The desire of Heaven

[Cerise]

Not tonight Josephine...

 

How is this world not manipulated? How are we now free? There is nothing here to suggest that this is any better than whatever alternative you can think of. Is there a difference between "true virtue" and virtuous behavior? Is that difference, if there is any, enough to seriously consider introducing pain upon pain to the masses?

 

I'm not perfect digg, but your god supposedly is. And I could do better then this. So, so much better had I the power to do so. But I don't have the power.

 

What is his excuse?

[mwc]

The only way to create a world free of pain, all at once, would be to make  all the creatures robots.

 

To create a world of persons, with interesting diversity, and intelligence, and free will, it is necessary to allow them to make mistakes for a while.

Not so. The Garden of Eden was perfect and free from pain. The thing you're looking forward to already existed. Did "god" stop "evil" from corrupting this perfect place? No. Your excuse: "To teach us <something>" (it sounds like your particular something is to be "better" people...even though we were perfect, though naive, after all).

 

If "god" wanted diversity all he needed to do was create a diverse group (and he could additionally place them in unique geographical locations). Mistakes have no place in this. If people were created perfectly then a "mistake" would not make them any better (quite the opposite obviously).

 

I don't mean to offend you by quoting scripture.... because I acknowledge that for you, the bible is not authoritative. I'm just trying to offer a basis for my claim that the Bible does not present the caricature of a "loving" but really spiteful God -- a vengeful deity that so reasonably and naturally angers you. The truth is that the concept of God presented by mainstream Christian teachings is indeed a disgrace.

You don't offend me when quoting scripture...when done in proper context. You're backing your argument with your book and I might just use the same to counter you. If I say bible "god" is fake and you use the bible to "prove" he's real then I'm going to have a problem. However, "god" is a vengeful deity. You need to read the OT more.

 

1. The world was engineered to hold a significant population of people, and God is giving that entire population exposure to self-will and sin so that they can get some first-hand experience with the "pleasures of sin" -- which is the main thing the first man lacked.

So the current earth is sort of like college is to some people? To just sort of "party" and get it out of their systems when they're young so that they will be "good" adults? Unfortunately, the bible tells us to stay away from those things...like "sin" so to do it this way is to specifically, and willingly, ignore the rule book.

 

2. The broken world is an ideal place to develop a family of leaders who follow Jesus' example. By that, I mean people who'll do the right thing when there's no earthly advantage in doing so. People who'll say what they think the truth is, regardless of whether it costs them their office or their parsonage or their reputation. People who'll help others, not because it makes them feel better or holier than thou or whatever, but because that other person is a human being too, and therefore as much or more deserving of the benefits of life than we are.  Though most claimants to the title of "Christian" are indeed bogus as Jesus predicted, there is some very precious fruitage of the harsh circumstances; folks who are amazingly kind, loving, humble, and noble. These folks will be the leaders of the future age, as many verses describe it. (And I am confident that nobility in every religious context, regardless of conversion to Christianity in this life, will be of inestimable value in the next age, under the tutelage of the Messiah)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "next age." Is this the 1000 years or the new heaven/earth? If the former then the bible really doesn't say too much as to what happens during this period. If you mean the new heaven/earth then the bible seems to say that "god" is the only authority since everyone (including angels) are servents to "god." So there's no "lessons" to be carried over from this life to the next since knowledge of "bad" and "evil" really has no purpose in a place that is "good" and "perfect."

 

Suppose God made people who were not free, not intelligent enough to see the possibility of trying forbidden paths, which God had not directed. Suppose that every little detail of life had to be spelled out, so that for thousands of years God had to explain every matter, in an effort to persuade people not to do what he disapproved of? Or suppose he simply coerced or physically restrained people into doing "good" things (as defined by God) Would that have been a better scenario? As a parent, there are times when the best thing I can do for my kids is let them plow into a challenge, let them make some mistakes that they seem determined to make.

