Well, I certainly agree we must be most caring with children, and careful to give as good an example as possible to them. They are born pure--where does the corruption come from later on? The corruption in all of us and all creation around them. I don't think it's a hyperbole Jesus uses at all with the millstone 'round the neck and the casting in the sea (Lk 17:2, Mt 18:6), however--indeed, worse than that, those who put stumbling-blocks in the paths of the pure in heart and do not repent have rather plunged themselves, and drowned themselves, in the murky depths which David so often uses as a metaphor for all lawlessness, and thus will--again, if unrepentant--live forevermore in torments far worse than drowning, by their free choice of this separation from God.
Wow, you must have an earthly view of heaven. I was beginning to think good of your thoughts, saying we need to get away from the dualistic view of heaven as a completely different location. Indeed, it is true that even now, before the fulfillment of all in Christ's Second Coming, there are heavens and earth, and the Garden of Eden in a somewhat in-between state, both material and incorrupt. And Heiromonk Seraphim of Platina (whom I personally believe to be a saint, along with many other Orthodox, though he's not officially canonized as of yet; read about him on Orthodoxwiki and Wikipedia) would suggest that they are physically located places, heaven up from the surface of the earth (certainly, one definition of the heavens is the physical cosmos above and surrounding the earth, though that's only the most basic of all the word's meanings), and hell down--yet still, that's missing the mark of importance. It's all about participation in God, and all location is secondary; participation in God as much as we can in this life is a foretaste of heaven even here on corrupted earth, and rejection of Him is the very separation which, in its fullness, is hell itself. The same Fr. Seraphim even suggests that according to our lives and the level of our love for Him, not all will immediately be with Him in heaven itself after His next Coming, but some on the newly-incorruptible earth (he cites the beatitudes' distinction between the poor in spirit's "kingdom of heaven" and the meek's "earth" (Mt 5:1-12), also bearing in mind that perfection in Orthodoxy is not static, but a movement ever toward the more perfect in God, Him being inexhaustible, and thus we being able to grow even closer to Him there; also keep in mind that it's been a while since I've read the book in question, The Soul After Death, and I may misrepresent him slightly; if so, please forgive me, as I don't have the book with me), some being in Eden, some heaven, and still some higher, as we see in the Scriptures and patristics mention of at least three tiers of heaven (2 Cor 12:2). But of course (a) again I should stress that though all will be perfect and completed then, perfection is, in Orthodox terming, not static, but a state of perpetually increasing closeness with God (which would then include place), and (b) we can't think of these places or this hierarchy in any earthly sense because it's completely beyond our base [fallen] human understanding. But like I said, I was starting to think good of your thoughts--certainly we can't think about physical "harps and clouds and streets of gold, everybody dressed in white robes," for we will have bodies as Christ's human body after the Resurrection--material yet not with our dead coarseness, under our control to appear and disappear or pass through locked doors at will, not needing food or drink yet able to partake of it, able to change to be unrecognizable to human eyes, having mastery over creation even as Adam and Eve did not yet have before the fall--that is, being the plant of which this body here on earth is only a seed, as St. Paul alludes to (1 Cor 15:35-56), by partaking in the nature of the Resurrected Kernel of Wheat Who is Christ (Jn 12:23-26)--and what resemblance do plant and seed have? If having only seen seeds, who could comprehend what a plant would be? For then you ruin your image by saying this: "Does anybody look good in a white robe? Can you play sports in a white robe? How could it be heaven without sports? What about swimming? What if you spill food on the robe?" Really? That's your idea of heaven? I realize there's likely some hyperbole in your response, but you can't attack worldly thinking with worldly thinking and think to win in anything. Of course they're not physical white robes--they're robes in a mandorla, spiritually white, pure as God can make them, "whiter than snow" (Ps 51:7 (LXX); Is 1:18). And I realize you're saying they're not physical white robes, but not with any form or even pretense of theology, but using only human logic as pertains to practicality in this human, fallen state, which Christ clearly teaches will be totally different after His Coming (for one example amongst many, when talking to the Sadducees about marriage (Lk 20:27-39)). And you really think that instead of pure contemplation of God and worship of Him, singing with joyful exultation "Holy, Holy, Holy" with the Cherubim and Seraphim, we will prefer vain sports which many here on Earth have already stopped watching as a vain, fickle, human competition with no ultimate end, goal, or purpose, between two imperfect and variable opponents [not that I'm saying there's anything inherently wrong with playing or watching sports; don't get me wrong]? Or that One able to appear at will or walk on the stormy waters (Mt 14:22-33, Mk 6:45-52, Jn 6:16-21) and rebuke them to peace (Lk 8:22-25) wouldn't be able to swim in a robe; that we that will be vouchsafed this same mastery over the material elements and are rather than such material pleasures as these given the all-surpassing pleasures of pure joy in God could be unable to do such a thing or inconvenienced thereby? [Indeed, wasn't Peter vouchsafed this same gift, so long as His eyes were on His Lord (Mt 14:22-33)?] Or that we who will be able to change appearances as Christ did when walking with His disciples (Lk 24:13-27) won't be able to prevent a stain? If you believe that Christ was made flesh and Resurrected it, that He will come to abide in us, and we in Him, as Christ Himself states (Jn 15:1-10; Jn 6:56; Jn 8:31; see Nm 31:22-24 for an interesting type thereof (fire being God and waters of separation sin and the results thereof that can lead us back to Him), as St. John affirms (1 Jn chapters 2-5, 2 Jn), and all the saints fully confirm and expand upon, and that there is something after this physical life, that He will come again and make all things new and perfect--if this is so, then it is obvious that the body we will have is, as the saints say, the same which Christ showed forth after His Glorious Resurrection. Only one gravely misled, ignorant, or naïve could ask the questions you do here, at least, with any seriousness, if indeed he has read and believed in the Gospels and all the New Testament, even if without the good guidance of the True Church. But indeed that is why this guidance is so important; it is easy to be misled by the plethora of churches and ideas swarming about, or simply by our own thoughts and perceptions; indeed, we with so little knowledge of the spiritual world can perhaps all too easily make things this-worldly in our thoughts without such guard-rails as the writings of the saints, as especially for beginners in the spiritual life, that's all we know.
As to being separated from loved ones who may go to hell, should we be vouchsafed a place in heaven, it is a good point. It's not that we won't care, and it won't matter to us that they're in hell; perfect love for others makes that impossible (indeed we see from the saints' lives, both here on earth and after their repose, that they constantly pray not only for others, whether asleep or still in the flesh, but often very fervently for those in the foretaste of hell). [As an aside, I offer this, from The Soul After Death, by the aforementioned Fr. Seraphim of Platina. It concerns both prayer for those in hell, and importance of commemorating the dead specifically in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Church.
