Heaven...i'm in heaven...

OY

Think this is the forum for this thought...

So i was in the shower the other day (where i do most of my thinking) and i was thinking about heaven and what it would be like.
My thoughts were that most visions of heaven (or hell for that matter) are very human. Ask a person what they think heaven is and they will talk about feeling...about taste and touch and smell and sight, about eating glorious food or maybe even about orgasmic sensations. But if we are spirits and lose our bodies then how can we see and hear and taste and touch. Maybe it is something higher than all of that, something that goes beyond the senses, something that we cannot comprehend or begin to understand, but that exists on a more ethereal level and is not tied down with the five senses.

Spoke to a friend of mine who is big into church and his first answer was that in Revelations it talks about streets of gold, etc. So there we have a very visual and 'human' image.

I am just speaking about heaven here but obviously the same inplications can be put to any hell that exists too. It is difficult for me to believe that the afterlife is a world of sight and sound when our eyes and ears are left far behind.

Any thoughts?

keu

ever think that when they were talking about heaven, they were actually referring to a state of being, on earth?

Fysh

The thing about heaven, hell and the afterlife is that, pretty much by definition, there's no way of knowing what they're like. What opinion people have of them tends to be influenced by what, if any, religion they subscribe to. It may or may not be there at al, and if it is there, it may or may or may not be as described in one of the many religious texts around today. The afterlife may or may not be perceived in a manner analogous to our current system of perception.

The whole idea is bogged down in semantics and personal belief, and there's not a great deal of debate that can be had on the subject without becoming firmly embroiled in theological discussions, usually relying on quoting the aforementioned texts.

The bible at least seems to consider heaven a "place", if not a physical location then at least an actual location which the spirit can travel to. Interestingly, Pope JP has conceded that heaven and hell are concepts rather than places, suggesting that the catholic church subscribes more to heaven and hell as being concepts, the psychological result of an individual living in sin. Although quite how this ties in to someone who either has never been educated in the ways of the Catholic church, or who has rejected their faith, is not made clear.

keu wrote:

ever think that when they were talking about heaven, they were actually referring to a state of being, on earth?

Who is this "they" of which you speak? Enough people have discussed heaven throughout history to merit a bit more detail when discussing the subject. Otherwise people might think you're just quoting Belinda Carlisle lyrics.

Although, if we're talking about the idea of heaven as a state of being, it begs the question of whether the state is purely personal or whether it affects social groups as a whole, not to mention what definition of heaven we're using (ie is it a religiously-defined heaven or a philosophically defined one?).

How, exactly, would it work? I mean, is it an absolute heaven or a heaven dependent on personal definition? Are the requirements for its realisation exclusively personal spiritual ones, or are there wider social developments needed as well? Is it about the individual psychological state, or an actual physical state that affects the whole community? Or is it just a bad pop song?

simu

Even sticking with Christianity, there have been many different takes on heaven down through the centuries.

There are books available that deal with the history of heaven - the different concepts people have had of it down through the centuries.

A Brief History of Heaven by Alister McGrath.

Heaven - a History by Colleen McDannell and Bernhard Lang

Heaven - a traveller's guide to the undiscovered country by Peter Stanford.

I haven't read any of these but they do sound very interesting.

As for my own views on heaven, I must say that the images of heaven presented at school always seemed very vague and unworkable. There was the option of a physical heaven where people remained in their bodies (or were given new, unrotted/cremated bodies, presumably) but it struck me that such places would not remain heavenly (i.e. peaceful) for long unless their psychology was altered drastically to prevent them from starting pointless bickering as humans (even those who are, according to christin standards, relatively free of sin) are wont to do.

Then, a heaven beyond the senses, as you mentioned Nevernev, is pretty hard to imagine. It's hard to imagine consciousness existing without external inputs of some kind at some stage and without a physical location that allows it to manifest itself.

I read a novel recently in which the protagonist got to achieve a heaven of sorts - part of his brain was cordoned off from the rest and the guy's subconscious started to create a new consciousness, cut off from the outside world in there, and the guy was to move from his normal, everyday consciousness to this new consciousness which would result in his death in the external world. There was to be no time in the new consciousness so although that would also be destroyed when the rest of his brain and body that existed in the external world died, from the point of view of his new consciousness, he would exist for ever in the moment before his death. He didn't exist in both consciousness (I'll call them parts from now on) while the second, isloated part was being created - his consciousness was in the external world while a sort of shadow consciousness prepared the way in the new part. Well, it's an interesting idea although I wouldn't take it all that seriously and indeed, I don't know if I explained it very well there at all. The book was "Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World" by Haruki Murakami, in case people are wondering.

But, what if a drug were created that let people experience this sort of subjective, immortality in the moment before death? Would we see it being marketed as the heaven drug? Although it sounds more like hell to me...

Selik

simu wrote:

But, what if a drug were created that let people experience this sort of subjective, immortality in the moment before death? Would we see it being marketed as the heaven drug? Although it sounds more like hell to me...

Ketamine or DMT might do the trick on that one! :eek:

neuro-praxis

Aquinas would say that in heaven we have our bodies when they're in their best shape - aged 30. This theory sure is full of gaping holes so I'm not sure what I think about that.

The bible says that when we die we will have "bodies of a kind" which makes me hold out for the hope that we'll still be able to eat and have sex.

I'd also like to fly.

But hey, who knows? This isn't philosophy...it's just hopeful speculation. What we should work on is HOW we get there...not what it will be like.

Pherekydes

neuro-praxis wrote:

I'd also like to fly.

Maybe you'll come back as an ostrich. Or a flea. Or a helicopter.

Gurgle

Slow coach wrote:

Maybe you'll come back as an ostrich. Or a flea. Or a helicopter.

[whisper]ostriches can't fly[/whisper]

keu

and helicopters can't have sex.

Pherekydes

Gurgle wrote:

ostriches can't fly

Neither can humans!!

simu

Right. That's enough joking around. Back on topic now please.

simu (philo board mod)

Dades

LOL ostriches, helicopters etc...

Heaven as a concept is different things for different people.
Someone's Heaven would be someone else's idea of Hell.

But let's face it - the only Heaven you'll ever experience is the slice of it you can make in this life.