How is taking a forbidden path equated to "free?" I've explained this before but maybe you didn't see it. You do not need to choose between "good" and "bad" to have free will. This is a fallacy. You can freely choose between two equally "good" choices. In fact, until the "fall" both Adam and Eve had "free will" and managed just fine. Are you saying that the only true excerise of "free will" that they had was to listen to the snake (and eat the fruit) or not? If so then they were simply robots prior to this event and yet "god" seemed quite happy hanging out with them. An infinate number of decisions and challenges can be made via free will and not one of them "has" to involve "good" vs. "evil."

 

Suppose God individually created every baby perfect, so that it was already capable of perfect obedience from its birth. In that scenario, every kid would be on trial so to speak. Suppose God placed the 10 commandments in everyone's living room, on every street corner, in every public building -- divinely carved tables of the law. What would he do to each individual who strayed away, who decided to commit adultery, or became jealous of his neighbor's Lamborgini? Would God have to also take daily personal control of their life? Would he have to send out lightning bolts to kill transgressors? Would people who avoided temptation by becoming fearful zombies be virtuous?

"God" created both Adam and Eve perfectly (from "birth" so to speak). I don't see how this places anyone "on trial" though. If you're perfect, then you're perfect. If "god's" laws are "perfect" then it would be a trivial task (meaning it would be natural) for a "perfect" person to be able to uphold them.

 

You then switch off the "perfect" person scenerio onto a more "forced" adherance perspective. If I am "perfect" because I am "forced" to be then am I truly "perfect?" Is that your point? Then let me counter this with this is *exactly* the problem with the whole jesus salvation thing. If I don't get with the program then I am condemned to hell forever. "God" in your case is actively upholding his laws in your scenerio, which you consider "bad." In the scenerio as written in the bible, however, "god" doesn't do this but punishes everyone with the "lightening bolt" of eternal damnation. One (or many) people getting obviously hit with lightening for breaking "god's" laws, in my mind, is a lot better way of "helping" others get in line than waiting until the game is over and giving no one a chance to "fix" their ways. The bible isn't available, or believed (for whatever reason) by most people on earth (past, present and maybe future with the growth of Islam) so waiting until they're dead and past the point of salvation is a bad way of going about things. If it's that important then "god" should try a little harder to get his point across. To argue that "god" would have to "take control" of someone's daily lives is almost like saying the government controls us since they have laws they want us to obey (although some would argue they control us).

 

Suppose God always  rewarded the better people, and always punished the bad ones? While I believe it's a general truth that "honesty is the best policy", and some sort of natural law favors those who live healthy lifestyles, and treat others honorably, and serve their families or customers ... but  if in every single case, in very predictable fashion, good deeds were met with increased prosperity, and neglectful behavior was immediately punished.... would people then become virtuous -- or would they simply be thus manipulated into conformity to a standard, without any real virtue on their part?

Isn't this what "god" already does? It really just depends on how you see "better." Xians believe that their way of "thinking" is "better." They have some "insight" that escapes everyone else (for whatever reason). "God" rewards them with another, perfect, go around while everyone else (the "bad" ones) are sent away for an eternity of punishment. The "better" belief of "god" is rewarded and the "lesser" belief (or lack thereof) is punished. Virtue is measured according to the same formula due to the wonder of forgiveness. If selflessness was the standard then you'd be onto something. If the bible says you will only go on by being totally selfless then your argument gets better but the "reward" of a perfect next life is enough to negate your point altogether. The "carrot" of salvation removes all posilbility of total selflessness. Personally, I think that a certain amount of "greed" is a great motivator and your religion is proof of that. Xians will do whatever it takes (forsaking family and friends or whatever) to get their hands on that brass ring. Of course I would argue that this level of greed (that harms others in a significant way...ie. at all costs) is so much worse than what xians accuse others of.

 

No matter how I envision the challenges of creating a beautiful world full of intelligent and happy and free and loving folks, the only way I can "honestly" say I can envision a plan working is the one that, as I read the Bible, God says he has adopted. Allow death, and then resurrect. Allow mistakes, and then educate. Allow heartache, and then heal. Allow self-agrandizement, and let them see that the result wasn't as great as they expected.