How important commemoration at the Liturgy is may be seen in the following occurrence:
Wow, you must have an earthly view of heaven. I was beginning to think good of your thoughts, saying we need to get away from the dualistic view of heaven as a completely different location. Indeed, it is true that even now, before the fulfillment of all in Christ's Second Coming, there are heavens and earth, and the Garden of Eden in a somewhat in-between state, both material and incorrupt. And Heiromonk Seraphim of Platina (whom I personally believe to be a saint, along with many other Orthodox, though he's not officially canonized as of yet; read about him on Orthodoxwiki and Wikipedia) would suggest that they are physically located places, heaven up from the surface of the earth (certainly, one definition of the heavens is the physical cosmos above and surrounding the earth, though that's only the most basic of all the word's meanings), and hell down--yet still, that's missing the mark of importance. It's all about participation in God, and all location is secondary; participation in God as much as we can in this life is a foretaste of heaven even here on corrupted earth, and rejection of Him is the very separation which, in its fullness, is hell itself. The same Fr. Seraphim even suggests that according to our lives and the level of our love for Him, not all will immediately be with Him in heaven itself after His next Coming, but some on the newly-incorruptible earth (he cites the beatitudes' distinction between the poor in spirit's "kingdom of heaven" and the meek's "earth" (Mt 5:1-12), also bearing in mind that perfection in Orthodoxy is not static, but a movement ever toward the more perfect in God, Him being inexhaustible, and thus we being able to grow even closer to Him there; also keep in mind that it's been a while since I've read the book in question, The Soul After Death, and I may misrepresent him slightly; if so, please forgive me, as I don't have the book with me), some being in Eden, some heaven, and still some higher, as we see in the Scriptures and patristics mention of at least three tiers of heaven (2 Cor 12:2). But of course (a) again I should stress that though all will be perfect and completed then, perfection is, in Orthodox terming, not static, but a state of perpetually increasing closeness with God (which would then include place), and (b) we can't think of these places or this hierarchy in any earthly sense because it's completely beyond our base [fallen] human understanding. But like I said, I was starting to think good of your thoughts--certainly we can't think about physical "harps and clouds and streets of gold, everybody dressed in white robes," for we will have bodies as Christ's human body after the Resurrection--material yet not with our dead coarseness, under our control to appear and disappear or pass through locked doors at will, not needing food or drink yet able to partake of it, able to change to be unrecognizable to human eyes, having mastery over creation even as Adam and Eve did not yet have before the fall--that is, being the plant of which this body here on earth is only a seed, as St. Paul alludes to (1 Cor 15:35-56), by partaking in the nature of the Resurrected Kernel of Wheat Who is Christ (Jn 12:23-26)--and what resemblance do plant and seed have? If having only seen seeds, who could comprehend what a plant would be? For then you ruin your image by saying this: "Does anybody look good in a white robe? Can you play sports in a white robe? How could it be heaven without sports? What about swimming? What if you spill food on the robe?" Really? That's your idea of heaven? I realize there's likely some hyperbole in your response, but you can't attack worldly thinking with worldly thinking and think to win in anything. Of course they're not physical white robes--they're robes in a mandorla, spiritually white, pure as God can make them, "whiter than snow" (Ps 51:7 (LXX); Is 1:18). And I realize you're saying they're not physical white robes, but not with any form or even pretense of theology, but using only human logic as pertains to practicality in this human, fallen state, which Christ clearly teaches will be totally different after His Coming (for one example amongst many, when talking to the Sadducees about marriage (Lk 20:27-39)). And you really think that instead of pure contemplation of God and worship of Him, singing with joyful exultation "Holy, Holy, Holy" with the Cherubim and Seraphim, we will prefer vain sports which many here on Earth have already stopped watching as a vain, fickle, human competition with no ultimate end, goal, or purpose, between two imperfect and variable opponents [not that I'm saying there's anything inherently wrong with playing or watching sports; don't get me wrong]? Or that One able to appear at will or walk on the stormy waters (Mt 14:22-33, Mk 6:45-52, Jn 6:16-21) and rebuke them to peace (Lk 8:22-25) wouldn't be able to swim in a robe; that we that will be vouchsafed this same mastery over the material elements and are rather than such material pleasures as these given the all-surpassing pleasures of pure joy in God could be unable to do such a thing or inconvenienced thereby? [Indeed, wasn't Peter vouchsafed this same gift, so long as His eyes were on His Lord (Mt 14:22-33)?] Or that we who will be able to change appearances as Christ did when walking with His disciples (Lk 24:13-27) won't be able to prevent a stain? If you believe that Christ was made flesh and Resurrected it, that He will come to abide in us, and we in Him, as Christ Himself states (Jn 15:1-10; Jn 6:56; Jn 8:31; see Nm 31:22-24 for an interesting type thereof (fire being God and waters of separation sin and the results thereof that can lead us back to Him), as St. John affirms (1 Jn chapters 2-5, 2 Jn), and all the saints fully confirm and expand upon, and that there is something after this physical life, that He will come again and make all things new and perfect--if this is so, then it is obvious that the body we will have is, as the saints say, the same which Christ showed forth after His Glorious Resurrection. Only one gravely misled, ignorant, or naïve could ask the questions you do here, at least, with any seriousness, if indeed he has read and believed in the Gospels and all the New Testament, even if without the good guidance of the True Church. But indeed that is why this guidance is so important; it is easy to be misled by the plethora of churches and ideas swarming about, or simply by our own thoughts and perceptions; indeed, we with so little knowledge of the spiritual world can perhaps all too easily make things this-worldly in our thoughts without such guard-rails as the writings of the saints, as especially for beginners in the spiritual life, that's all we know.
As to being separated from loved ones who may go to hell, should we be vouchsafed a place in heaven, it is a good point. It's not that we won't care, and it won't matter to us that they're in hell; perfect love for others makes that impossible (indeed we see from the saints' lives, both here on earth and after their repose, that they constantly pray not only for others, whether asleep or still in the flesh, but often very fervently for those in the foretaste of hell). [As an aside, I offer this, from The Soul After Death, by the aforementioned Fr. Seraphim of Platina. It concerns both prayer for those in hell, and importance of commemorating the dead specifically in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Church.
How important commemoration at the Liturgy is may be seen in the following occurrence:
Before the uncovering of the relics of St. Theodosius of Chernigov (1896), the priest-monk
(the renowned Starets [Spiritual Elder] Alexis of Goloseyevsky Hermitage, of the Kiev-Caves
Lavra, who died in 1916) who was conducting the re-vesting of the relics, becoming weary
while sitting by the relics, dozed off and saw before him the Saint, who told him: "I thank you
for laboring for me. I beg you also, when you will serve the Liturgy, to commemorate my
parents"--and he gave their names (Priest Nikita and Maria) [which were formerly unknown,
and later confirmed by finding of the private commemoration book the saint used when still
living on this Earth]. "How can you, O Saint, ask my prayers, when you yourself stand at the
heavenly Throne and grant to people God's mercy?" the priest-monk asked. "Yes, that is
true," replied St. Theodosius, "but the offering at the Liturgy is more powerful than my prayer."
Therefore, we see panikhidas and prayer a home for the dead are beneficial for them, as are
good deeds done in their memory, such as alms or contributions to the church. But especially
beneficial for them is commemoration at the Divine Liturgy. There have been many
appearances of the dead and other occurrences which confirm how beneficial is the
commemoration of the dead. Many who died in repentance, but who were unable to manifest
this while they were alive, have been freed from tortures and have obtained repose. In the
Church, prayers are ever offered for the repose of the dead, and on the day of the Descent of
the Holy Spirit [i.e., Pentecost], in the kneeling prayers at vespers, there is even a special
petition "for those in hell."
Lavra, who died in 1916) who was conducting the re-vesting of the relics, becoming weary
while sitting by the relics, dozed off and saw before him the Saint, who told him: "I thank you
for laboring for me. I beg you also, when you will serve the Liturgy, to commemorate my
parents"--and he gave their names (Priest Nikita and Maria) [which were formerly unknown,
and later confirmed by finding of the private commemoration book the saint used when still
living on this Earth]. "How can you, O Saint, ask my prayers, when you yourself stand at the
heavenly Throne and grant to people God's mercy?" the priest-monk asked. "Yes, that is
true," replied St. Theodosius, "but the offering at the Liturgy is more powerful than my prayer."
Therefore, we see panikhidas and prayer a home for the dead are beneficial for them, as are
good deeds done in their memory, such as alms or contributions to the church. But especially
beneficial for them is commemoration at the Divine Liturgy. There have been many
appearances of the dead and other occurrences which confirm how beneficial is the
commemoration of the dead. Many who died in repentance, but who were unable to manifest
this while they were alive, have been freed from tortures and have obtained repose. In the
Church, prayers are ever offered for the repose of the dead, and on the day of the Descent of
the Holy Spirit [i.e., Pentecost], in the kneeling prayers at vespers, there is even a special
petition "for those in hell."
St. Gregory the Great, in answering in his Dialogues the question, "Is there anything at all that
can possibly benefit souls after death?" teaches: "The Holy Sacrifice of Christ, our saving
Victim, brings great benefits to souls even after death, provided their sins (are such as) can
be pardoned in the life to come. For this reason the souls of the dead sometimes beg to have
Liturgies offered for them[...]The safer course, naturally, is to do for ourselves during life what
we hope others will do for us after death. It is better to make one's exit a free man than to
seek liberty after one is in chains. We should, therefore, despise this world with all our hearts
as though its glory were already spent, and offer our sacrifice of tears to God each day as we
immolate His sacred Flesh and Blood. This Sacrifice alone has the power of saving the soul
from eternal death, for it presents to us mystically the death of the Only-begotten Son"
(Dialogues IV: 57, 60, pp. 266, 272-3).
St. Gregory gives several examples of the dead appearing to the living and asking for or
thanking them for the celebration of the Liturgy for their repose; once, also, a captive whom
his wife believed dead and for whom she had the Liturgy celebrated on certain days, returned
from captivity and told her how he had been released from his chains on some days--the
very days when the Liturgy had been offered for him. (Dialogues IV: 57, 59, pp. 267, 270).
Protestant theologians find the Church's prayer for the dead to be somehow incompatible
with the necessity of finding salvation first of all in this life: "If you can be saved by the Church
after death, then why bother to struggle or find faith in this Life? Let us eat, drink, and be
merry..." Of course, no one holding such a philosophy has ever attained salvation by the
Church's prayers, and it is evident that such an argument is quite artificial and even
hypocritical. The Church's prayer cannot save anyone who does not wish salvation, or who
never offered any struggle for it himself during his lifetime. In a sense, one might say that the
prayer of the Church or of individual Christians for a dead person is but another result of that
person's life: he would not be prayed for unless he had done something during his lifetime to
inspire such prayer after his death.
St. Mark of Ephesus also discusses this question of the Church's prayer for the dead and the
improvement it brings in their state, citing the example of the prayer of St. Gregory the
Dialogist for the Roman Emperor Trajan--a prayer inspired by a good deed of this pagan
Emperor.
