What is Heaven like?

What is heaven like?

Four people bowed their heads in silent meditation for a minute, attempting to envision the impossible. What went through our heads?

This question resulted in several thoughts: the usual stuff like clouds and nature, peace, and light. A few comments noted the idea of complete knowledge. Full consciousness, perhaps, a la Caddyshack and the Dalai Lama?

Some folks thought of their struggles with imagining God to begin with. It was hard for all of us to stay within an "envisioning" task.

My own vision was of a journey- hyper fast and starting over clouds, then amongst the stars. At one point my own perspective stopped and reversed- I seemed to see things from a different perspective- not from my own as I seemed to come out from my own perspective and "see" things from- not just another perspective, but from all perspectives. But, suddenly things started to "break down" as my five human senses ended and I took on a new perspective. At that point I was unable to hold the "vision".

What struck me, however, was not all of our descriptions- it was that very few of us could imagine anything that was truly "heavenly". Most, if not all, were actually frustrated or even negative. What is wrong with us that we can't imagine heaven?

I would like to say that we Americans have reached a state wherein we know what it is like to have extended comfort. We don't go hungry- at least not those in my Sunday School. We are rarely cold or too hot. Our lives are not in danger. I wonder if it was easier for past groups of humans to imagine heaven because life was so thoroughly infused with suffering. I bet if we were all living in an Islamic State prison we'd probably have a very clear picture of what heaven was: anywhere but there.

On the other hand, we are humans. All humans must inherently have an issue with imagining the spiritual world, since we so rarely are- if ever- able to experience it. Our physical senses overpower us and leave us blind to the reality of "the spiritual"- hinted about in the Bible and ever-present all-around us, but unable to be "scientifically" proven. How do you test something if the only tools available to you to test things can't test outside of their nature?

And maybe, like many things, its a little bit of both. Rich people, it goes, have a harder time getting into heaven ("Eye of the Needle"). The beatitudes seem to hint at Heaven being reversed from what is important on Earth:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 

But, of course, we cannot imagine for a moment what something that is beyond us must be like. And so we rely on metaphor. Peaceful looking father figures with white beards. Clouds. Angels with wings. Light. Heavenly mansions. Pearly gates. A banquet.

I'd like to think I'll someday know what all of this is for. What the purpose of it all is. And maybe it will be so powerful and amazing that it will be Heaven- and it will be beyond all current imagination. Hope in that keeps me going. It is, as someone said, all we have.

The Akashic Field: Part I

In the coming weeks I will attempt to explain parts of a book called Science and the Akashic Field (http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html). This book explores an "integral theory of everything", or- as Einstein liked to call it: "reading the mind of God." The book is a fascinating look at some cutting-edge science attempting to tie cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, consciousness, and all other science disciplines together. It is written by Ervin Laszlo, (http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/bios/ervin-laszlo.asp).

What is a "theory of everything" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything)? Simply put, physicists have long dreamed of coming up with a mathematical equation that would be able to explain all observable phenomena. Einstein attempted to do so (unified field theory), but lately- especially in light of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)- scientists have turned to conceptual schemes instead of mathematical equations to help explain "everything".

For awhile now many people, and increasingly scientists, have felt that the universe was connected somehow- that it isn't all just a bunch of random encounters with lots of "empty" space in between matter. With the curious and "weird" phenomena that is quantum activity coupled with the puzzling discovery that matter (detectable, observable entities) only makes up 4% of the Universe- scientists have slowly been coming around to the realization that our perception of reality is massively skewed by our lack of perception of the true nature of the Universe.

Or, in layman's terms: we can only "see" 4% of what's out there- so any conclusions we attempt to make about the ENTIRE universe are apt to be incomplete and most likely totally wrong; in addition- quantum mechanics: or the explanation of physical reality at the smallest level- is "weird": i.e. it seems to violate Newton's Principles on how matter behaves.

The weirdest, most unexplainable phenomenon: the smallest facet of physical reality: the quanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta)- basically a "packet" of energy that is unlike any form of energy that we know of (it is both a "corpuscle and a wave", is not material- but can have the properties of mass, gravitation, and inertia)- when one property of a quanta is measured, the other properties become unavailable to measurement and observation. In other words, each quanta has the potential to take on different properties, but once they are interacted with- they take on a specific characteristic, a reality- and all other potential positions are unavailable. Another weird quality: there is no way to predict which property the quanta will take.