 

The Bible seems to me to say quite unequivocably that God allowed disobedience, and set up a limited-time, limited-scope experience with disobedience and evil. He seems to have allowed superhuman intelligence to accelerate the downward spiral, and he apparently avoided making it clear to all the world that he had loving children actively at work in the world. "The Lord knows them that are his", we are told -- and everyone else wonders and debates the matter, until he's ready to reveal the first generation of his children.

 

"God" does not educate. "God" just punishes (eternally). This is not a good system. It is lacking in many ways. If you're simply saying that the natural process of trial and error is really "god" then you're reading "god" into places he's not since animals also seem to be going through this learning process (for no reason since they don't have souls and they don't seem to ever get any "better").

 

So "god" allowed imperfection to achieve perfection? This is the only way that the idea of allowing "disobedience," etc. could make sense. The only problem with that is that imperfection simply can never add up to perfection. We were perfect. That's right at the front of your book. There was no reason to ever allow this to change. There's no reason to think that perfection can be imperfect. There's no reason to think that "free will" must consist only of "good" vs. "evil." There's no reason to think that being perfect, then being imperfect, will somehow make us "better" once we are "perfect" again. These concepts do not make sense.

 

It seems increasingly clear to me that what God did was decide he would allow 6000 years to leave human self-will almost completely on its own. He worked almost silently, behind the scenes, in quiet but stately fashion, to accomplish his plans on schedule. (I could share informoation that has recently been discovered about the patterns of history which reveal a divine imprimatur in all that has been allowed to happen. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll show you what I mean).

 

Then, he'll allow 1000 years to explain things to each person, and help them learn the needed lessons without the treachery and deceit of an intelligent opponent ... it'll just be a learning opportunity between each person and the whole network of helpers that God has been preparing.

 

So I think that the promised result, as well as the wise methodology at work to get there, reveals the kind of being we are dealing with here. And there is absolutely no penalty upon you or anyone else for taking a "wait and see" attitude. The mainstream Christian notion that you have to respond, Cerise, right now, before you take a chance of getting erased by some drunk driver tonight on the way home from work ... well, it ought to be laughable, but really it's just downright sick.

Are you sure he worked "behind the scenes?" If you mean he didn't show his face, then that's mostly true. If you want to think that, say, flooding the earth was a quiet and stately thing then we differ on what we think those things mean.

 

Oh, and do share you information. Don't be offended, that if you do, that I won't simply accept it and not try to refute it in any way. I'm open to the whole concept of a god but unless there's some fantastic evidence to back this claim I think I'm going to remain in the skeptic's corner.

 

According to the bible only the people that were beheaded for jesus and the word will be resurrected to play this game (Revelations 20:1-6). They will be priests but it doesn't go into details at all. I guess your speculation is as good as any other.

 

And it ain't in the Bible, either. Not if those who study it and pay attention to it carefully read what it says. Biblical intelligence is growing by leaps and bounds, and I'm happy to say that more and more people are starting to finally wipe the dust of the dark ages off their glasses when they read the Bible.

 

I think all things can be rectified. I think there's a very good explanation for pain.

So you're taking the bible and turning it back into the religion it was at its roots? Good for you. There hasn't been a good mystery religion for some time. When the "mysteries" of the bible are "revealed" to those who have faith and study it properly in the spirit then the "truth" will be made known. That's how I'm seeing your position. Of course, the bible, and mainstream religion, tend to mostly disagree with you. Maybe you should consider some of the Gnostic texts since, the bits I've read of them, tend to have the same slant you seem to be taking.

 

mwc

[Poonis]

On all three points, I asked 'how do you know...' and you reply that your knowledge is derived from having read about Heaven somewhere: the bible. I don't think I would be far off from assuming you have also heard other christians (fellow christians, clergy, et. al.) stating the same or similar.

 

Previously, I asked if you desired to go to heaven, and in this reply you stated what it is that you desire. To this I ask: Did you first desire Heaven and then read/hear about it, or did you first read/hear about Heaven, then desire it?

