this popular verse.
POSTSCRIPT: I will leave to other moderators the decision as to whether this analysis of 2 Samuel 12:23 should be moved to its own thread.
4 Likes
There seems to be several layers of speculation, supposition and assumption baked into this argument. Principally:
-
That angels don’t learn from experience. If they didn’t one would assume that they would have remained as God created them, and thus none of them would have fallen.
-
That it is impossible to both know some things innately and to learn from experience.
If knowing God was so central to the reason for Creation (as I have seen argued), one would assume that an innate facility for this would be a priority. And one would assume that such a facility would yield acceptance of Christianity in the world at a level above its current approximately 30%.
1 Like
Yes, I would agree that this is a problematic passage to base the conclusion prooftexted to it.
My interest in the issue was to try and form some context around @structureoftruth’s 6th point above. It would however seem that 2 Samuel 12:23 forms a rather less than perfect landmark or point of reference for this.
This also means that if there is an inconsistency on child salvation, it will not be clear whether it is due to any incoherence of the underlying eschatology or simply that over-reliance on this prooftext has distorted thinking on that narrow issue.
This means that I must look further afield for useful context.
It’s to find out if you have any explanation that’s at least self-consistent. What am I misunderstanding, exactly, and how?
I am not deliberately and falsely accusing you. I might perhaps be accidentally and falsely accusing you, but I certainly am not aware of anything false. So we’re back to you explaining what I got wrong.
1 Like
Is there time in heaven? What marks its passing?
ETA its not it’s
2 Likes
I appreciate your acknowledgement that comprehension across wide gulfs of culture, ethnicity, religious belief is two-way (allowing the binary error for simplicity’s sake).
Why?
If it has bounds it’s not omnipotence.
1 Like
scratches head
I’m trying to imagine what a temporal heaven, rather than a timeless heaven, would be like. I’m not seeing the attraction of an endless duration…
1 Like
It’s nothing I haven’t heard before.
There is a tendency for apologists to assume that skeptics are underinformed regarding the religion that is being defended. That assumption is usually not justified.
Thanks for asking.
2 Likes