HOME | DD
i-stamp β Why Indeed
Published: 2010-09-27 06:39:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 1984; Favourites: 70; Downloads: 17
Redirect to original
Description
"If peace breeds stagnation, if ultimate bliss is ignorance, if utopia is an escape proof jail, why do you want to go to heaven?""Peace breeds stagnation." - Unknown.
"Ignorance is bliss," - Thomas Gray
βTo a warden, Utopia is an escape-proof jail.β - Gregory Nunn
It's a common joke that heaven sounds terribly dull, but I think it's more than that. I think that the common view of heaven, or the heaven described by lack of sickness, pain, death, sadness, would make humans not more than cattle.
Historically, human's greatest periods of discovery, invention, teamwork and, I think, happiness was during times of trial and tribulation. Without those, we lose focus, become lazy. And in heaven, you have an eternity to stupefy.
I made this stamp with Flash instead of Photoshop. It was actually quite difficult. But now that I know how maybe I can make some cooler effects.
Related content
Comments: 44
Strange, I was taught no man goes to heaven...
π: 0 β©: 0
Which is why I'll be registering for reincarnation when my number comes up.
π: 0 β©: 0
What is "Stagnation"?
And, are you saying that we ALL should be better be Ignorant?
And, what is Utopia?
Sorry for all these Questions...
π: 0 β©: 1
Stagnation is the ceasing of development or advancement. There's no room to improve if you're perfect. Nothing to aspire to, nothing to work towards, no more satisfaction in doing something better. Trial and tribulation are things we generally take negatively, but often do our best works, learn the most about ourselves and the world around us, and put hope into context. You can't have courage without fear, or peace without conflict. Because one without the other has no meaning.
Ignorance is bliss is a common English phrase. If true, and ultimate bliss is heaven, than to be in heaven would also be in ignorance.
Utopia is a perfect place and society. To understand the relationship between utopias and their counterparts, dystopias, you'd have to read some dystopian works like Brave New World or 1984 where the people who run a society claim it is perfect, when it is actually frighteningly repressive. You're only allowed to think one way, act one way and conform to unrealistic standards to maintain the 'perfection' of the utopia.
No problem.
π: 0 β©: 0
Except in Heaven you are constantly learning. constantly questioning, constantly confiring with the great minds up there who made it, who share what they learned on earth, and what they have so far learned up in heaven.
Ignorance is not bliss, as again you'd do nothing but learn.
And if there is nothing but knowledge and learning eternal, why would you wish to escape from that?
π: 0 β©: 1
You'd only learn from people who posed a similar view. With all the variety gone to hell (literally.) You'd never get an insider perspective, nor any meaningful perspective at all, between, say Ghandi's point of view and Siddhartha's. And the best learning is from having a difficulty to overcome, not just being set in a room with talking heads like so much talk show television. Having a problem to solve or hurdle to overcome would be anti-perfection. And having problems at all is anti-bliss.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well as I believe there are people who aren't just Catholics in Heaven, (I believe this to be true for the Maccabees are listed with the saints, for one). Then there would be more than a strong chance that indeed, I'd get different views of the same subject from different angles. So learning things in different ways.
There is plenty of variety in heaven as in hell. The difference is, that those in heaven would stand to listen and think about the variety.... where as those in hell could not and would not stand each other's guts.
Who is to say Ghandi is NOT in heaven? After all, the Maccabees are listed with the saints, their not Christians. John Paul and the Dali LLama were good friends. I personally believe there are many souls from many different religions who are in heaven.
The best learning is by doing, and not only would there be philosphizing there in heaven, but also actions, to see if one were right. There are hurdles that need to be overcome, and there are those who placed by ourselves to see what we are made of. I believe the latter would be seen in heaven. The former would be considered problems, anti bliss, and thus anti perfection. The latter because its in the field on purpose would be straining for a greater perfection. Constant learning.
π: 0 β©: 1
The Holy Maccabean Martyrs are revered as such because their goals aligned with the then Catholic church in pushing aside Hellenistic Judaism whom aligned with Antiochus IV's Roman pantheon. The intervention of the Maccabean was useful, and allowed the holy reformation to commence. Ghandi and Hinduism had no such aligned goals and Ghandi had several disfavorable things to say about the church.
Whatever you personally believe, and whatever the Catholic church does, the bible condemns anyone not of the faith. Nor does it give any indication that people who did not specifically accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior would enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If anything, gave indication otherwise.
"philosphizing there in heaven, but also actions"
That is debatable. As the bible and most denominations believe when entering to heaven you are already restored into a perfect being. Which means no hurdles nor seeking more perfection.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yet Ghandi did NOT have very much disfavorable things to say about Jesus. "I quite like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike Christ." So I could see him accepting Jesus upon reaching the afterlife.
But there is more to the faith and Christianity than simply the Bible. Only those who embrace either Sola Fide, or Sola Scriptura would argue differently.