103312[/snapback]

 

When I was 16 I became convinced from reading the Bible that God planned to make the world and its people into a paradise. To me, that prospect was fine. I'd be delighted with that. Heaven didn't seem like much of a personal attraction to me. About that time, my best friend died off leukemia. Part of me was angry with God for the unfairness of having a brighter fellow than me die of a disease, while I kept lurching along. Over time, however, I became persuaded, again by reading and talking to other believers, that the only real door of opportunity available right now for someone who wants to make his life count is to take advantage of the "high calling" I read about in the Bible. So when I had "counted the cost", I made a decision to meet the conditions of Romans 12:1,2.

 

That's way too wordy but I'm trying to answer you straight-up. I read, (Ephesians 3:4) and as a result I began to understand the Mystery of God's will for me. But lots of Christians have different approaches to the matter. How we know things, epistemology, is always challenging.

105690[/snapback]

 

You did not desire heaven until you first read about it. What comparison and/or methodology did you use to confirm your desire of heaven that (1) heaven does exist, and (2) it truly is as you read about it?

[diggin]

Not tonight Josephine...

 

How is this world not manipulated?  How are we now free?  There is nothing here to suggest that this is any better than whatever alternative you can think of.  Is there a difference between "true virtue" and virtuous behavior?  Is that difference, if there is any, enough to seriously consider introducing pain upon pain to the masses?

 

I'm not perfect digg, but your god supposedly is.  And I could do better then this.  So, so much better had I the power to do so.  But I don't have the power.

 

What is his excuse?

106540[/snapback]

This world is manipulated.

 

We are not now free. Well, we are like prisoners, who are free to move about our cell, free to think what we choose. On the other hand, we are also limited by our inbred weaknesses and the various diseases which add their own bondages and heartaches.

 

But this is just the first half of our education. The 2nd half will reveal God's righteousness, fairness, and love. As I understand it, that is. But I see lots of cause for hope.

 

You still didn't answer my question though....

[Cerise]

What question? You didn't ask a question, you just said "suppose God didn't do things the way he did them...wouldn't that suck" without really giving a reason why.

[Ouroboros]

The only way to create a world free of pain, all at once, would be to make  all the creatures robots.

 

Wouldn't that mean that in the perfect Heaven, without pain, sorrows or tears, would require everyone to be turned into robots?

To create a world of persons, with interesting diversity, and intelligence, and free will, it is necessary to allow them to make mistakes for a while.

 

Does it mean that Heaven is without free will?

...

 

Suppose God individually created every baby perfect, so that it was already capable of perfect obedience from its birth. In that scenario, every kid would be on trial so to speak. Suppose God placed the 10 commandments in everyone's living room, on every street corner, in every public building -- divinely carved tables of the law. What would he do to each individual who strayed away, who decided to commit adultery, or became jealous of his neighbor's Lamborgini? Would God have to also take daily personal control of their life? Would he have to send out lightning bolts to kill transgressors? Would people who avoided temptation by becoming fearful zombies be virtuous?

 

And this is any different from how the OT is describing God? Killing large numbers of people for one or two persons transgression? Isn't the whole OT an example of a God that tries to scare people into obedience?

...

 

It seems increasingly clear to me that what God did was decide he would allow 6000 years to leave human self-will almost completely on its own. He worked almost silently, behind the scenes, in quiet but stately fashion, to accomplish his plans on schedule. (I could share informoation that has recently been discovered about the patterns of history which reveal a divine imprimatur in all that has been allowed to happen. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll show you what I mean).

 

Which means that God was willing to sacrifice literary billions of people over the 6000 years just to get a small fraction of people in the end times to have the "right" belief.

Then, he'll allow 1000 years to explain things to each person, and help them learn the needed lessons without the treachery and deceit of an intelligent opponent ... it'll just be a learning opportunity between each person and the whole network of helpers that God has been preparing.

 

God will then explain things to the people that didn't suffer or die an innocent's death. During the 6000 years, innocent people died, so a few people can hear the explanation the next 1000 years. Why couldn't God explain it to the people that went to Hell without knowing why or ever knowing what to do to avoid it?