I also remember, though I can't find it, reading about a saint who had a vision revealing the state of a loved one, after this person's repose: that of torment. The saint prayed fervently, locked alone in her cell (a monk or nun's private room or living space, from the Monastery of "Kellia" in desert Egypt), for 90 days, and was vouchsafed a vision showing their improved condition, but that they were still not in heaven. Long story short, she ended up spending three 90-day periods doing this, until being shown the person's condition in the foretaste of eternal joy. (I could have gotten a couple details wrong; forgive me, if so).] So we see that real love means, of course, caring very dearly about the state of others (indeed, we should care about it more than our own state). But nonetheless, they who are in torments chose that, and cannot come to heaven if they're unrepentant--i.e., if they can't turn to God. For to go to heaven, one must want to--which is to love God and want Him. If a king threw a banquet (see Lk 14:16-24 for my inspiration here) and invited all, but some hated his good will and to be at his table (though he gave only gifts and love thereat) and wanted, because of this, to stay alone and bitter at their own homes, or, wallowing in their own empty lives, were too lazy to get up out of their boredom and mundane activities and prepare with proper cleansing and clothing and go to the house of the king, well what is the king supposed to do? Bind and drag and force-feed them? Just as that is not love cannot God lovingly do this for those choosing to torment themselves in hell. For God, in His surpassing power, could--but love cannot be forced, or rather such a love is not real love, and as God perfectly loves all, He will not bind and drag them to Him to partake of gifts they have despised as from one they have despised and wish never to look upon. [Indeed in a more striking example, see Mt 22:1-14, in which Christ explains that to ignore the feast is further to hate the king and his messengers, and such, by their hate-filled actions (with lack of any reason therefore), throw themselves to the obvious condemnation. When we kill on this earth we go to jail or are killed. But when we attack goodness, Christ God Himself, in our hearts, we think nothing will come. Indeed, He does not return the blow, just as He prayed for those who crucified Him. But our conscience and nature condemns us before Him, and casts us away from His presence, unable, in trembling, to behold Him, in our shame. And if we dare try to come without such an inward cleansing and true desire for Him, it is all the same, and our shame and lack of preparation betrays us, for though He provided the garment of purity, this wedding garment, the garment of communion with God, we refused to put it on, having shoved communion with Him out of the way to make room for ourselves. Well, we can try to ignore God here, but there His Omnipresence will be made manifest to all, and our will isn't going to magically reverse itself. So we must strive toward this love of Him above self here and now.] But as God is Joy will we (should we be proven among those saved, in love of Him), abiding in Him, have True, Unsurpassable, and Ineffable Joy at all times. How will it not be mixed with sadness for those who choose death over Life? Truly, I am no theologian, that I am given to know this--the Mysteries to come are simply so far above my comprehension that I fear to even try to come up with an appropriate answer. The saints have expounded some on this point, but not in too great depth, to my limited knowledge, as it is a mystery, something only partially revealed as of now, as it lies in how we truly will be in the next order of things, which we can't fully know. I have not found an explanation perfectly clear to my poor understanding (realize that I have not looked for one specifically, however), but am not worried too much about it, simply trusting that He Who promised a land of reprieve and joy will not go back on His word, though it be in a way beyond us. We will be abiding in Joy Himself (should we be found to be true lovers of Him); this is the one thing I can with certainty say. How could there be sadness when abiding fully in Joy and with Him fully abiding in you? As this, i.e., true joy, is impossible to separate from love and compassion, it is difficult to grasp, yes, but that's normal of a Mystery of God. If the saints, the Church, and God Himself say it will be perfect Joy, I need not ask how--I'll simply trust their word, as His word can never prove false. Feeling a need to know more than this or trying to figure it out by oneself is hubris.
Yes, you are right in pointing out that it's less a place we are looking for, but, as Christ says, "eternal life" which we "enter." But what is life? Well, that's a bad question. Rather, Who IS Life? Who is it that simply IS Who He IS, existing, or rather above existence, as Life? Obviously, none but God alone. Life is not a place, but above all location and even all being, material and non-material; rather His calling to us is participation directly in His Very Self--what a Mystery! what a Miracle this is! Any why would He tell the man who asked how to attain this to go and give to the poor, and leave our the commandments of right worship of the True God, as you note? Not because the former is more important, but because the latter is not a problem for this man. Christ deals with us, with people, and thus, being Omniscient, gives us what we need in particular as individual sinners. In this man's case this particular advice would likely stem from attachment to material things (worshiping creation over Creator, whether it be his own comfort he worships or the material things themselves) and/or lack of compassion on the poor--and if the latter, I would simply say, how can we love God Who we do not see when we do not love our neighbor whom we do see (1Jn 4:20-21)? We must cut off all our own will, putting ourselves lower than all. To do this perfectly would naturally mean we lose the ability, or at least the interest, to buy fancy things for ourselves or hold onto money, as we would give ALL away to others, as their deriving some benefit therefrom would be more important to us than our derivation of any benefit therefrom, whether greater or lesser. Christ says very straightforwardly that if we want to perfect our love in God, trying to perfect our love for man is an integral component. But not the only one (for even if that love did become "perfect" without God (I use quotation marks here because love, being in its greatest fulfillment God Himself, cannot be perfected apart from active searching for Him), we can't worship the creature instead of the Creator)--why did He leave out a command about the True God? Simply, because this was a Jew who was coming to the perfect Teacher, among the faithful, asking in sincerity how to make better his faith and love. It's obvious he was of the True Faith (though not yet fulfilled and completed in Christ's Cross and Resurrection and in the descent of the Spirit on Pentecost), and by his asking, not only so in seeming, but in his heart, it truly seems, quite unlike most of the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees we meet in Scripture.
Good point also about ages. "This age," then, in which Christ spoke, was the age of the Jews--next, what? The age of the Church, of course--when "all nations [or "all Gentiles"] will flow" to Him in His new Sion (Is 2:2). But though this is beyond our understanding, as it partakes mystically of the age to come, all having been completed in reality, but not yet made manifest to all, what comes next is something far beyond anything of these ages we have now, being as they are each with an end, as it will be pure abode in Him Who IS, above existence, and Who created all existence--and thus without time, which He created for this world which He knew would fall and thus need an end, that it be renewed once for all. This is the Eschaton, the Second Coming and the End of all temporal and finite things in deference to the Eternal One and that which He grants participation truly in His Very Self. To say it's only limited to a happy, no-problem life on earth (not that I'm saying you're doing that, necessarily, but many certainly think this way, though most don't admit it to themselves and use the words) or something at all comparable to this life or understandable in terms of it is to be just as the Sadducees who questioned Christ (Lk 20:27-39). No, but rather when the the prophets use imagery of earthly things, it is one of two things: (1) reference to this present era, of the highest fullness of the Faith that can be before the Eschaton, the era of the Church, which, though not of this world, is yet carried out in this world, and (2) IMAGERY for the Eschaton, using images humans living in a corrupt world will understand by metaphor. The Jews in Christ's time saw no Christ in Him because they were looking for an earthly one. Now just as they tried to reject Eternal Joy, Redemption, and Salvation for passing, unsatisfying earthly ones (and were so upset when granted the former instead that they rather beat and crucified this Incarnate Joy), I fear you're trying to seek the same passing and earthly kingdom. Inordinate love of this earth caused them to hate its very Creator without any reason; earthly reasoning in our times will of necessity have none but the same result.
