Will emotions exist in heaven?

[Erik Mesoy]

I said it before, I would be sad if my gramma wasn't in Heaven.

No. Not in Heaven. I brought this up in a previous thread, but let me expand upon it here.

Heaven is meant as a place of perfect joy. This means that it cannot let Hell make demands on it. When an inhabitant of Hell says "I won't be happy unless you...", s/he is using pity as a weapon against Heaven and goodness. Hence that weapon will have to be destroyed, or else Hell can order Heaven around.

So, in order that Heaven not be at the mercy of Hell, it has to answer "Then be unhappy.". Heaven is meant for eternal joy, not eternal sorrow, which means that you won't get to bring your sorrows into that eternity.

If you demand the 'right' (a strange word in this context) to be unhappy, you're in Hell and you'll stay there until you get over your sorrows. You cannot bring a single thing of Hell with you to Heaven.

In Heaven, you would not be sad for your gramma. While respect for the dead and commiseration are all very well, in the end sadness is a negative thing, and hence a work of Satan, as I see it. There is no mourning in Heaven - not because it's enforced, but because you will have to choose to accept joy over sorrow in order to enter, even if that sorrow is something dear to you.

 

[Elrohir]

Yes, if you're a spiritual being, you won't need an actual brain. But I do believe the bible says you'll have a new body. Does it say whether you'll have a different body?

What makes you think we won't have physical bodies? Adam and Eve were physical before the Fall, and were not evil. Contrary to what Plato thought, the physical is not inherently evil, it has merely been corrupted. I think it's entirely possible that when Revelations speaks of a "New Earth", it's talked about a literal new, sinless physical New Earth where humans will live literal, physical sinless lives with God.

Does this mean that anything that results in a benefit wasn't a sin? Galatians 5:22-23 thinks so.

Not quite. You may sin, and that may, in another way, help someone, but that doesn't make it a good act. It's still a sin. For example, you could sin by killing and robbing a rich man. Now this may help his wife, who is beaten by this man every night, because now he is gone - but it doesn't stop the fact that you killed and robbed another human being.

 

[El_Machinae]

But you said that "And finally, sin never helps anything, "

In your example above, the sinful act certainly helps someone. So, maybe there's a contradiction there?

What makes you think we won't have physical bodies?

I think Diablo was hinting at spiritual bodies, I was fishing to see what he meant. As well, does Moses have a physical body right now?

edit: Erik - that seems weird, but internally consistent. So - you don't think that you'll miss my gramma while you're in Heaven (or me, for that matter)? Isn't enjoying someone's presence a GOOD thing?

 

[Elrohir]

Perhaps it was just bad phrasing. Let's just say that sinning is still sinning, even if you think it helps, or even if it does. You don't get a free pass if you sin, even if you think it helps someone.

As for Moses having a physical body, we don't know. Where Christians, and Pre-Christ Jews such as Moses go, (To separate it from the future Heaven, we'll call it the "Intermediate Heaven", and the Heaven after the Tribulation the "New Earth", k?) we have very little information about. If Jesus' parable about the rich mand and the poor man named Lazarus was a true story, and not just a parable to make a point, (Some believe that it was, at least partly based on real events, mostly because of the name - why would Jesus choose that name for the poor man, when it could get confused with his friend Lazarus, who had recently died, but didn't stay dead? Perhaps because that was a real mans name, and a real story) then yes. But there isn't enough info to say for sure; I guess we'll find out.

 

[El_Machinae]

You don't get a free pass if you sin, even if you think it helps someone.

How do you know if something is a sin, if you do a cost/benefit analysis and realise that it will help someone?

 

[Masquerouge]

Which is why I think that we won't even have a brain! Our brains were created to suit us to this earth, not the next.

Interesting. What would we have instead?

 

[GenMarshall]

How do you know if something is a sin, if you do a cost/benefit analysis and realise that it will help someone?

Depends on who you ask. if you ask a Catholic. There are two kinds of post-bapisimal sins. Mortal and Veinal Sins. Mortal sins are sins of serious matter, where the sinner is aware of the ack as well as commiting it with deliberate consent. Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins.

In Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions:

1. its subject must be ‘grave matter’;
2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
3. it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

Mortal Sins are the ones that cuts off grace as well as separates us from God (If any Mortal Sins are left confessed, the sinner ends up in Hell)
Venial Sins are just brooses on our graces. Each venial sin that one commits adds to one's time in purgatory. A venial sin can be left unconfessed. Venial sins remain venial no matter how many one commits; they cannot "add up" to collectively constitute a mortal sin.

As a Catholic, especialy a returning lapsed Catholic, I myself cannot differentiate between Mortal and Venial Sins I have commited in my past and would have to trust the judgement of the confessor when I go for the sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[Elrohir]

How do you know if something is a sin, if you do a cost/benefit analysis and realise that it will help someone?

You have a conscience, and you have the Bible. Not knowing something is a sin is a pretty poor excuse. If you sin, it doesn't matter if you think it helps someone, it's still a sin, and you must accept the consequences of it.

I don't remember who it was, but someone once said "There is only one fundamental human right: To do as one pleases. And with it comes the one fundamental human responsibility: To deal with the consequences." (Paraphrased)

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I'll sum it up, El_Machinae - If you want to sulk, go to Hell.

(the above was intentionally phrased to come out as wrong as possible. )

edit: Erik - that seems weird, but internally consistent.

