What Heaven is Like

[Aiza]

This meditation is from the first sermon of His Eminence Blessed John Henry Newman ("Holiness Necessary for Future Blessedness"), given when he was only 25 years old, which made me think a bit of some of the points mentioned in this forum. Hopefully it doesn't come off as too preachy, rather I think its just thoughtful:

....even supposing a man of unholy life were suffered to enter heaven, he would not be happy there; so that it would be no mercy to permit him to enter....

Supposing, then, instead of it being said that no irreligious man could serve and attend on God in heaven (or see Him, as the text expresses it), we were told that no irreligious man could worship, or spiritually see Him in church; should we not at once perceive the meaning of the doctrine? viz. that, were a man to come hither, who had suffered his mind to grow up in its own way, as nature or chance determined, without any deliberate habitual effort after truth and purity, he would find no real pleasure here, but would soon get weary of the place; because, in this house of God, he would hear only of that one subject which he cared little or nothing about, and nothing at all of those things which excited his hopes and fears, his sympathies and energies. If then a man without religion (supposing it possible) were admitted into heaven, doubtless he would sustain a great disappointment. Before, indeed, he fancied that he could be happy there; but when he arrived there, he would find no discourse but that which he had shunned on earth, no pursuits but those he had disliked or despised, nothing which bound him to aught else in the universe, and made him feel at home, nothing which he could enter into and rest upon. He would perceive himself to be an isolated being, cut away by Supreme Power from those objects which were still entwined around his heart. Nay, he would be in the presence of that Supreme Power, whom he never on earth could bring himself steadily to think upon, and whom now he regarded only as the destroyer of all that was precious and dear to him. Ah! he could not bear the face of the Living God; the Holy God would be no object of joy to him. "Let us alone! What have we to do with thee?" is the sole thought and desire of unclean souls, even while they acknowledge His majesty. None but the holy can look upon the Holy One; without holiness no man can endure to see the Lord.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This meditation is from the first sermon of His Eminence Blessed John Henry Newman ("Holiness Necessary for Future Blessedness"), given when he was only 25 years old, which made me think a bit of some of the points mentioned in this forum. Hopefully it doesn't come off as too preachy, rather I think its just thoughtful:

....even supposing a man of unholy life were suffered to enter heaven, he would not be happy there; so that it would be no mercy to permit him to enter....
...

Would a non-believer find enjoyment in hell then? If so, then what's the point of believing?

[Minimalist]

This meditation is from the first sermon of His Eminence Blessed John Henry Newman

And how would this asshole know what "heaven" was like if he had never been there?

Rather pretentious to claim to know what you cannot know.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Rather pretentious to claim to know what you cannot know.

----but typical Catholic arrogance


(hooked line with lure cast on the water)

[Aiza]

Would a non-believer find enjoyment in hell then? If so, then what's the point of believing?

Nothing in there is about a "believer" vs. a "non-believer". Even Satan "believes in" God, so in this case "belief" or "believer" is meaningless. Rather this sermon focuses on someone with holiness and someone without.

If you mean to ask if someone without holiness would find enjoyment in Hell, as Hell, by definition, is a state of suffering. An internal and eternal rejection and separation from God; the flames themselves coming from within. The Eastern tradition in particular places Heaven and Hell in the same "place"--it is just that the wicked suffer in the presence of God out of their hate for him; and the good rejoice in the presence of God out of their love.

In the words of Pope St. Gregory the Great:

"In hell, there will be a fire that cannot be put out, a worm which cannot die, a stench one cannot bear, a darkness one can feel, a scourging by savage hands, with those present despairing of anything good"

God, of course, being all goodness and all love.

And how would this asshole know what "heaven" was like if he had never been there?

Rather pretentious to claim to know what you cannot know.

Through Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Ok, firstly you didn't really answer my question. You only said that hell is suffering. But would an unholy person in hell find suffering enjoyable? Or would he wish the suffering would end and want to leave hell?

Also, would an unholy person find being in hell more or less enjoyable than being an unholy person in heaven?

[Aiza]

Ok, firstly you didn't really answer my question. You only said that hell is suffering. But would an unholy person in hell find suffering enjoyable? Or would he wish the suffering would end and want to leave hell?

If you are enjoying something, it is not suffering.

Also, would an unholy person find being in hell more or less enjoyable than being an unholy person in heaven?

I thought I answered this, but maybe I was unclear. Hell is a state, not a physical place. The flames come from within. A wicked person "in Heaven" (to come face-to-face with God himself) is still in Hell since his heart is still removed from God. Do they suffer more, to be surrounded by all the holiness and goodness that they find so distasteful? Blessed John Henry Newman certainly believes as such:

"Nay, I will venture to say more than this;—it is fearful, but it is right to say it;—that if we wished to imagine a punishment for an unholy, reprobate soul, we perhaps could not fancy a greater than to summon it to heaven. Heaven would be hell to an irreligious man. We know how unhappy we are apt to feel at present, when alone in the midst of strangers, or of men of different tastes and habits from ourselves. How miserable, for example, would it be to have to live in a foreign land, among a people whose faces we never saw before, and whose language we could not learn. And this is but a faint illustration of the loneliness of a man of earthly dispositions and tastes, thrust into the society of saints and angels. How forlorn would he wander through the courts of heaven! He would find no one like himself; he would see in every direction the marks of God's holiness, and these would make him shudder. He would feel himself always in His presence. He could no longer turn his thoughts another way, as he does now, when conscience reproaches him. He would know that the Eternal Eye was ever upon him; and that Eye of holiness, which is joy and life to holy creatures, would seem to him an Eye of wrath and punishment. God cannot change His nature. Holy He must ever be. But while He is holy, no unholy soul can be happy in heaven. Fire does not inflame iron, but it inflames straw. It would cease to be fire if it did not. And so heaven itself would be fire to those, who would fain escape across the great gulf from the torments of hell. The finger of Lazarus would but increase their thirst. The very "heaven that is over their head" will be "brass" to them..."

Though I don't know if I agree or not: I am torn between agreement with him and the idea that it would make no difference: the incredible pain of being eternally separated from love is already so painful to think about, how can it possibly be any worse?

This sermon was in today's Magnificat (a Catholic magazine), and it made me think a bit of some of the things said on this forum, and on its surface it certainly does ring true to me, as someone who once rejected God and could find no appeal in even the idea of Heaven and now finds nothing more lovely than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or to even imagine the Beatific Vision.

[Minimalist]

Through Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

In other words, read bullshit and regurgitate bullshit. Until someone dies and comes back and can prove it all you theistic twits can take your heaven and blow it out your asses.

[Tobie]

Nothing in there is about a "believer" vs. a "non-believer". Even Satan "believes in" God, so in this case "belief" or "believer" is meaningless. Rather this sermon focuses on someone with holiness and someone without.

The portion Tegh quoted referred to an "unholy life". According to your "sacred scripture and tradition", being a non-believer is a sin. Unless non-believers have holiness, Tegh's point that an un-believer will have no reason to go to heaven still stands.

[Ace Otana]

All I saw from the OP is lots and lots of ego stroking. Why am I not surprised?
I wouldn't want to be in heaven if this 'heaven' of yours involves stroking gawd's over sized ego. I consider that hell.
I'd rather opt for oblivion instead. Besides, it's what I expect when I die anyway.