 

You do know how to train dogs? One thing I know about dogs is that you can't teach them sit, lay down or play dead, by actually killing them. You have to use direct encouragement. You give the treats and punishments at the spot, right there, no waiting. You don't collect and gather their sins for the day, and then at night you bring out the cane and start beating them.

 

Actually dog training is a good example of why God is no just and not loving. If I hit my dog with a cane, people will see me as an immoral animal, and cruel and deranged. While God can punish us, hurt us, and torture us for eternity. And people still keeps on claiming that he's good and moral.

 

106533[/snapback]

[Antlerman]

would one still want to be saved if there were no heaven to go to?

A while back, Tap started a thread asking the ExCer's if they would come back to Christianity if there were no Hell and, what else would have to go from the gospels in order for us to come back.

 

Needless to say, she received a bunch of replies to her thread. I started another thread asking Christians if they would still support/believe in the religion if there were no Heaven.

 

I didn't get a single reply.

88395[/snapback]

Wow. That's fascinating. I personally was never that interested in heaven. I was more interested in answers to the here and now. Someone should try that thread again, just for a confirmation of the results...

[diggin]

The only way to create a world free of pain, all at once, would be to make  all the creatures robots.

 

To create a world of persons, with interesting diversity, and intelligence, and free will, it is necessary to allow them to make mistakes for a while.

Not so. The Garden of Eden was perfect and free from pain. The thing you're looking forward to already existed. Did "god" stop "evil" from corrupting this perfect place? No. Your excuse: "To teach us <something>" (it sounds like your particular something is to be "better" people...even though we were perfect, though naive, after all).

 

If "god" wanted diversity all he needed to do was create a diverse group (and he could additionally place them in unique geographical locations). Mistakes have no place in this. If people were created perfectly then a "mistake" would not make them any better (quite the opposite obviously).

 

Only a small spot was perfect, environmentally. The goal is for the entire world to be perfect environmentally.

 

Only 2 people were perfect, as created. But they were inexperienced, naive, immature morally. And they failed a simple test of obedience because they lacked real character or experiential knowledge of God.

 

Mainstream Christianity says that it is mankind's fault that they are as they are.... Arminians say that essentially they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, by believing the message of the "gospel"... the "Good News" that by saying a few words you can escape the prison you made when, years before you were born, you disobeyed God along with Adam.

Calvinism is even worse ... it says that God decided long ago to fry most people in hell forever. And that all the ones he chose to save will praise him forever for that, while they sit in heaven and listen to the anquished cries of the damned.

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that experience is the best teacher, and that we all learn new things about ourselves and about principles of life by coming up against problems we cannot go over or around -- and that sometimes actually kill us.

 

All of that would be a tragedy if it were the end of the matter. But it is not. All the people who have ever lived are explicitly stated in the Bible to be coming back. All in the graves. All in the sea. Etc. Coming back to learn from their past mistakes, and be reconciled to other human beings and to God.

 

 

 

"god" is a vengeful deity. You need to read the OT more. (clipping)

 

So the current earth is sort of like college is to some people? To just sort of "party" and get it out of their systems when they're young so that they will be "good" adults? Unfortunately, the bible tells us to stay away from those things...like "sin" so to do it this way is to specifically, and willingly, ignore the rule book.

 

True, the Bible encourages a moral standard, though it makes it a lot simpler, though a lot harder, than many legalistic traditions. For example, Micah 6:8 lays down 3 principles of conduct: do justly, love mercy, walk humbly. Psalms 15 lays down some fairly simple ethical guidelines. Jesus and Moses distilled it into 2 principles: Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.

 

But no one does any of those things fully, perfectly. Benjamin Franklin tried his 13 virtues for 60+ years and concluded that it was like pushing on a balloon. You can squeeze it down in some places, but then it bubbles back in some others.