And you continue to worry me more. Of course the prophets use earthy imagery. Who were the prophets talking to? People already above the material--i.e., angels? Or real, corrupt, flesh-and-blood people living and working with their hands on this very corrupt earth in order to somehow survive this fallen order, in their sins? The reasons for specifically agricultural and nature-related images would be (a) because much of the audience would have been people working off the land and in the fields, in those times, and it would be something that would be very close to the daily lives of most, and certainly understood by all, and (b) because the natural order of things is, indeed, a clearer image of the Kingdom to come than the artificial creations we come up with and surround ourselves with in society (especially in modern times). And what poor use you make of such a great image, the Garden of Paradise! When do we see wine in this earth? Not there, but after such corruption as when God had to wash some of the worse filth off of it by deluge--after corpses strewed the earth and the strength of men was failing (look at how long pre-Noah patriarchs lived and post-Noah ones) did man mike wine (Gen 9:20-21) to gladden his sorrowful heart (Ps 103:15 (LXX)). [This is also when we are given the concession of eating animal flesh instead of only plant life (Gen 9:2-3), as was intended--though neither were intended to be necessary for our continued survival, as true man "shall not live by bread alone" (Dt 8:3, Mt 4:4, Lk 4:4). Originally it was both our body and soul that lived in this way, but needed only the Bread Who fell from Heaven (Jn 6:32-40), but now, between the Fall and the perfection coming in the Eschaton, our bodies are thus weighed down.] Certainly we don't see Adam and Eve chopping down trees in the Garden to build a house--what absurdity! What need is there, when living in perfect Grace of God, to seek protection against the very elements you're given the natural mastery over? [And further, there would thus be no need to disturb the natural and good order of thing by destroying the trees. Even if they had wanted to do so, though, they wouldn't have needed tools, but simply to think and ask it, and it would be carried out, as these trees in truth were their servants.] The divine text doesn't even note sleep there, other than that placed upon Adam as He took Eve from his side, for it was unnecessary and thus a complete waste of the time God gave them. How could the goal then--I assume you wouldn't be so bold and foolish as to say there was no further point or goal for them--be to put a stop to all the fallen and evil things of the world--in your words, "War. Rape. Greed. Injustice. Violence. Pride. Division. Exploitation. Disgrace."--when there was as yet none of that, but perfection in all things? What, God created us perfectly just to watch us fall and struggle forever to attain sinlessness, that very thing we were created with? What sense does that make? Is there sanity in that? Is there any real purpose? Is that love? If that was His purpose, why not just create us without will, and force us to maintain our sinlessness? No--He created us perfect; to go somewhere, yes--but to Him; to closer perfection and depths in Him! When we achieve sinlessness on earth (if you believe Christ was truly man, and truly sinless in His humanity as well as His Nature as God, you must believe this is possible for man on this fallen earth, through His power), this is not the end goal, but merely the starting point--where Adam and Eve started out--when we are finally not scattering ourselves in many different directions, but having gathered ourselves into a whole can steer them toward a single purpose, indeed toward the same goal they had--true perfection in union with God. What worldly nonsense the striving Christian must face and repulse to find true Christianity, born into our deluded Western world! We can't believe the very word of our Incarnate God and Creator as it is, so we invent a thousand exegeses and fantasies to support what we want it to say, unable to humble ourselves to say that yes, the saints actually can know better than I can what the text means, and by this unwillingness to accept the Spirit through them force themselves along the arduous and soul-destroying journey of relying on fallen and corrupt human reasoning, which can only end in self-servingly proving as the "obvious" rendering and exegesis only what we want the text to say, to the extent and in the terms we want it to say it. This is not Christianity. This is not submission to the God Who knows and loves us and is trying to teach us infants what food is good and what is poison--for that sweet to the tongue is not always healthy, and the healthy not always sweet. This is why the Church is necessary, that we may be vouchsafed the guidance of the Spirit, through her, when in doubt--for following our own reason alone, fallen as it is, we will never find the fullness of the Truth.
Though it seems supurfluous amidst such worldly aspirations of “heaven” as you have depicted here (as at least it is certainly so in my reading of it), I should note on this subject of anger that while there is righteous human anger, as Christ showed in overturning the tables in the temple, God cannot have passionate anger that comes and goes as it is with humans, being invariable as He IS. But this allusion to God’s “anger,” found especially often in the prophets, for the benefit of our understanding as humans (i.e., putting things impossible for us to understand in terms we can kind of understand), all the more also reveals His love. You don’t get angry at people you don’t love when they do stupid things that end up harming themselves--but you do with those you love. So even an allusion based on this, perhaps the most misused of our natural emotions, can give insight into God’s love, when understood correctly.
I really disagree with certain aspects of your interpretation of the incident with the rich young man (Mt 19:16-30, Mk 10:17-31, Lk 18:18-30)--though your interpretation has a lot of common since to it, it yet lacks their divine guidance in the Church, through the Spirit. First off, Jesus, as God and Physician of all, is always “aware that something is wrong” with each of us, and, as Omniscient God, is not "surprised" or "caught off guard" in general, except in His humanity--yet you’re placing a lot on how He would gain information in a human manner, while trying to still claim He is God--which is it? Is He or isn’t He? [Of course, He is both God and Man, and I am no theologian, to understand perfectly how they interact, but He did retain His Godhood fully while in the Flesh.] Second of all, you assume he's wrong about keeping the commandments because you assume it's impossible to do so--which would mean (a) God is cruel, giving a law we cannot keep and punishments according to it, (b) God is a liar when He says we can keep the commandments and counsels us to live thus by them, and (c) He never really became man, not fully, or else He couldn't have kept them Himself. Rather, we are not given to know if this man had attained that lofty goal along the path to God of sinlessness, or if he was ignorant to his sins--and this points out another flaw in your logic: it's evident you are again equating perfection with sinlessness, but they're not the same. God can say "if you would be perfect" to one sinless, for there's no end to greater perfection in God. Third, having money is not an automatic sin nor even having great wealth. It is a gift from God to be used wisely--and yes, the perfection of this is to give it freely, but as St. Niphon said,
King Saul lived in the midst of royal luxury and he perished. King David lived in the same
kind of luxury and he received a wreath. [...] Abraham had a wife and children, three-hundred-
eighteen servants and handmaidens, much gold and silver, but, nevertheless, he was called
the Friend of God. Oh, how many servants of the Church and lovers of the desert have been
saved! How many aristocrats and soldiers! How many [artisans] and field-workers! (Saint
Nikolai of Ohrid and Žiča, the Prologue, "January 31.")
Now this is coming from an abbot, one who has died to the world and rejected its pleasures, and thus one with no possessions truly of his own. What do you think; were Moses and Paul wrong to praise Abraham? What about David, or about Joseph or Job? They all had great riches, and they did not give all away. Are they then sinning in this? If so, why did God restore to Job--indeed more than before--wealth which he had not before given away, and which He knew he wouldn't this time. But if this is a sin, why not be like St. Serapion, who owned only a loincloth and could not live in any shelter whatsoever out of his non-acquisitiveness, and who sold himself into slavery to convert, by example, his owners from error? Or like St. Vitalios, who spent his only hard-gotten earnings by paying for a prostitute for a night and spending that night praying for her, in her open view and hearing in her room, thus converting many of them from this wretched situation? Or like St. Alypios the Stylite:
The virtue of almsgiving so flourished in the soul of the great Alypios that, when he gave alms
to someone, he felt greater joy than the one who received them. On one occasion, a poor
man asked him for clothing. Without even the least hesitation, Alypios took off the tunic that
he was wearing and dropped it from his column. The poor man took it and went away,
thanking God for this act of providence. Alypios endured being frozen from the cold, until one
of his disciples, who lived in sheltered accommodation (a cell), seeing the state of the Elder
was in, gave him another garment with which to cover himself. (The Evergetinos, Book III, p.
376-377.)?
Or John the Merciful, a patriarch who continually gave all the Church's money away to the poor, and would not even deny one who came multiple times in a day, in his love and trust in God? He always found that the Church's funds were replenished, for God indeed sets he who was faithful over ten talents over even yet more (see Mt 25:14-30). Paulinus, bishop of Nola, likewise gave away all, and yet even with nothing had compassion on a widow and sold himself as a slave to ransom her captive son. If it is a sin to have wealth, these alone are saved--yet St. Nicholas of Myra is one of the most beloved saints in all Christendom, and yet while he is beloved for his mercy and charity to the poor and desparate, he gave not all away, but rather used wisely the money entrusted to him and gave alms to those in need and in his care. This we can all do, and we must do, as tenants (not owners) of our wealth. Most of us indeed do very little; but God can work even merely with a little. He is God after all. But let none think that in this I mean that we ought not try to give away all, should it not mean forsaking love for one close to us and dependent on us--Christ is clear that that is the perfection of proper use of our money, if we can truly trust in His promise to provide and take no care for the morrow (Mt 6:25-34). Next, I must completely disagree with you saying "Jesus doesn't tell other people [to give such alms] because [greed] isn't an issue for them." Really? You think that you or I don't have greed? Most all of us have some. Until we are naked, wandering without home, food, or any possession, truly trusting only in God for everything [or embody this complete and unwavering lack of trust in what we have or the thought that we will still have it in five minutes, rather trusting wholly, unwavering, unflinchingly, in God alone for all things, through other means], it can be improved upon. Even then, if the seed of greed in us goes unchecked, we can become greedy of something we happen upon, of silence, of our own thoughts, of time, of the warmth of the sun, or anything! We're that wretched. It is a passion in all of us that needs to be checked and controlled. That's why He tells us to leave all, take up our crosses (as a symbol of complete surrender of all possessions, yes, but moreso even of personal will, as we see in Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:39,42-43), and by His subsequent voluntary death), and only thus, leaving all behind, follow Him. Lastly, you assume this man does not carry out the advice of God. On this, I would simply say that I don't know what he does, and don't feel a need to assume, based on what is written--all we know is that at this particular moment, he is saddened, in love of his wealth. But I would ask, why? After a pious life he will throw all away for this? He came in faith and left, not thinking Christ a fool--for if so, he would have ignored Him and gone on his way, but he went sadly, meaning he took Christ's words to heart and found them difficult. It is difficult for me to believe that he will let himself forget this command or just explain it away; he loved his wealth, but after pious living in other things, and this command which pierced his heart as only God can do, I think that in reflection he must have given it and become a pauper for Christ.
Heaven and Earth, on a different note, are not "the same place." God will make a new heaven and a new Earth, and they will be together in unity of Will, but not the same. We should note two usages of "heaven"--one is the physical space--the floodgates of the heavens and of the earth opened at the deluge of Noah (Gen 7:11). This is simply the sky, space, and all things celestial. The other sense is the spiritual sense, that of spiritual height, used to illustrate closeness with God--sometimes illustratively, as God is fully Omnipresent, and sometimes literally, as, for example, Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, having "come down from Heaven" to be Incarnate, and "ascended" in the flesh (which can only be in one place at a time, though in His Godhood He is everywhere) "into Heaven" again (Constantinoplan-Nicean Creed). But after His Coming, both Earth and Heaven will be fully purified and sinless, all its inhabitants perfectly growing infinitely closer to Him Who is Infinity Itself (or rather, I should say, beyond it).