Well you could be a perfect being, but the Bible really is mute on the complexity of heaven, meaning that we don't know other than what many people have said who claimed to have seen it, and of those who have spoken, few small in number have gone on saying its just one big circle around God with prayers non stop. Most of them have given pictures of a life that was continued on here on Earth. So again while debateable as it is, I believe any hurdle in Heaven would be placed there by those themselves wanting to figure things out on hand. And as He hasn't struck down scientists (indeed many fathers of some scientific fields of studies have been very religious and even clergy), if He allows that on earth, there's nothing to say He'd not allow it to continue in the afterlife.
π: 0 β©: 1
Except he DID say that he did not believe Jesus was a literal son of god, was not born of a virgin or perform miracles, other than a miraculous charitableness, nor was raised from the dead. Actively denying Jesus' divinity and lauding, instead, his behaviors. If you were to claim that is enough for salvation you'd be going against the grain of far more than Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura advocates.
Except for, you know, the entire Earth being destroyed (*Unless you're a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness) and all the Earthly things scientists were interested in or wanted to protect being obliterated with it. The bible mentions several times that the things of the Earth, in more way than one, will be cast off. Nor is in, given, what few scriptures on heaven is, described as something that still contains stumbling blocks (what hurdles are). And besides, this stamp is specifically stipulating a heaven that is viewed as eternally blissful, something that should NOT be desired for the reasons already pointed out in the stamp.
π: 0 β©: 1
On that part it would seem that he wouldn't be allowed into heaven at all. However, there is a reason that at the very least the Catholic church does not have a list of those damned in hell as it does those who are in heaven. One could speculate that his rejection of Jesus' divinity may have cost him eternity. One could also speculate that he could have accepted it, once he saw Jesus in the afterlife.
Mankind has speculated for generations not only to what heaven would be like but what would and would not be cast aside in the next world. As the scientific persuits are goals toward knowledge and that does not go against God (as if He created us, as i believe He did, He granted us minds to use), it would still be in the divine world as well. And what better way to do one's research, in bliss and peace, and not need fear persecution? I think that should be desired.
π: 0 β©: 1
Or one could speculate that there's a heaven at all and that it would be good for the human condition. Everything about this subject is speculation except this: there are no examples of significant progress made on a broad scale in any science or humanities that weren't done through challenges. And usually as a result of conflict. A sterile environment is not a growing environment.
π: 0 β©: 1
One could speculate that there is no heaven, I can not argue that point. (you wrote, or one could speculate there's a heaven at all..., so I assume you meant to say there wasn't a heaven at all, and a typo got in the mix. I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth).
See usually as a result of conflict... not always. And there I believe would be the crust of what scientific studies in Heaven would amount too.... the not part.
There is a difference between a sterile environment and one that has no fear of threat to it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, that was what I meant.
Usually as result of conflict, not always. But always challenge, and usually conflict, and if not conflict than through despair, pain and loss which motivate people a hell (ha, pun) of a lot more than bliss.
An environment that has no fear or threat to it, of any kind, is a sterile environment. Fear of loss, threat of failure, a quantity of time putting stress, making us work under pressure. This is where man's best work is done. And with real things to study. Not 'spiritual facsimiles of a destroyed world' whatever that means. The Garden of Eden, as written, not only made absolutely no sense and was entirely ascientific, but it would have been hellishly boring, too.
π: 0 β©: 1
okay good
So who is to say that one doesn't actively decide to put oneself in a time limit? Writers do so in self exercises, to see if they can get their work done, as an example. There's nothing to suggest that people wouldn't openly give themselves a deadline, in scientific persuits in heaven to see if they can figure that issue out within that said time.
As to the Garden, I doubt it would be boring, as there would be so much beauty to look and contemplate.
π: 0 β©: 1
"So who is to say that one doesn't actively decide to put oneself in a time limit? Writers do so in self exercises, to see if they can get their work done, as an example."
And I bet if you asked them if, even after that exercise, their product was the same with fictional self-imposed limitations vs. actual external limitations and all the external pressure they would say 'Hell, no.'
There's more beauty to look at now, where lions for some reason aren't vegetarian but act in accordance with what they've evolved to be. Where life and death have significance and are pushing towards something instead of shuffling endlessly in an artificial paradise.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well we'd have to see
And in all honesty I believe it was created so we'd be pushed forward as well towards more.
π: 0 β©: 1
We'll have to agree to disagree then. Because I think humanity needs periodic pain for which to measure happiness against, and I think it needs perpetual challenges that are external, not internal, in order to advance.
π: 0 β©: 1
well agree to disagree it is
π: 0 β©: 0
I like to think that it's not just one "generic" Heaven. As in, if your personal Heaven would be an amusement park, then Heaven to you would be a big amusement park. Ideally it would be a multidimensional place yet all the dimensions would be tied together and accessible from each other (somehow), so you wouldn't be stuck in someone else's "Heaven" for all eternity and be bored.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Historically, human's greatest periods of discovery, invention, teamwork and, I think, happiness was during times of trial and tribulation."
True, but if Heaven is really perfect, we wouldn't need to discover or invent. If your in Heaven, you're already dead. Isn't it better to be dead and happy, than to be just plain dead?
π: 0 β©: 1
A gilded cage is still a cage. I'd rather be plain dead than eternally bored.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course, the whole concept of Heaven is very vague. I think the Bible describes it as something like eternal rest, which makes me think of something like a peaceful sleep or something. Of course, we have no way of knowing exactly what happens to us after we die, so it's really not worth arguing about.