 

I agree that true Christian faith results in salvation for the individuals involved; I agree that all people should follow their conscience, their rulebook, which whether informed by Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or Moslem traditions has some basic elements of righteousness or virtue. But everyone is still quite incomplete morally, and needs a large load of both discipline and nurture to become the glorious creation that God has envisioned for each human being. (Psalm 8)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the "next age." Is this the 1000 years or the new heaven/earth? If the former then the bible really doesn't say too much as to what happens during this period. If you mean the new heaven/earth then the bible seems to say that "god" is the only authority since everyone (including angels) are servents to "god." So there's no "lessons" to be carried over from this life to the next since knowledge of "bad" and "evil" really has no purpose in a place that is "good" and "perfect."

 

The 1000 years IS the new heaven/earth. I think the Bible itself authorizes readers to interpret the "burned up" language as a metaphorical change, a change in the rulership and structure of the society upon the earth, not the planet itself. See Zephaniah 3:8,9 as an example. First the whole earth is burned up, then all the people are taught a new "language", and call on the Lord with one consent. Or Ezekiel 16, end of chapter. First Sodom and Israel and other cities come back from the grave, and are restored to their former estate -- and God rebukes them. And then God is reconciled to them and they all live happily ever after.

 

How is taking a forbidden path equated to "free?" I've explained this before but maybe you didn't see it. You do not need to choose between "good" and "bad" to have free will. This is a fallacy. You can freely choose between two equally "good" choices. In fact, until the "fall" both Adam and Eve had "free will" and managed just fine. Are you saying that the only true excerise of "free will" that they had was to listen to the snake (and eat the fruit) or not? If so then they were simply robots prior to this event and yet "god" seemed quite happy hanging out with them. An infinate number of decisions and challenges can be made via free will and not one of them "has" to involve "good" vs. "evil."

 

Agreed, free does not imply choosing evil. But if a free person chooses evil, and God is enforcing standards of morality, the freedom to choose becomes the freedom to die, if "evil" is the choice they make.

 

So God instituted a policy of "dying thou shalt die" -- gradual death for Adam and his children -- so that while in a state of judicial death they can still be conscious and make choices, either from a range of good choices, as you say, or from a range of evil choices. While their characters are indeed damaged by evil choices or enhanced by good choices, everyone is still in the same boat -- a dying creature, not quite ready to live in a universe where good would be the enforced standard.

 

The purpose of the last 1000 "day" of human history is to provide a disciplining and nurturing environment, where, for the first time, people will actually gain experience with seeing the clear, straightforward judgments of God. The time of their past lives was murky, and God "hid himself" as Isaiah puts it. Not so in the Messianic era. The Messiah will make right clearly evident, and wrong clearly exposed, and as you point out, a whole new range of good choices, wonderful options for choice and opportunity, will emerge. Then, evil will be increasingly seen as something to leave behind, and good will become more and more vividly understood and appreciated.

 

And this opportunity is for all people who have ever lived, regardless of their religious tradition during their "first life".

 

 

"God" created both Adam and Eve perfectly (from "birth" so to speak). I don't see how this places anyone "on trial" though. If you're perfect, then you're perfect. If "god's" laws are "perfect" then it would be a trivial task (meaning it would be natural) for a "perfect" person to be able to uphold them.

 

I disagree. Perfection, in this case, simply means the ability to do the right thing. Moral character is a whole different matter. Apparently Satan was perfect, too, and perfect, but he became ambitious and developed a bad attitude from within. This is the essence of moral freedom -- the power to choose to do the wrong or destrutive thing. God chose not to take away this power, and he chooses not to force people into obedience. He wants to inform, educate, motivate, guide, shepherd, lead -- but not force people to do the right thing. He wants to rear them like children. He wants to encourage them to see what is best, and to learn to appreciate other people as valuable and equally deserving of happiness. So he has arranged for people to live their lives in a situation where they can work through self-will without eternally destroying their hope of life. They can use these experiences like the prodigal son -- as a lesson of humility, and then, when they are prepared to return, God will meet them half way, and throw a party.