They're spiritual crowns the martyrs and saints wear in Heaven, not physical ones. What, you think they preferred torture over passing wealth to be given that which they derided in life?
Now you're right about taking sufferings in the world seriously--we should thirst for them as the fire that consumes our impurities and presents us as pure gold before Him. We must cast off our wants, our ties to the corruptible of earth, and most of all, our wills themselves, to make room for His Perfect Will to abide in us. And yes, we must not abandon those suffering (indeed this is a huge point in the prophets, that the people oppressed the widows and orphans), but we must be merciless and pitiless toward ourselves in order to make room for this mercy and pity for others. [We certainly can't strive for personal physical comfort or complain in adversity--see rather how the righteous Job reacts to sufferings!] Without self-abasement, which you neglect to mention, we cannot truly lovingly do the good works of mercy toward others which you suggest. Also, your note that we cannot "create a utopia given enough time" is very important [indeed, Christ promises we will always have the poor available for us to show compassion upon (Mt 26:11, Mk 14:7, Jn 12:8)], as this hubris of man which so pervades the modern Western world cuts us off from the realization that we need God's aid and Power in all things and must continually beseech Him for it. Indeed, it's also, retrospectively, what gave rise to evolutionism, that faith (for it's far from science, if we but look at the supports for it) which lessens God's creative power (if God is indeed thrown into the mix) and takes away all worry to change our own personal sinfulness in preference for a delusion of human self-perfection naturally over time. Why go to God if we're already getting "better," proceeding naturally toward some sort of "perfect" super-human being? But we are instead in corruption and decay, and even science supports this, if one would simply look at what is happening to the Earth or to our genome. It takes true blindness to our sinfulness and weakness to believe such a thing.
Now you're right, however, that though we can't make any level of utopia here, we must bring as much of Heaven to earth as we can, doing His will on earth as it is in Heaven--for if we don't live out His will here, it's because we don't really want His Will--and we cut ourselves off from Heaven. And if we love His Will eternally, we will naturally enact it here--our lives are one, here and then there, yes, but continuous; though they are transformed at death and again at His Second Coming, He changes us as we choose to be changed, and our works here are the proofs of our faith and our will here, which will be brought to fulfillment in the Eschaton--whether that will and faith is for Him, or for the void which is nothingness, hell. If we free ourselves from reliance on passing, earthly things now through fasting and self-denial, the transition to the angelic state in which our bodies will no longer force us back down to earth will be a freeing experience--if we rather grow more reliant on these earthly things, it will be a renting from the body in which we hunger still for those things we have grown to love on earth, yet without chance of satiation--and thus (one aspect of) the foretastes of heaven or hell we have after death, as we await our bodies' resurrection in the Eschaton.
Why do you quote an incident of pride, for a place at Christ's right and left hands (Mt 20:20-28, Mk 10:35-45), as a model for how we should think? Is not Christ's rebuke for this seeking of greater glory than we deserve enough for you to understand that we don't want these thoughts, but always to ask in perfect humility for the lowest entrance into His Kingdom, knowing our great sinfulness against God and how we try to bar our entrance?
No, heaven won't just be a continuation of the things we love to do here--you claim to believe it's not a static repetition of earthly life, but then fill it with earthly actions as to what we do the whole time. Come now, pick one! All will be new and different in perfect union with God--can you not see that it is impossible now to comprehend what will be then? Why do you then indulge your will in trying to figure out, in vain curiosity, something about which we, living in a state and world fallen to corruption, have nothing to draw from? It's perfection--is that not enough? Trust the promises of God, and don't tempt Him by pretending that you, with created--and fallen--mind can comprehend the thoughts of the Uncreated and Creator of all, beyond being itself! No; because you could not be content with this, you drew on fallen creation and thus necessarily came to the conclusion that heaven is always having what we now have in passing when sated with earthly comforts, and in believing that it is nothing more than "the endless joy that comes from participating in the ongoing creation of the world," preferring the participation in the world to the participation in God Himself (Who clearly says of Himself and His apostles that they are not of the world--or did you miss that section of the Gospels?) and, as the pagan idol-worshipers have chosen to worship creation rather than its Creator. Will we be in harmony with all creation? Yes. Is that the point? No, not in itself. It's abiding in God Himself--what a Mystery of Love! God Himself makes Himself accessible to us not only by things He creates, but in His Very Self, His Very Nature as God, the Energies proceeding naturally forth from Him, as Him! Ah, what vain curiosity can lead us to--but that we could be content with the promise of God over our vain mind's doubtful questioning, "How? Why? When?" and all the rest, incessantly and for no reason other than our vain curiosities! That is real Faith, to put aside these questions which don't yet concern us and which He deigns not to yet reveal to us--but we fallen humans have little or none of it. [For further reading on the point of us abiding not in created things when we have perfection in Christ, but in God Himself, see St. Gregory Palamas' The Triads.]
The flames of heaven are important to talk about. God is Fire; to the pure deifying and quickening, to the impure burning and consuming. So yes, we must prepare and purify ourselves to meet Him. We will be stripped of any separating veil--and those hating Him will burn, being surrounded constantly by Him; but those always starving and thirsting for Him will be filled beyond all expectation. We show our want and intent here, and He perfects its fullness there by His power to soften or harden our hearts, according to our wish, as we see in a small type explained in the Old Testament language of God both softening and hardening hearts--for according to our wants and wills, he does not force us to change, but respects our free will to love or reject Him, in His perfect love for us.
Yes, surprise will come in our Judgment. The saints know they're sinners and the sinners often think themselves saints. The latter will have their deceptions stripped--the former, going to Him in hope of His mercy, while knowing their complete unworthiness, will be granted personally that which is "strange to angels and to the minds of men"--His perfect mercy.
On the timing aspect, we must note that there's a foretaste of the End, which comes with being with Christ (or not) at death. This is "today." Further, there's the level to which we can participate in theosis, the deification which is union with God, here in this life. Also "today." Then there's it's fulfillment, perfectly--at the End, the Eschaton. That's not yet come, and is quite different, being fully completed and shown forth to all without possibility of denial or misunderstanding, and only God knows the day and hour.
You're right--we die in this body, are separated from it, and go to God--but as yet incomplete. Then the End, at which our bodies are raised incorruptible (see 1 Cor 15), as was the Body of Christ after His Resurrection, the plant for which this body is a mere seed, that, in our corrupt condition, must first go into the earth and die--as Christ prophesied about His Own Body, that It may germinate and spread to all of us (Jn 12:23-26).
You're right in saying Eternity will transcend time--but not only in the perfect intensity of Heaven in which we will care nothing about time; even more so because time is a limited creation God made and ordained for the right order of this present world, superfluous--or rather, incompatible--with Eternity and transcendent Perfection. When Jesus speaks of Heaven, this intense transcendence of time is not, as you claim "our present eternal, intense, real experiences," but so far surpassing this mere type, by nature in a condition without time, that we cannot begin to truly comprehend it yet.
And now you're describing Heaven in terms of string theory dimensions. Wow, really? You're that quick to condescend to the mind that cannot think in spiritual terms? How...worldly. And more than that, using inventions of man as explanations of the Realm of God. I thought you said we couldn't build a utopia ourselves--if you believe that, why do you think we can figure out GOD'S Kingdom with mere fallen, earthly science? How dare you describe the kingdom of heaven in terms of man's vain theorizing and philosophizing? How dare you condescend it to that? Forgive me, but we cannot think in such terms. We need to look to His revelations to us, and conform all and understand all of this world and life to that, not to reach up with understandings of this world and try to "figure out" Heaven from them, which is obviously what you've been doing the whole chapter, even in your exegesis of Scripture. God forgive us (for I am certainly not exempt from it) for using our vain minds so unnaturally, to distort Thy revelations to us!
Summarization: while you say you don't believe in a mere continuation of this Earth as Heaven, you surely use only earthly, worldly images to paint us such a dissatisfying "heaven" that it's remarkable you cannot see it the mere "perfection" of worldly comforts which you have fantasized about here as such. Heaven, in reality, is so far beyond this and so opposed to the world, as Christ explained in His statements about the world's hatred of Him and His people (not only by murdering and slandering and all the like, but in every turning to earthliness and mammon instead of Him), that we cannot talk about it except apaphatically, as what is isn't like, or we will fall into error, wrongly trying to figure out and state what it really is in essence, a complete impossibility for us fallen ones.
I am left spent and dissatisfied after writing this--it will be tiring to finish the book, but as I was asked to and began to do so, I should now finish. Don't expect it all at once, though.