Laszlo points out that many scientists do not mess with the "why", but only stick to finding out the "how" of things. He explains in the beginning that "why" and "purpose" questions seem to some to stray too close to putting human perception and subjectivity on science. However, Laszlo makes the case that science should be concerned with "why"- that ultimately "why" may matter more and help explain the "how" better than just attempting to explain the "how".

As Laszlo explains in the first section- "why" really matters because no-one wants to believe that this universe came about simply by chance, that nothing we do will amount to anything in the long-run, and that the universe will end in destruction. "Purpose" drives humans and if the Universe is purposeless, then it begs the question of why even have humans in the first place (or, for that matter- anything)?

His answer: that cutting edge discoveries in physics, biology, cosmology, and consciousness all point to an existence that is not accidental, that the universe is an informed and meaningful universe, and that a unifed conceptual scheme can tie all phenomena in the world together: Einstein's elusive integral theory of everything.

As we get further into the book we will discover new ways of looking at the Universe, some that will look very familiar to religious folk (while at the same time looking unfamiliar to athiestic scientists), and others that will tease us into looking at the Universe in a wholly different light. If God is indeed more complex than we can understand and a literal interpretation of the Bible would have us believe- then these concepts could indeed be a glimpse of the awesomeness of His creation and maybe even a hint of the essense of God Himself.

What is the purpose of church?

I get a lot of polar opposite thoughts on church from acquaintances:

- "Church is man-made and really doesn't do too much for me spiritually"
- "It is wrong to not go to church."

As I'm finding out more and more, reality is usually somewhere in the middle of ideology. Churches are influenced by their parishioners and many a church could seem more earthly than heavenly when filled with the self-righteous, the judgmental, the gossipy, and the cliquish. Having said that, however, learning about heavenly matters is tough on one's own- surely discussing, sharing ideas, contemplating during sermons, and working to help others all have the potential to broaden one's understanding of universal purpose.

As a kid I usually liked to go to church. There was Sunday School- which was like regular school only some of the kids didn't go to my regular school so it was a chance to play with other kids I didn't normally see. There was usually some type of food- especially at potlucks. One Lutheran church I went to had fastnacht- which was a fun and crazy time of food, drink, dancing, skits, singing, and acting. Retreats usually were in the mountains or at lakes and those were definitely fun. Mixed in with all that were lessons on God and the Bible and these things stoked my curiosity of heavenly topics. I slowly started to seek answers to questions we didn't really touch on in school: why are we here?; what is the purpose of life?; how should we live and why?

As I got older Sunday was more of a day to recover from Saturday. I felt uncomfortable going to church alone and even after I got married it seemed more like a families-with-kids kind of place. But, I never really felt any passion about going to church at that point- it seemed more like a social club to me than anything else.

After children came along I started seriously thinking more about church and wanting "to belong". I remembered the good feeling of belonging from when I was a kid and wanted the same for my children. Since joining a few churches now for several years I think there are some obvious positives to going to church:

- it helps one broaden their social contacts. It is spiritually and emotionally healthy to have more contacts than just family and work. Church allows one to meet others that one might not normally meet. Church members may need help at times and this allows beneficial relationships between people that normally might not exist- especially in today's world of the Internet, suburbs, and TV.
- discourse is increased. Lots of books have been written on the importance of discourse in improving understanding. Reading the Bible at home is good, but talking about the Bible with others leads one to hear different ideas and attempt to articulate one's own ideas- many times a prerequisite for deeper understanding.
- Churches usually help others. At the least they help their members when they need help. Usually, though, the membership attempts to help locals in need and even those in other countries. Charity helps others and it helps the people giving it too.

But, does Church always help people, or, conversely, is it required? Would love to hear thoughts on this- because I think I know the answers, but I'm not sure. I have heard horror stories of some churches being more hurtful than helpful and I have thought at times that it would be really hard to understand God if one didn't go to church. Is there only one answer? Is this a false choice?

