The Gospel Truth

Nude Beaches in Heaven? PART I

November 30, 2011
8 Comments

Now that I have gotten your attention.

I will get to the beaches later on.

What I really want to write about is different concepts of Heaven–real and only imagined.

I am at the age that every waiting room I sit in makes me think that this could be God’s Waiting Room.

I believe that throughout history most people have believed in a God.

And with that necessarily follows certain questions of eschatology…that is the meaning of life and the advent of an afterlife.

Socrates did and he believed in an afterlife as well.

History is riven with acts of the utmost cruelty and brutality.

It is also  replete with countless acts of acts of nobility and charity that underscore the duality of man.

This by necessity raises the question of reward and punishment and our understanding of Heaven and Hell.

I think most people have similar ideas on the latter but it is Heaven and what must go on there that fascinates, intrigues and maybe just fills us with a great sense of anticipation and maybe even fear.

The major drawback is that you have to die to get there.

Since no one, except Jesus has ever experienced Heaven, and then come to earth, what we really know about it is at best sketchy.

There is something Christians call the Beatific Vision — a face to face encounter with God that promises to be so overpowering the human imagination just can’t image it.

This encounter is supposed to fill us with an over-powering sense of joy that St. Paul said in Corinthians 2:9, is so spectacular that no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has the heart of man conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him.

This is really saying something special since there are so many natural wonders and beauties in this life that anything  much greater would literally blow our human minds.

As a man I find all the natural wonders–from the curvaceous shape of a beautiful woman  on the beach to the rolling hills of Virginia and the sandy beaches of Maui so uplifting that I have trouble imagining anything much more emotionally satisfying.

In the Book of Revelation, the most incomprehensible and most misunderstood book in the Bible, St. John writes of celestial choirs and a great deal of heavenly pomp and circumstance that doesn’t really seem all that appealing to the average person.

Image Detail

A God of Love more than a God of Majesty?

The God that we have been taught to love is all-knowing, and more importantly all-loving.

Loving is giving of Himself and I would think as the Divine host he would focus a little more on His guests.

He could give us the grand tour as a proud and generous Host would do in earthly life.

And lets face it we would be His eternal guests since we did literally nothing to earn or warrant His beneficence.

I think He would take us around and introduce us to some of the most famous guests that have shared His love.

Then there would be reunions with friends and families and the meeting new people.

I would love to sit around the campfire or at a sidewalk Bistro and talk history with some of our former presidents and generals.

I would love to meet Bishop Fulton J. Sheen and pick is enormous brain.

I would also love to know who really killed the Kennedys, maybe Marilyn and Princess Di and if FDR  knew about the Japanese sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.

File:Clint Hill on the limousine.jpg

We haven’t heard the last yet!

I will be truly saddened if my father were not there.

He never joined the Catholic Church and quite frankly though he respected my mother’s faith, he never made any outward allegiance to any religion.

But I have to think and hope that my mother’s 15 years as an Alzheimer’s victim was applied to whatever debt he may have owed.

If Heaven is supposed to be a perfect happiness and fulfillment of our earthly lives, if some of my closest relatives and friends are not there, what will that do to my happiness?

I think that and God’s infinite mercy are the two best arguments for a quasi universal salvation.

Another writer on Heaven recently said that we would get to meet the saints.

That is a scary proposition because so many led what seemed like impeccable lives that I would have tremendous feelings of inferiority around them.

I mean what do you say to people who loved God so much that they were devoured by wild animals.

File:Dirce.jpg

A tough act to follow

St. Thomas Aquinas would be someone to spend a day with but my knowledge of Thomistic philosophy is limited but he did have a clear way of explaining things.

I would like to meet someone after my own heart–St. Thomas More, who loved God as much as anyone but was reluctant to stick out his neck–until King Henry backed him into his fatal encounter with his executioner.

His way was the only way I could have done what our martyrs have done.

I never volunteer for anything but when push comes to shove…

I would have shot my mouth off to the king and then it would have been too late.

St. Augustine is another story.

His Manichean background and the sexual sins of his early years soured him on anything to do with the human body and its sexuality.

And while he renounced this heresy, its views had already permeated his approach to sex, sin and the human body.

Sex was dirty and our bodies unclean.

He was plagued by this wretched sin of lust most of his life.

It affected the Church’s teaching on marriage and stained its  sacramental importance.

Lust plagued his life and attitudes

I know John Paul II tried to do a lot to erase that stain with his Theology of the Body but there is still a long way to go.

The confusion attendant to the Biblical account of creation just complicates our understanding of sex, nudity and marriage.

Our first parents, whether it was an allegory or an actual fact, were created in their natural state.

Since they had complementary sexual organs, it is not much of a stretch to say that they did engage in lots of love-making, just as God had intended.

But I wonder if this was just reproductive sex since child-bearing became one of the negative results of the fall of man.

I  dare not say punishment lest I sound like our esteemed president.

Boston College theologian Peter Kreft believes there will be sex in Heaven for all for whom it was an integral part of their saintly lives on earth.

His ideas on spiritual sex are provocative and engaging.

The Kiss by Rodin   (Permission by Mark Harden; http://www.artchive.com)

Kreft and spiritual sex–see below

How that would work is another of the many mysteries of the afterlife.

There were no clothes necessary because they were in a state of pristine beauty, just as God had intended.

But the serpent on the vine changed things for all eternity.

After they partook of the fruit of good and evil, they realized they were naked and sin entered the world and with it lust.