Until next time, with love in Christ,
Teopile/Theophilos Porter
I also remember, though I can't find it, reading about a saint who had a vision revealing the state of a loved one, after this person's repose: that of torment. The saint prayed fervently, locked alone in her cell (a monk or nun's private room or living space, from the Monastery of "Kellia" in desert Egypt), for 90 days, and was vouchsafed a vision showing their improved condition, but that they were still not in heaven. Long story short, she ended up spending three 90-day periods doing this, until being shown the person's condition in the foretaste of eternal joy. (I could have gotten a couple details wrong; forgive me, if so).] So we see that real love means, of course, caring very dearly about the state of others (indeed, we should care about it more than our own state). But nonetheless, they who are in torments chose that, and cannot come to heaven if they're unrepentant--i.e., if they can't turn to God. For to go to heaven, one must want to--which is to love God and want Him. If a king threw a banquet (see Lk 14:16-24 for my inspiration here) and invited all, but some hated his good will and to be at his table (though he gave only gifts and love thereat) and wanted, because of this, to stay alone and bitter at their own homes, or, wallowing in their own empty lives, were too lazy to get up out of their boredom and mundane activities and prepare with proper cleansing and clothing and go to the house of the king, well what is the king supposed to do? Bind and drag and force-feed them? Just as that is not love cannot God lovingly do this for those choosing to torment themselves in hell. For God, in His surpassing power, could--but love cannot be forced, or rather such a love is not real love, and as God perfectly loves all, He will not bind and drag them to Him to partake of gifts they have despised as from one they have despised and wish never to look upon. [Indeed in a more striking example, see Mt 22:1-14, in which Christ explains that to ignore the feast is further to hate the king and his messengers, and such, by their hate-filled actions (with lack of any reason therefore), throw themselves to the obvious condemnation. When we kill on this earth we go to jail or are killed. But when we attack goodness, Christ God Himself, in our hearts, we think nothing will come. Indeed, He does not return the blow, just as He prayed for those who crucified Him. But our conscience and nature condemns us before Him, and casts us away from His presence, unable, in trembling, to behold Him, in our shame. And if we dare try to come without such an inward cleansing and true desire for Him, it is all the same, and our shame and lack of preparation betrays us, for though He provided the garment of purity, this wedding garment, the garment of communion with God, we refused to put it on, having shoved communion with Him out of the way to make room for ourselves. Well, we can try to ignore God here, but there His Omnipresence will be made manifest to all, and our will isn't going to magically reverse itself. So we must strive toward this love of Him above self here and now.] But as God is Joy will we (should we be proven among those saved, in love of Him), abiding in Him, have True, Unsurpassable, and Ineffable Joy at all times. How will it not be mixed with sadness for those who choose death over Life? Truly, I am no theologian, that I am given to know this--the Mysteries to come are simply so far above my comprehension that I fear to even try to come up with an appropriate answer. The saints have expounded some on this point, but not in too great depth, to my limited knowledge, as it is a mystery, something only partially revealed as of now, as it lies in how we truly will be in the next order of things, which we can't fully know. I have not found an explanation perfectly clear to my poor understanding (realize that I have not looked for one specifically, however), but am not worried too much about it, simply trusting that He Who promised a land of reprieve and joy will not go back on His word, though it be in a way beyond us. We will be abiding in Joy Himself (should we be found to be true lovers of Him); this is the one thing I can with certainty say. How could there be sadness when abiding fully in Joy and with Him fully abiding in you? As this, i.e., true joy, is impossible to separate from love and compassion, it is difficult to grasp, yes, but that's normal of a Mystery of God. If the saints, the Church, and God Himself say it will be perfect Joy, I need not ask how--I'll simply trust their word, as His word can never prove false. Feeling a need to know more than this or trying to figure it out by oneself is hubris.
Yes, you are right in pointing out that it's less a place we are looking for, but, as Christ says, "eternal life" which we "enter." But what is life? Well, that's a bad question. Rather, Who IS Life? Who is it that simply IS Who He IS, existing, or rather above existence, as Life? Obviously, none but God alone. Life is not a place, but above all location and even all being, material and non-material; rather His calling to us is participation directly in His Very Self--what a Mystery! what a Miracle this is! Any why would He tell the man who asked how to attain this to go and give to the poor, and leave our the commandments of right worship of the True God, as you note? Not because the former is more important, but because the latter is not a problem for this man. Christ deals with us, with people, and thus, being Omniscient, gives us what we need in particular as individual sinners. In this man's case this particular advice would likely stem from attachment to material things (worshiping creation over Creator, whether it be his own comfort he worships or the material things themselves) and/or lack of compassion on the poor--and if the latter, I would simply say, how can we love God Who we do not see when we do not love our neighbor whom we do see (1Jn 4:20-21)? We must cut off all our own will, putting ourselves lower than all. To do this perfectly would naturally mean we lose the ability, or at least the interest, to buy fancy things for ourselves or hold onto money, as we would give ALL away to others, as their deriving some benefit therefrom would be more important to us than our derivation of any benefit therefrom, whether greater or lesser. Christ says very straightforwardly that if we want to perfect our love in God, trying to perfect our love for man is an integral component. But not the only one (for even if that love did become "perfect" without God (I use quotation marks here because love, being in its greatest fulfillment God Himself, cannot be perfected apart from active searching for Him), we can't worship the creature instead of the Creator)--why did He leave out a command about the True God? Simply, because this was a Jew who was coming to the perfect Teacher, among the faithful, asking in sincerity how to make better his faith and love. It's obvious he was of the True Faith (though not yet fulfilled and completed in Christ's Cross and Resurrection and in the descent of the Spirit on Pentecost), and by his asking, not only so in seeming, but in his heart, it truly seems, quite unlike most of the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees we meet in Scripture.
Good point also about ages. "This age," then, in which Christ spoke, was the age of the Jews--next, what? The age of the Church, of course--when "all nations [or "all Gentiles"] will flow" to Him in His new Sion (Is 2:2). But though this is beyond our understanding, as it partakes mystically of the age to come, all having been completed in reality, but not yet made manifest to all, what comes next is something far beyond anything of these ages we have now, being as they are each with an end, as it will be pure abode in Him Who IS, above existence, and Who created all existence--and thus without time, which He created for this world which He knew would fall and thus need an end, that it be renewed once for all. This is the Eschaton, the Second Coming and the End of all temporal and finite things in deference to the Eternal One and that which He grants participation truly in His Very Self. To say it's only limited to a happy, no-problem life on earth (not that I'm saying you're doing that, necessarily, but many certainly think this way, though most don't admit it to themselves and use the words) or something at all comparable to this life or understandable in terms of it is to be just as the Sadducees who questioned Christ (Lk 20:27-39). No, but rather when the the prophets use imagery of earthly things, it is one of two things: (1) reference to this present era, of the highest fullness of the Faith that can be before the Eschaton, the era of the Church, which, though not of this world, is yet carried out in this world, and (2) IMAGERY for the Eschaton, using images humans living in a corrupt world will understand by metaphor. The Jews in Christ's time saw no Christ in Him because they were looking for an earthly one. Now just as they tried to reject Eternal Joy, Redemption, and Salvation for passing, unsatisfying earthly ones (and were so upset when granted the former instead that they rather beat and crucified this Incarnate Joy), I fear you're trying to seek the same passing and earthly kingdom. Inordinate love of this earth caused them to hate its very Creator without any reason; earthly reasoning in our times will of necessity have none but the same result.
And you continue to worry me more. Of course the prophets use earthy imagery. Who were the prophets talking to? People already above the material--i.e., angels? Or real, corrupt, flesh-and-blood people living and working with their hands on this very corrupt earth in order to somehow survive this fallen order, in their sins? The reasons for specifically agricultural and nature-related images would be (a) because much of the audience would have been people working off the land and in the fields, in those times, and it would be something that would be very close to the daily lives of most, and certainly understood by all, and (b) because the natural order of things is, indeed, a clearer image of the Kingdom to come than the artificial creations we come up with and surround ourselves with in society (especially in modern times). And what poor use you make of such a great image, the Garden of Paradise! When do we see wine in this earth? Not there, but after such corruption as when God had to wash some of the worse filth off of it by deluge--after corpses strewed the earth and the strength of men was failing (look at how long pre-Noah patriarchs lived and post-Noah ones) did man mike wine (Gen 9:20-21) to gladden his sorrowful heart (Ps 103:15 (LXX)). [This is also when we are given the concession of eating animal flesh instead of only plant life (Gen 9:2-3), as was intended--though neither were intended to be necessary for our continued survival, as true man "shall not live by bread alone" (Dt 8:3, Mt 4:4, Lk 4:4). Originally it was both our body and soul that lived in this way, but needed only the Bread Who fell from Heaven (Jn 6:32-40), but now, between the Fall and the perfection coming in the Eschaton, our bodies are thus weighed down.] Certainly we don't see Adam and Eve chopping down trees in the Garden to build a house--what absurdity! What need is there, when living in perfect Grace of God, to seek protection against the very elements you're given the natural mastery over? [And further, there would thus be no need to disturb the natural and good order of thing by destroying the trees. Even if they had wanted to do so, though, they wouldn't have needed tools, but simply to think and ask it, and it would be carried out, as these trees in truth were their servants.] The divine text doesn't even note sleep there, other than that placed upon Adam as He took Eve from his side, for it was unnecessary and thus a complete waste of the time God gave them. How could the goal then--I assume you wouldn't be so bold and foolish as to say there was no further point or goal for them--be to put a stop to all the fallen and evil things of the world--in your words, "War. Rape. Greed. Injustice. Violence. Pride. Division. Exploitation. Disgrace."--when there was as yet none of that, but perfection in all things? What, God created us perfectly just to watch us fall and struggle forever to attain sinlessness, that very thing we were created with? What sense does that make? Is there sanity in that? Is there any real purpose? Is that love? If that was His purpose, why not just create us without will, and force us to maintain our sinlessness? No--He created us perfect; to go somewhere, yes--but to Him; to closer perfection and depths in Him! When we achieve sinlessness on earth (if you believe Christ was truly man, and truly sinless in His humanity as well as His Nature as God, you must believe this is possible for man on this fallen earth, through His power), this is not the end goal, but merely the starting point--where Adam and Eve started out--when we are finally not scattering ourselves in many different directions, but having gathered ourselves into a whole can steer them toward a single purpose, indeed toward the same goal they had--true perfection in union with God. What worldly nonsense the striving Christian must face and repulse to find true Christianity, born into our deluded Western world! We can't believe the very word of our Incarnate God and Creator as it is, so we invent a thousand exegeses and fantasies to support what we want it to say, unable to humble ourselves to say that yes, the saints actually can know better than I can what the text means, and by this unwillingness to accept the Spirit through them force themselves along the arduous and soul-destroying journey of relying on fallen and corrupt human reasoning, which can only end in self-servingly proving as the "obvious" rendering and exegesis only what we want the text to say, to the extent and in the terms we want it to say it. This is not Christianity. This is not submission to the God Who knows and loves us and is trying to teach us infants what food is good and what is poison--for that sweet to the tongue is not always healthy, and the healthy not always sweet. This is why the Church is necessary, that we may be vouchsafed the guidance of the Spirit, through her, when in doubt--for following our own reason alone, fallen as it is, we will never find the fullness of the Truth.
Though it seems supurfluous amidst such worldly aspirations of “heaven” as you have depicted here (as at least it is certainly so in my reading of it), I should note on this subject of anger that while there is righteous human anger, as Christ showed in overturning the tables in the temple, God cannot have passionate anger that comes and goes as it is with humans, being invariable as He IS. But this allusion to God’s “anger,” found especially often in the prophets, for the benefit of our understanding as humans (i.e., putting things impossible for us to understand in terms we can kind of understand), all the more also reveals His love. You don’t get angry at people you don’t love when they do stupid things that end up harming themselves--but you do with those you love. So even an allusion based on this, perhaps the most misused of our natural emotions, can give insight into God’s love, when understood correctly.
I really disagree with certain aspects of your interpretation of the incident with the rich young man (Mt 19:16-30, Mk 10:17-31, Lk 18:18-30)--though your interpretation has a lot of common since to it, it yet lacks their divine guidance in the Church, through the Spirit. First off, Jesus, as God and Physician of all, is always “aware that something is wrong” with each of us, and, as Omniscient God, is not "surprised" or "caught off guard" in general, except in His humanity--yet you’re placing a lot on how He would gain information in a human manner, while trying to still claim He is God--which is it? Is He or isn’t He? [Of course, He is both God and Man, and I am no theologian, to understand perfectly how they interact, but He did retain His Godhood fully while in the Flesh.] Second of all, you assume he's wrong about keeping the commandments because you assume it's impossible to do so--which would mean (a) God is cruel, giving a law we cannot keep and punishments according to it, (b) God is a liar when He says we can keep the commandments and counsels us to live thus by them, and (c) He never really became man, not fully, or else He couldn't have kept them Himself. Rather, we are not given to know if this man had attained that lofty goal along the path to God of sinlessness, or if he was ignorant to his sins--and this points out another flaw in your logic: it's evident you are again equating perfection with sinlessness, but they're not the same. God can say "if you would be perfect" to one sinless, for there's no end to greater perfection in God. Third, having money is not an automatic sin nor even having great wealth. It is a gift from God to be used wisely--and yes, the perfection of this is to give it freely, but as St. Niphon said,
King Saul lived in the midst of royal luxury and he perished. King David lived in the same
kind of luxury and he received a wreath. [...] Abraham had a wife and children, three-hundred-
eighteen servants and handmaidens, much gold and silver, but, nevertheless, he was called
the Friend of God. Oh, how many servants of the Church and lovers of the desert have been
saved! How many aristocrats and soldiers! How many [artisans] and field-workers! (Saint
Nikolai of Ohrid and Žiča, the Prologue, "January 31.")
Now this is coming from an abbot, one who has died to the world and rejected its pleasures, and thus one with no possessions truly of his own. What do you think; were Moses and Paul wrong to praise Abraham? What about David, or about Joseph or Job? They all had great riches, and they did not give all away. Are they then sinning in this? If so, why did God restore to Job--indeed more than before--wealth which he had not before given away, and which He knew he wouldn't this time. But if this is a sin, why not be like St. Serapion, who owned only a loincloth and could not live in any shelter whatsoever out of his non-acquisitiveness, and who sold himself into slavery to convert, by example, his owners from error? Or like St. Vitalios, who spent his only hard-gotten earnings by paying for a prostitute for a night and spending that night praying for her, in her open view and hearing in her room, thus converting many of them from this wretched situation? Or like St. Alypios the Stylite:
The virtue of almsgiving so flourished in the soul of the great Alypios that, when he gave alms
to someone, he felt greater joy than the one who received them. On one occasion, a poor
man asked him for clothing. Without even the least hesitation, Alypios took off the tunic that
he was wearing and dropped it from his column. The poor man took it and went away,
thanking God for this act of providence. Alypios endured being frozen from the cold, until one
of his disciples, who lived in sheltered accommodation (a cell), seeing the state of the Elder
was in, gave him another garment with which to cover himself. (The Evergetinos, Book III, p.
376-377.)?
Or John the Merciful, a patriarch who continually gave all the Church's money away to the poor, and would not even deny one who came multiple times in a day, in his love and trust in God? He always found that the Church's funds were replenished, for God indeed sets he who was faithful over ten talents over even yet more (see Mt 25:14-30). Paulinus, bishop of Nola, likewise gave away all, and yet even with nothing had compassion on a widow and sold himself as a slave to ransom her captive son. If it is a sin to have wealth, these alone are saved--yet St. Nicholas of Myra is one of the most beloved saints in all Christendom, and yet while he is beloved for his mercy and charity to the poor and desparate, he gave not all away, but rather used wisely the money entrusted to him and gave alms to those in need and in his care. This we can all do, and we must do, as tenants (not owners) of our wealth. Most of us indeed do very little; but God can work even merely with a little. He is God after all. But let none think that in this I mean that we ought not try to give away all, should it not mean forsaking love for one close to us and dependent on us--Christ is clear that that is the perfection of proper use of our money, if we can truly trust in His promise to provide and take no care for the morrow (Mt 6:25-34). Next, I must completely disagree with you saying "Jesus doesn't tell other people [to give such alms] because [greed] isn't an issue for them." Really? You think that you or I don't have greed? Most all of us have some. Until we are naked, wandering without home, food, or any possession, truly trusting only in God for everything [or embody this complete and unwavering lack of trust in what we have or the thought that we will still have it in five minutes, rather trusting wholly, unwavering, unflinchingly, in God alone for all things, through other means], it can be improved upon. Even then, if the seed of greed in us goes unchecked, we can become greedy of something we happen upon, of silence, of our own thoughts, of time, of the warmth of the sun, or anything! We're that wretched. It is a passion in all of us that needs to be checked and controlled. That's why He tells us to leave all, take up our crosses (as a symbol of complete surrender of all possessions, yes, but moreso even of personal will, as we see in Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:39,42-43), and by His subsequent voluntary death), and only thus, leaving all behind, follow Him. Lastly, you assume this man does not carry out the advice of God. On this, I would simply say that I don't know what he does, and don't feel a need to assume, based on what is written--all we know is that at this particular moment, he is saddened, in love of his wealth. But I would ask, why? After a pious life he will throw all away for this? He came in faith and left, not thinking Christ a fool--for if so, he would have ignored Him and gone on his way, but he went sadly, meaning he took Christ's words to heart and found them difficult. It is difficult for me to believe that he will let himself forget this command or just explain it away; he loved his wealth, but after pious living in other things, and this command which pierced his heart as only God can do, I think that in reflection he must have given it and become a pauper for Christ.