I do, however, think the key is discourse. If the theorists on complexity are correct and it is difficult for one person- no matter how smart- to come to greater understanding about complex subjects through only self-study- then church is probably more important than I thought. Discourse might actually be required to greater understanding of God. It might not be required to get into Heaven- but maybe it is required to understand the possibilities of what Heaven means.

Throwing Palms and singing hallelujah: if they knew who Jesus was, why did they kill him?

Mark 11 and the chapters around it have always concerned me. Something just didn't seem right. Jesus went from being celebrated to crucified in a very short time. The same people who were calling him the Messiah, laying palms and their cloaks in the road, amazed at his speaking ability- very quickly seemed to do a 180 and insist he be crucified- in the place of a criminal. How did that happen? And what does it mean for us today?

Reading between the lines- obviously he upset the religious leaders of the day. He told them that what you put into your body does not defile you- but what comes out does. He told them that they worshiped tradition more than God. He told them to get their monetary interests out of the synagogue.

Also reading between the lines- the people laying palms on Palm Sunday seemed to be celebrating a political leader- "blessed be the kingdom of David". Not only did he threaten the religious leaders- one would think the Roman leaders would also be concerned with anyone who encouraged the people in terms of Jewish tradition. It must not have taken the religious leaders long to stir up the people against Jesus- but how?

My theory is that they just told the people the truth. That truth was that Jesus wasn't a political leader set to overturn Roman rule. They told the people what Jesus had told the Disciples not to tell anyone: that he was a spiritual Messiah that would save everyone's souls- not a political Messiah that would re-establish a Jewish state. If that was what the people were expecting and the Romans fearing, I would imagine it didn't take too much to convince either group that Jesus was a liability. Once the Romans figured out he was "just" a spiritual Messiah- they tried to get out of the spectacle, but the people insisted they follow through.

What makes my theory chilling to me is that I see many parallels to that time and today. I hear religious leaders quoting scripture with the confidence of the Sadduccees as to what it means. I see Christians and Jews convinced that government policies can bring back the Messiah- either the 2nd coming or the 1st- depending on your view. I see religious folk intimately worried with political issues and relating everything on Earth to religion. And I could just imagine Jesus coming around today and saying the same things to the religious today that he said to his disciples and to the Sadduccees and Pharisees he did long ago: 'You do not know the Lord'.

I have a friend who is convinced he can take scripture and understand how God works at the most fundamental level. I have a sneaking suspicion that, just as Jesus was frustrated with the religious of his day, we are still missing the proverbial big picture.

The Afterlife, the purpose of life, the nature of God, how "grace" works, all that stuff is beyond our capacity to understand- even if we had the textbooks on it all (it would be like giving a 2nd grader a college physics treatise). But- there are some underlying principles that DO matter, and I think those are what we should be concentrating on. Problem is, I'd argue we have not really identified those principles, or had the discourse of what they could be. Prior to that we can't even begin to discuss the why- why those principles are important. Would Jesus come back today and say we are still not getting it?

If the answer is "yes"- then what do we do to correct it? First step would be to assume we don't know what Jesus was getting at and to approach the Gospel like it was the first time we'd ever read it- without any assumptions guiding our understanding of it (no approved translations, no assuming it is the infallible word from God, no assuming that it is to be taken literally, etc.).

Second would be to see if there are any similarities in other religions, codes of law, universal understandings, scientific conclusions, etc. We wouldn't be searching for things like "Love God with all your heart"- which is intrinsically impossible to define, but the underlying principle behind it (be unselfish?). Likewise, the underlying principle of Grace seems to also be unselfishness- and modesty.

After a discourse on the underlying principles which seem to permeate all belief on this planet, we could then get into postulating why they might be important. And at the same time we could try to codify how to execute those principles in daily life.

Just a thought- maybe it is wrong, but if the Sadduccees and Pharisees had it wrong, it makes me wonder why we think we would have it right today- especially with so many claiming they have it "right"- and none seeming to be that similiar. Surely our religion has changed a lot since the Apostle Paul was struck blind on that lonely road. I do have a feeling, however, that it has stagnated some since Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door at Wittenberg.