π: 0 β©: 1
The bible describes the perfect utopia. A hell no different for its lack of contrast.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know this sounds like a cop-out, but I really do believe that there is a lot about the spiritual world/afterlife that our minds can't comprehend. Maybe that other commenter was right, maybe we do help living people in the afterlife. That wouldn't be boring. I've heard a few Christian ministers who believe that there is sorrow in Heaven when people in the physical world turn from God, but of course we'll never know until we get there, so there is really no point in having a strong opinion about it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Heaven works in mysterious ways eh?
You are, of course, free to believe whatever. But I just wouldn't look forward to the prospect of any sort of eternity. Especially one suspiciously devoid of the natural conflicts of individuality, or described in only desirable terms that ring so many conman bells.
π: 0 β©: 0
Even being a Christian, I totally agree with this. I'm not down with the idea either. An eternal reward for about 60 something years of work seems like one of those "too good to be true" things.
We are shaped by conflict and catastrophe. I like conflict; too much of one side is just annoying. I would be bored to hell (lol) in give-take five earth years, however the fuck long that is in "heaven."
If you are wondering, I would want to live forever. I'll explain it to you later, when you reply, I've got somewhere I have to go.
For every bit of light, you need a bit of darkness, for every bit of good, a little evil, and for our sanity, a bit of madness.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for your comment.
Personally I wouldn't want to live forever, because given enough time everything would get boring. Granted, it would be cool to live longer than I will. But death is an unappreciated part of life.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well I suppose it's all how you interpret heaven, no?
π: 0 β©: 1
My problems with heaven apply so long as there's things like 'everlasting life' and 'no pain, no fear, no sorrow.' Everlasting life because of aforementioned stagnation. The rest because without the negative, the positive things in life have no meaning.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm atheist and I was talking to my religious friend about this. I had pretty much the same reasoning as you; without some suffering, without some drive, your life seems pretty empty and meaningless, no?
She responded that she saw heaven as almost another life; it's not like you just sat around and played a harp all day in white robes, you helped people, you worked, and that's what ultimately she said would give her a sense of fulfillment; watching and helping the others still on Earth. She's not suffering particularly; she might feel worry or concern for others, but at the same time, it would be possible to take joy in others accomplishment. I would like to think the knowledge that you helped others would have a very positive feeling.
Also, she talked about how in heaven, you really no longer had a desire for Earthly desires. The way I interpreted it was you know how those intense monks have achieved such a high level of spirituality, they no longer have a desire for material possessions or Earthly goods? It's something like that. What we consider rewards on Earth are no longer considered rewards in heaven because in heaven you have reached a level of spirituality that you no longer want those rewards.
Ugh am I making sense? It's somewhat of an abstract concept...
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd rather do that here and now. 
As far as having no desires, it's another one of those give and take things. If you have no desire, even desire for accomplishment, then you'll not understand a feeling of fulfillment. Desire creates will and perseverance, and also makes us appreciate things because we may lose them, it's not a bad thing. Just like some amount of sadness and fear and pain and even death are not bad things. From my understanding of the biblical heaven, it takes these concepts for granted. I don't think a "perfect" life would be enjoyable.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ahaha yea...no I def. understand why living forever would be awful. I suppose the way I saw heaven was something I couldn't really understand because that whole spiritual enlightenment thing is something you can't understand unless you've accomplished it.
No, you still have desires just no Earthly/material desires. I suppose it's something that simply can't be explained? Also, perhaps it varies for each person? That would be interesting...
π: 0 β©: 0
I always thought of Heaven as how I want things to be. Plus all the people I'll see who are dead.
π: 0 β©: 1
What if one of those people wants heaven to be different? That's generally why utopias never work. What's 'heavenly' is different for all people. So if each person had their own 'heaven,' then everyone would be alone.
For my part, I think that people stagnate and become bovine when they're not challenged by trials of life. So heaven, a place of ultimate bliss therefore ultimate ignorance, does not appeal to me. I'd rather have life as it is now, including all its sadness. Without sadness, you have nothing to compare happiness to, so happiness loses all meaning.
π: 0 β©: 1
I wouldn't mind not having a lot of sadness, though. Maybe just enough to keep me involved.
π: 0 β©: 0
Not to mention that, ironically, Hell is more illuminated than Heaven. You know, intense flames vs. dark clouds, and the fact Lucifer means "light bringer" and God is dark in the Old Testament...
π: 0 β©: 1
His is called that because he used to be good, and heaven is brighter because it is illuminated by the glory and love of God
π: 0 β©: 1
When God himself admits that he lives amongst dark clouds and that Satan can have the appearence of a light angel in his own book, your statement is more erroneous to the religion's canon than mine.
Also, stare at the Sun in midday. You'll see that goodness =/= light.
π: 0 β©: 1
it's a different kind of light and darkness, they existed before the universe was even created, and satan can still disguise himself to trick people
π: 0 β©: 1
I couldn't help but notice that signature of yours.
Does he love dinosaurs, too?
π: 0 β©: 0