Image Detail

Paradise Lost

Lust can be defined as the innate desire to use another human being merely for the pleasure of the act or thought.

Most often the subject matter is sex.

As a result because of their shame they covered their loins.

Some theologians say theirs was a sexual sin but I have found nothing to confirm that.

But they must have been naked sometime after that because they had at least two children–Cain and Abel.

And there had to be some daughters too.

That raises the question of incest out of necessity.

Millions of married couples today are comfortable in their spouses’ company and even sometimes, the extended family without the benefits of any clothing.

Have they lost their shame?

Or are they treating their bodies more like God intended?

www.peterkreeft.com/topics/sexinheaven.htm

MAKE CERTAIN TO LOOK FOR NUDE BEACHES II NEXT WEEK

Advertisements

The Stain of Adam

March 22, 2011
1 Comment

I wonder if anyone remembers Flip Wilson?  One of his stock characters was a woman named Geraldine?

She was a woman of easy virtue, who would raise her voice with a shrill pitch, The Devil made me do it! when someone dared to point out her misbehavior.

View Image

Did the devil make him/her do it?

I am surprised that some liberal theologian has not come along and suggested that there probably is a sin gene that does force people to do evil things.

In past years we have seen scientists promote the existence of a gene that causes alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual addiction and so on.

SomA number of scientists tried extremely hard to “discover” a gay gene.

The scientific findings began in 1991 when Dr. Simon LeVay, who was a homosexual himself, while working at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, found subtle differences in the post-mortem brains of heterosexual and homosexual young men.

By 1995 most science had given up trying to find this elusive gene.

Had they been successful, it would have taken away any moral context from their behavior.

Some scientists believe they has located a “god gene,” which would explain why anyone would believe in a Supreme Being and all the superstitions that follow from that belief, whether it be Catholicism, Islam or any other form of religious belief.

View Image

Religious faith in our DNA?

In effect this scientific determinism would be saying that the millions of believers who died rather than betray a faith in God were evolutionarily programmed to hold such irrational views.

All these addictions that dominate our lives started out as “innocuous” habits of sin that because of the chemical or physical high that comes with them.  After so many times the high became part of their wiring and by that time it became too hard to walk away from.

I think this is all a blend of–I won’t say–JUNK SCIENCE–but an agenda-driven pseudo-science, which starts with a conclusion and then tries to adapt the evidence by piecing together dubious, erroneous and even falsified data to “prove” their point.

The multi-billion dollar money drain, better know as “global warming” is a perfect example.

But the main reason behind this modern compulsion to find a scientific determination for every example of personal self-abuse is part of an over all anti-theological effort to destroy any sense of human responsibility.

This is a perfect fit for our entitlement society.

This moral and scientific compulsion to find the determination of individual behavior revolves around the one essential question that strikes at the heart of all human political, moral and economic debates.

And that is: What is the nature of man?

Every dispute about philosophy, history, science and economics can be reduced to a discussion of the nature of man.

The most extreme answers to this question have been provided by John Calvin, with a little help from St. Augustine and French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Focused on man's sinfulness

The former position held that man was by nature an evil being.  At the beginning of time God had had-selected his Elect who would reign with Him for all eternity in Heaven.

Rousseau, Denis Diderot and the Philosophes in pre-revolutionary France said the exact opposite.

Man was basically good.

The evil that existed was all the fault of the evil and corrupting social institutions, like the churches, government and business establishments.

Rejected man's sinfulness

The origins of this thinking of a scientific determinism that believes in the separation of man from his free will had its origins in the philosophical thinking of the latter group.

If there is no free will and things are already determined, then there is no sin.

Man cannot be responsible for anything, unless he disagrees with the liberal power structure.  Then he must be silenced.

Of course this is all hogwash.  Humans will never be separated from their feelings of guilt and there need to confess.

I guess that is part of the public penance our celebrities have to perform; drink, shoot-up, sleep around—get caught–make a tearful confession on Oprah and then go into rehab for forgiveness.

That’s the way the world turns–like a soap opera but with one very important exception–the incessant need to ask for forgiveness, not validation.

Charlie Sheen’s mental and moral breakdown is a perfect example.

Instead of seeking the penance of the Confessional, like his father most likely would have, the younger Sheen gets his own webcast program and tells everyone how great and perfect he is.

Charlie Sheen Talks with Top FOX Execs

Maybe he'll confess on Oprah

And this is coming from a family, whose name was adapted from a famous Catholic bishop.

I submit that there is some truth to this genetic determination.

So why not a generic sin gene?

I know that the modern world denies sin but this gene might be more of an “addiction” gene that explains human behavior by way of a predetermined genetic code.

Of course society would still demand some sort of confession but it would not be with a priest behind a screen but in the public confessional.

I believe that all human beings, save two were conceived in sin—a predisposition to do wrong permeates all of our DNA.

I call this the Stain of Adam.

St. Augustine, who knew better than most because of his sex addiction, while St. Paul talked about being ‘slaves to sin.

They both were until the grace of God intervened; and they did this on their knees, not reclining on a couch.

This is the only position for a fallen mankind

Several things can militate against this predisposition–good parents who will say No to their children, who left to their own devices will turn into little animals if not” trained” in habits of civilization and virtues.

I have a story that I use to illustrate a means to avoid a lot of trouble in one’s life.

I would ask my friends what would you do if you broke your nose in three places?

A puzzled look usually was the first response.

I would tell them I would stay out of such places.

We can avoid a lot of personal grief if we refrain from going to those places or associating with those “friends” that will lead us to exercise our sin gene.


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds