Say you and your partner die, you go to heavem, your partner goes to hell. How can you be happy if you’ll never see him/her again?
Say your partner dies, eventually you marry again. When you both die, could that not cause problems in heaven? Which partner are you reunited with? An eternal 3some? What happens?
i think in your case you’re the one who’ll go to helle and your partner will end up in heaven…
seriously it doesn’t matter cos everybody loves everybody in heaven its like a huge orgy…
Rev 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.
From the Christian PoV, we look forward to heaven. We don’t know exactly what it will be like, or what will will think, or feel. But this verse gives me assurance, that God will ‘wipe away my tears’ and give me something new.
The Sadducees posed a similar question to Jesus, you can read his reponse in Matt 22:23ff.
HTH.
I’m sure that someone will chime in with an intellectual Christian explanation soon, probably something like:
“Heaven is not a happy place in the clouds with angels and harps, it is being in the presence of God, suffused with his perfection for all eternity”
or maybe
“There is no heaven, per se. The saved are reborn into perfect, immortal bodies here on earth, but it is an earth remade by God: no death, war, hate…etc.”
The first renders your question moot, as that kind of paradise is obliterative of the self (hell, it’s almost taoist).
The second is more problematic: only the saved are ressurected, so your partner just stays dead. Not very comforting, but at least they aren’t burning forever.
variations on both explanations are popular, but if I were a Christian, I think I would go for the second, as it makes more intuitive sense, and eliminates the problem of hell. (sort of)
Well, according to Thomas Aquinas, you’ll actually enjoy watching the sinners suffer in Hell, even your own family. It’s just as much part of Heaven as experiencing bliss yourself. Frankly, this is yet another reason that I’m glad to be an atheist, who doesn’t think that anyone deserves either Heaven or Hell for how they lived on earth.
Well, Marguerite Porete’s advice was not to marry outside of the faith. She says that with so few people actually finding the narrow way, one should be very cautious and mot marry someone who has not also reached perfection. But if two such souls can find eachother, they should go forth and multiply.
(four letter word for God’s first commandment – starts with an F…)
Biffer Spice:
Maybe Hell allows conjugal visits.
Is that true? Any quotes etc? If that is true, that’s one of the most disturbing things about religion I’ve ever read!
Delighting in the suffering of others is a sin according to the RCC. On earth, the knowledge that the suffering of imperfect souls might lead them to God might enable the sighted to see their suffering as a blessing (in the sense of wound) for them, but that isn’t quite the same thing.
Well, according to my understanding of who gets into heaven:
A) My parents won’t be there (Mom’s a Buddhist, Dad’s a non-practicing Catholic).
B) My sister won’t be there (agnostic/atheist).
C) My dog won’t be there (animals have no soul).
D) Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson will be there.
I’m packing my asbestos Underoos.
“That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.” Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE), Summa Theologica.
WTF? Ugh, the RCC canonizes every nutcase that wanders the earth, but they burn Porete at the stake. What a world.
In the opinions of some Christian theologians, laughing at those in Hell was apparently supposed to be great fun for those in Heaven. Well, they don’t have Must See TV there, so you gotta do something for amusement.
“How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause.” --Tertullian, of the “I believe it because it is absurd” fame.
“Husbands shall see their wives, parents shall see their children tormented before their eyes…the bodies of the damned shall be crowded together in hell like grapes in a wine-press, which press on another till they burst…” --Jeremy Taylor of C of E, 1613-58
“The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven.” --Jonathan Edwards, Calvinist, 1703-58
Now, that I think on it, Taylor’s quote may be just about hell in general. But yes, many theologians seemed to think those in heaven could see those suffering in hell, and I guess they couldn’t feel bad about the sinner’s suffering because, well, they’re in heaven and supposed to be happy! There is some scriptural backing that those in hell can see heaven, and vice versa:
Luke 16: 22-25
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.
In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
So he called to him, “Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”
But Abraham replied, “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.”
Gaudere:
I don’t understand that kind of quote. Why doesn’t the rich man just argue back:
"Yea, for life was not all a bowl of cherries, and it didn’t all suck ass for Abraham. Chronic hemorhoids had I upon my fundament, and I happen to know that Abraham was pretty happy about some wild sex he was getting on the side.
Seeing as neither lives were all bad, or all good, shouldn’t I get some time in Heaven and shouldn’t Abraham get some time in Hell.
All I’m asking is a drop of water. What’s the problem you selfish Cherubim bastards?"
Abraham’s busom was still hell, only the least level of suffering.
No, it’s Hades or sheol; the Lake if Fire bit is Hell, the Abrham’s busom bit is just the posh waiting area (kinda like the United Airline platinum club area in airports) until J.C. took 'em to heaven. I believe I am correct that it is that verse that some theologians used to support their belief that there was communication between the various spirutal places, despite the statement that “between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.” Do you have evidence that they used another verse?
I think the idea is you rejoice if the suffering of sinners because you now comprehend the beauty of God’s perfect justice that requires them to be roasted on a spit for ever and ever for the stupid things they did in one 70 years period. Which included the perfect justice of your mother, husband, children suffering forever.
Which to me suggests the question: how can one say the I survive death, and I go to heaven, when this I is someone totally fine with my mother floating in a lake of fire. That doesn’t sound like me.
Also their wouldn’t be any problem with more than one spouse because you would be purged of all those terrible sexual feelings. Which reinforces my above point.
I wouldn’t draw such a major distinction between the various realms of hades. If the primary suffering of hell is separation from God, with additional punishment as merited, and with the presumption that in this verse, Abraham is separated from God (not being in heaven, and that the rich man would call on God rather than Abe were that an option presumably) then this is only a realm of least suffering. Sensibly, if metaphorically, those in the lower levels would not be able to move upwards. There is also no evidence in the story that Lazarus could hear the rich man’s pleas.
But, various theologians have probably used this verse for their reasoning.
Theology ain’t my bag, really. But since delighting in the suffering of others in a sin, and there is no sin in heaven, Aquinas is mistaken in his view here.
This reminds me of people like my carpool partner who actually long for the Apocalypse. “I have no friends or money or fun, but when Jesus comes back–and it will be any day now–I’ll be raptured up to heaven in a twinkling and the terrible sinners who are enjoying life so much now will be tormented for all eternity. Yup, any day now. Not much longer. Yup.”