Sean, I would agree that the heaven which you describe – something that is a product of modern, individualistic, and dualistic thinking – is, sadly, a dominant theme in North American Christianity.

However, I would argue that a with a closer, more thorough examination of scripture, we’ll find a much more compelling description of heaven. In fact, the kingdom of heaven/God is the subject Jesus spoke of more than anything else in the gospels. Usually it is described as, “at hand,” “near,” or “coming.” These leads myself (and many biblical scholars) to believe that the heaven the gospel writers spoke of had much more to do with this life and this world than an after-live or another world.

In fact, on of the most quoted scripture verses (Luke 17:21) has often been mis-translated. The ‘you’ in, “the kingdom of God is within you” is actually plural. So, a more accurate reading of the verse would be, “the kingdom of God is among you.”

Those early saints who pioneered the Christian faith were very leery of gnosticism and other dualistic (body/spirit, mind/matter) thinking. Sadly, this thinking permeates our culture today, both within the Church (with those who focus only on the “spiritual” or the “afterlife”) and outside the church (as emphasized in the Da Vinci code… mysterious, secret knowledge, only accessible to the “insiders”). Both perpetuate and insider/outsider dichotomy.

But, the early Christians stood firm on the belief that, in Jesus, God is redeeming all of Creation. Even in that whacky book of revelation (with all kinds of fantastic imagery), the author proclaims that God’s will create a new kingdom on earth.

Now we run into problem of measuring this inbreaking of God’s redemption into creation. Given the problem of evil and suffering, how can we take an honest look at reality and find measurable evidence of God’s redemptive work?

Before I attempt to answer this question, I need to take issue with you, Sean, and all those who need some sort of measurable “proof” for the existence of God/heaven/divine/etc in order for them to have any meaning or value. My concern is two-fold. First, there are many realities that drive humanity – love, hate, loyalty, lust, greed – that are pretty immeasurable. Yet, they are nonetheless powerfully influential in our lives and in the course of human history. Second, with my understanding of God as a transcendent, mysterious power, overflowing with love, I would be suspicious of any human efforts to measure or quantify God. In fact, just as many have no use for a God that can’t be measured, and thus verified, by humans, I have no use for a God that can be bound by our human understanding and limitations. While that position may sound like an intellectual cop-out, I find it much more intellectually compelling than both sides of the argument (scientific fundamentalists or religious fundamentalists).

So, if we can’t measure the coming of the kingdom of heaven (here on earth), how can we recognize it, and devote our lives to it (the gospels assert again and again) that we have a part in the kingdom?

Let me ruminate on that one for a bit and I’ll get back to you ;-)

Very interesting thoughts, Sean. Did anything in particular prompt this train of thought?

It reminds of Luke 2:14-19: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, ‘you have faith; I have deeds.’ Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.”

But like I kinda hinted at, our philosophies are similar, but our personalities translate them into completely different desires. You want to prove a connection between the spiritual and physical, while I don’t see it happening, so I prefer not to care. I think the very nature of a spiritual world means that it’s immeasurable and unobservable (and thus, slightly more logical not to believe in it… or at least not to worry about it).

I have no doubt that there was a greater force that created the universe. Every effect has a cause, and all that. Even the Big Bang had to have a cause, I presume. But whether that force was sentient/intelligent or affects our experiences after we die is something that I think will never be answered, at least by humans. Of course, I’d like to be wrong about that — I’m a big fan of answers. But like anything, I remain skeptical.

-Darrell

-Darrell (whose name happens to start with a capital letter)

My point is that is is useless to believe in something that can’t affect us in any way, even beyond our current and future abilities to perceive the world.

Therefore, God must be measurable, life after death must be measurable, everything that we claim to exist must be measurable and observable either now or some time in the future and if it’s not…again, it’s absolutely useless to think about something that can’t affect the universe in any way. But if can affect the universe, if it can even move just one atom or some other base form of energy that we have yet to discover, then it can be measured! We HAVE to be able to measure God or therefore, God has no effect on us.

My God affects the universe, therefore I have to be able to prove he exists.

This is different than what you said.

I think the sum of my philosophies on religion can be summarized by the classic rebuttal to Pascal’s wager (which says that it’s mathematically safer to believe in a god): we live in one of an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities with regard to the spiritual world. Because there’s no way to prove or disprove anything as ephemeral as heaven or deities, no theory has a larger percentage of being true as any other. It’s as likely that there is no god as it is that there is one god, but He will torture you in the afterlife if you decide to believe in Him. Since every theory is as improbable as every other, each one has virtually a 100% chance of being wrong, including theories not yet conceived. So again, we arrive at “who cares?”

Nothing outside one’s experiences can be proven, so there’s no point in believing anything. Cheery, I know, but it’s brought me a great deal of comfort to be able to rely only upon what I experience (while simultaneously understanding how unreliable my experiences are).

It’s also nice that I don’t feel the need to waste my Sundays on meaningless rituals… besides watching football, of course.

-Darrell