Heaven and Earth, on a different note, are not "the same place." God will make a new heaven and a new Earth, and they will be together in unity of Will, but not the same. We should note two usages of "heaven"--one is the physical space--the floodgates of the heavens and of the earth opened at the deluge of Noah (Gen 7:11). This is simply the sky, space, and all things celestial. The other sense is the spiritual sense, that of spiritual height, used to illustrate closeness with God--sometimes illustratively, as God is fully Omnipresent, and sometimes literally, as, for example, Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, having "come down from Heaven" to be Incarnate, and "ascended" in the flesh (which can only be in one place at a time, though in His Godhood He is everywhere) "into Heaven" again (Constantinoplan-Nicean Creed). But after His Coming, both Earth and Heaven will be fully purified and sinless, all its inhabitants perfectly growing infinitely closer to Him Who is Infinity Itself (or rather, I should say, beyond it).
They're spiritual crowns the martyrs and saints wear in Heaven, not physical ones. What, you think they preferred torture over passing wealth to be given that which they derided in life?
Now you're right about taking sufferings in the world seriously--we should thirst for them as the fire that consumes our impurities and presents us as pure gold before Him. We must cast off our wants, our ties to the corruptible of earth, and most of all, our wills themselves, to make room for His Perfect Will to abide in us. And yes, we must not abandon those suffering (indeed this is a huge point in the prophets, that the people oppressed the widows and orphans), but we must be merciless and pitiless toward ourselves in order to make room for this mercy and pity for others. [We certainly can't strive for personal physical comfort or complain in adversity--see rather how the righteous Job reacts to sufferings!] Without self-abasement, which you neglect to mention, we cannot truly lovingly do the good works of mercy toward others which you suggest. Also, your note that we cannot "create a utopia given enough time" is very important [indeed, Christ promises we will always have the poor available for us to show compassion upon (Mt 26:11, Mk 14:7, Jn 12:8)], as this hubris of man which so pervades the modern Western world cuts us off from the realization that we need God's aid and Power in all things and must continually beseech Him for it. Indeed, it's also, retrospectively, what gave rise to evolutionism, that faith (for it's far from science, if we but look at the supports for it) which lessens God's creative power (if God is indeed thrown into the mix) and takes away all worry to change our own personal sinfulness in preference for a delusion of human self-perfection naturally over time. Why go to God if we're already getting "better," proceeding naturally toward some sort of "perfect" super-human being? But we are instead in corruption and decay, and even science supports this, if one would simply look at what is happening to the Earth or to our genome. It takes true blindness to our sinfulness and weakness to believe such a thing.
Now you're right, however, that though we can't make any level of utopia here, we must bring as much of Heaven to earth as we can, doing His will on earth as it is in Heaven--for if we don't live out His will here, it's because we don't really want His Will--and we cut ourselves off from Heaven. And if we love His Will eternally, we will naturally enact it here--our lives are one, here and then there, yes, but continuous; though they are transformed at death and again at His Second Coming, He changes us as we choose to be changed, and our works here are the proofs of our faith and our will here, which will be brought to fulfillment in the Eschaton--whether that will and faith is for Him, or for the void which is nothingness, hell. If we free ourselves from reliance on passing, earthly things now through fasting and self-denial, the transition to the angelic state in which our bodies will no longer force us back down to earth will be a freeing experience--if we rather grow more reliant on these earthly things, it will be a renting from the body in which we hunger still for those things we have grown to love on earth, yet without chance of satiation--and thus (one aspect of) the foretastes of heaven or hell we have after death, as we await our bodies' resurrection in the Eschaton.
Why do you quote an incident of pride, for a place at Christ's right and left hands (Mt 20:20-28, Mk 10:35-45), as a model for how we should think? Is not Christ's rebuke for this seeking of greater glory than we deserve enough for you to understand that we don't want these thoughts, but always to ask in perfect humility for the lowest entrance into His Kingdom, knowing our great sinfulness against God and how we try to bar our entrance?
No, heaven won't just be a continuation of the things we love to do here--you claim to believe it's not a static repetition of earthly life, but then fill it with earthly actions as to what we do the whole time. Come now, pick one! All will be new and different in perfect union with God--can you not see that it is impossible now to comprehend what will be then? Why do you then indulge your will in trying to figure out, in vain curiosity, something about which we, living in a state and world fallen to corruption, have nothing to draw from? It's perfection--is that not enough? Trust the promises of God, and don't tempt Him by pretending that you, with created--and fallen--mind can comprehend the thoughts of the Uncreated and Creator of all, beyond being itself! No; because you could not be content with this, you drew on fallen creation and thus necessarily came to the conclusion that heaven is always having what we now have in passing when sated with earthly comforts, and in believing that it is nothing more than "the endless joy that comes from participating in the ongoing creation of the world," preferring the participation in the world to the participation in God Himself (Who clearly says of Himself and His apostles that they are not of the world--or did you miss that section of the Gospels?) and, as the pagan idol-worshipers have chosen to worship creation rather than its Creator. Will we be in harmony with all creation? Yes. Is that the point? No, not in itself. It's abiding in God Himself--what a Mystery of Love! God Himself makes Himself accessible to us not only by things He creates, but in His Very Self, His Very Nature as God, the Energies proceeding naturally forth from Him, as Him! Ah, what vain curiosity can lead us to--but that we could be content with the promise of God over our vain mind's doubtful questioning, "How? Why? When?" and all the rest, incessantly and for no reason other than our vain curiosities! That is real Faith, to put aside these questions which don't yet concern us and which He deigns not to yet reveal to us--but we fallen humans have little or none of it. [For further reading on the point of us abiding not in created things when we have perfection in Christ, but in God Himself, see St. Gregory Palamas' The Triads.]
The flames of heaven are important to talk about. God is Fire; to the pure deifying and quickening, to the impure burning and consuming. So yes, we must prepare and purify ourselves to meet Him. We will be stripped of any separating veil--and those hating Him will burn, being surrounded constantly by Him; but those always starving and thirsting for Him will be filled beyond all expectation. We show our want and intent here, and He perfects its fullness there by His power to soften or harden our hearts, according to our wish, as we see in a small type explained in the Old Testament language of God both softening and hardening hearts--for according to our wants and wills, he does not force us to change, but respects our free will to love or reject Him, in His perfect love for us.
Yes, surprise will come in our Judgment. The saints know they're sinners and the sinners often think themselves saints. The latter will have their deceptions stripped--the former, going to Him in hope of His mercy, while knowing their complete unworthiness, will be granted personally that which is "strange to angels and to the minds of men"--His perfect mercy.
On the timing aspect, we must note that there's a foretaste of the End, which comes with being with Christ (or not) at death. This is "today." Further, there's the level to which we can participate in theosis, the deification which is union with God, here in this life. Also "today." Then there's it's fulfillment, perfectly--at the End, the Eschaton. That's not yet come, and is quite different, being fully completed and shown forth to all without possibility of denial or misunderstanding, and only God knows the day and hour.
You're right--we die in this body, are separated from it, and go to God--but as yet incomplete. Then the End, at which our bodies are raised incorruptible (see 1 Cor 15), as was the Body of Christ after His Resurrection, the plant for which this body is a mere seed, that, in our corrupt condition, must first go into the earth and die--as Christ prophesied about His Own Body, that It may germinate and spread to all of us (Jn 12:23-26).
You're right in saying Eternity will transcend time--but not only in the perfect intensity of Heaven in which we will care nothing about time; even more so because time is a limited creation God made and ordained for the right order of this present world, superfluous--or rather, incompatible--with Eternity and transcendent Perfection. When Jesus speaks of Heaven, this intense transcendence of time is not, as you claim "our present eternal, intense, real experiences," but so far surpassing this mere type, by nature in a condition without time, that we cannot begin to truly comprehend it yet.
And now you're describing Heaven in terms of string theory dimensions. Wow, really? You're that quick to condescend to the mind that cannot think in spiritual terms? How...worldly. And more than that, using inventions of man as explanations of the Realm of God. I thought you said we couldn't build a utopia ourselves--if you believe that, why do you think we can figure out GOD'S Kingdom with mere fallen, earthly science? How dare you describe the kingdom of heaven in terms of man's vain theorizing and philosophizing? How dare you condescend it to that? Forgive me, but we cannot think in such terms. We need to look to His revelations to us, and conform all and understand all of this world and life to that, not to reach up with understandings of this world and try to "figure out" Heaven from them, which is obviously what you've been doing the whole chapter, even in your exegesis of Scripture. God forgive us (for I am certainly not exempt from it) for using our vain minds so unnaturally, to distort Thy revelations to us!
Summarization: while you say you don't believe in a mere continuation of this Earth as Heaven, you surely use only earthly, worldly images to paint us such a dissatisfying "heaven" that it's remarkable you cannot see it the mere "perfection" of worldly comforts which you have fantasized about here as such. Heaven, in reality, is so far beyond this and so opposed to the world, as Christ explained in His statements about the world's hatred of Him and His people (not only by murdering and slandering and all the like, but in every turning to earthliness and mammon instead of Him), that we cannot talk about it except apaphatically, as what is isn't like, or we will fall into error, wrongly trying to figure out and state what it really is in essence, a complete impossibility for us fallen ones.
I am left spent and dissatisfied after writing this--it will be tiring to finish the book, but as I was asked to and began to do so, I should now finish. Don't expect it all at once, though.
Until next time, with love in Christ,
Teopile/Theophilos Porter
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.