You say that like it's a bad thing! Expect to see a lot of "wierd but internally consistent" from me.

So - you don't think that you'll miss my gramma while you're in Heaven (or me, for that matter)? Isn't enjoying someone's presence a GOOD thing?

No; yes.
If you are in Heaven and if your grandmother isn't there, you won't miss her. However, note that I used "are in" rather than "go to".

Hell is a state of mind as well as a place. This is why it's also on earth to an extent (John 12:31 - Satan is the prince of this world). Hell is where you are when you choose to wallow in your sorrow and hold on to your misfortune because it's an aspect of what's yours. Weeping and gnashing of teeth, remember?

But the price of resurrection is death. We Christians are buried with Christ to be raised again. We are called upon to follow him at the cost of everything in the world.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

The commentary to this says: 'Jesus is not speaking of a hatred of the "self" itself but rather of a rejection of the self's claims to autonomy and control.'

You don't enter Heaven by your own power. You accept God's invitation to Heaven. And this involves giving up everything that is not joy. You are perfectly free to sit outside the Pearly Gates and weep for your grandmother! But you won't receive an ounce of pity from Heaven. You have to say to yourself: "I'm not going to let that make me sad forever."

 

[El_Machinae]

You have a conscience, and you have the Bible. Not knowing something is a sin is a pretty poor excuse.

Sadly, those two conflict on a fairly regular basis for me.

That Luke 14 looks pretty brutal upon first reading.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

That Luke 14 looks pretty brutal upon first reading.

Did you see the footnote? It applies to both passages. 'Hate' is used in the sense of reject, not despise. I quoted it like that because I usually quote the most well-known translation first so that people can recognize a passage, but here are some more modern ones:

26"If you want to be my follower you must love me more than[c] your own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, more than your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

26If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his [own] father and mother [[a]in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God] and [likewise] his wife and children and brothers and sisters--[yes] and even his own life also--he cannot be My disciple.

26"Anyone who comes to me but refuses to let go of father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters--yes, even one's own self!-can't be my disciple.

CS Lewis' biting wit has this to say on the subject of wanting to weep: "In adult life it has a hundred fine names - Achilles' wrath and Coriolis' grandeur, Proper Pride and Tragic Greatness and Injured Merit - but in children, we refer to this behavior as the Sulks."

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Depends upon your view of heaven. If you believe in the afterlife heaven then I suspect you will have no emoitions as emotions are the product of brain cells and nerves which will have been digested by magots. If you are talking about heaven on earth then i suspect you will have emotions for as long as you live in it.

 

[diablodelmar]

Interesting. What would we have instead?

It is impossible to understand heaven. Like I say, it is like describing colour to a blind man. It will be like discovering a whole new dimension.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I don't mind if we drift.

If it is merely a perception, then how come they are randomly accidently coiciding with the Bible? Was that the beginning of the current popular "perception"? If I went back in time, say, 100,000 years, would it be perfectly normal to kill someone?

I think it is no coicidence that we have a convenient conscience which tells us what is right or wrong. We have a set of rules which were preordained.

100,000 years ago there was alot more tribal conflict and so on, so yeh I guess it would have been more 'normal' to kill someone because humans were fighting each other alot more.

 

[Homie]

That raises an interesting point. If your grandfather is rejoicing in heaven because of an even that is happening, does that mean he would be sad if the opposite happened? And how does that correspond with heaven if people are being sad there?

Going by that line of thought it would be likely that a lot of people are sad a lot of the time in heaven considering how terrible things are going for a lot of their loved ones on earth.

That doesn't make heaven seem very heavenly, does it?

Good question. The answer:
The Bible leaves several interpretations open for what happens after we die, it is obvious from the Bible that heaven and hell exists or will exist, but the details of it is diffuse.

One of the interpretations is that after we die, our bodies are dead, and we are unconscious, we are in every respect dead. Then when the final resurrection happens we will come back to life again, in new bodies.

So with that interpretation, your problem disappears, as nobody is in heaven right now (except for some exceptions: Enoch and Elijah), so there is nobody to weep over what happens on earth. And when heaven is established (last chapeter of Revelation) there will be no more sinful earth, so there is nothing to weep about.

Disclaimer: This is only one interpretation, I don't even hold to it myself, just offering it as it solves your problem and it is a theory with Biblical backing, but then again, there are other theories with equally good Biblical backing on the topic of afterlife.

 

[ironduck]

It would still seem to have the problem of people missing their loved ones if they didn't make it to heaven but went to hell instead. I think Erik's heaven makes more sense in that respect, although it really appears more buddhist than christian to me.

 

[Elrohir]

It would still seem to have the problem of people missing their loved ones if they didn't make it to heaven but went to hell instead. I think Erik's heaven makes more sense in that respect, although it really appears more buddhist than christian to me.

Follow my logic:

-There will be no unhappiness or unfulfilled desires in Heaven.
-If a loved one is not in Heaven, you might desire that they be there.
=But, that desire cannot be fulfilled, therefore you will not miss them.

It's simple logic.

 

[ironduck]

It doesn't seem very clean logic though. More like an overriding control point to ensure certain criteria are met. Erik's proposition is more logical to me.

 

[Elrohir]

Very well, if you want to believe Erik's proposition instead, that's your choice.

 

[Perfection]

Is orgasmic euphoria an emotion?