 

You then switch off the "perfect" person scenerio onto a more "forced" adherance perspective. If I am "perfect" because I am "forced" to be then am I truly "perfect?" Is that your point? Then let me counter this with this is *exactly* the problem with the whole jesus salvation thing. If I don't get with the program then I am condemned to hell forever. "God" in your case is actively upholding his laws in your scenerio, which you consider "bad." In the scenerio as written in the bible, however, "god" doesn't do this but punishes everyone with the "lightening bolt" of eternal damnation. One (or many) people getting obviously hit with lightening for breaking "god's" laws, in my mind, is a lot better way of "helping" others get in line than waiting until the game is over and giving no one a chance to "fix" their ways. The bible isn't available, or believed (for whatever reason) by most people on earth (past, present and maybe future with the growth of Islam) so waiting until they're dead and past the point of salvation is a bad way of going about things. If it's that important then "god" should try a little harder to get his point across. To argue that "god" would have to "take control" of someone's daily lives is almost like saying the government controls us since they have laws they want us to obey (although some would argue they control us).

 

No, I'm not saying all of that.

 

No one was condemned to hell at all, let alone forever. "Hell" is the unseen, the sleep of death. It is not a place of torment, but of silence and lack of consciousness. Souls go to hell, meaning people die and their souls are dead. And they are resurrected out of death. Everyone experiences death, which is first, last, and always what is stated as the consequences of "sin."

 

And both death and hell are thrown into the "lake of fire". That is, all people who were in death come out of it. All people who were in the grave, the state of oblivion (hell) will come out of it. That is how death and hell come to an end, are annihilated -- by bringing all people who have ever lived back to life.

 

 

 

"God" does not educate. "God" just punishes (eternally). This is not a good system.

 

It would not be a good system if you were right. But God does indeed educate. In fact, I submit that ALL punishment by God is intended as educational, not punitive. The final penalty, eternal death without a resurrection, is only reserved for the absolutely incorrigible -- no doubt a comparatively small number of folks.

 

God teaches his children in this age (those who relate to him through faith) -- John 6:45, Hebrews 12:6, Phillippians 2:13

 

God will teach the formerly unbelieving world in the coming age -- Isaiah 26:9, Zephaniah 3:8,9; Isaiah 35, Micah 4:2, Psalm 10:15.

 

There's no reason to think that perfection can be imperfect.

 

Finally we agree on something without qualification. :-)

 

 

According to the bible only the people that were beheaded for jesus and the word will be resurrected to play this game (Revelations 20:1-6). They will be priests but it doesn't go into details at all. I guess your speculation is as good as any other.

 

The priests are there for a reason -- they are mediators between God and man. They are servants, during the Messianic age or Millennium, of the process of redemption for all the rest of the world.

 

Actually, little speculation is needed. Lots of explicit material is given. The amazing thing is that the mainstream concept presented by Christianity has forgotten what to the Jews was the obvious plan of God -- Messiah would come and the whole world would be redeemed and restored. Each camp, Christian and Jewish, has a portion of the good news that they understand -- but seem unable to fathom, at the present time, the other part of God's plan.

 

 

Of course, the bible, and mainstream religion, tend to mostly disagree with you.

 

 

I agree much in the Bible seems to disagree, but I haven't found anything in the Bible I could not harmonize with this concept. I think this is the only perspective, in fact, that CAN harmonize the Bible. As far as mainstream religion, yes, they disagree. But the Bible says mainstream Christianity is going down. (Revelation 18) (but the people in it are still loved by God, too) and lots of great people are involved in Christianity, and have every assurance in the Bible that their faith in Jesus is not in vain, their good deeds, done in sincerity, are not in vain, and God will reward them for all the good they do -- in spite of the damage and misrepresentation of God's true character they may have been involved in. Jesus said that blasphemy of himself and of God can and will be forgiven. And I think most of the anger and upset focused on God and Jesus by today's unbelievers have come from the sins and misguided beliefs of God's supposed "friends".

[mwc]

EDIT: I didn't notice there were so many quotes so the quote thing broke. Sorry.

 

Only a small spot was perfect, environmentally. The goal is for the entire world to be perfect environmentally.

 

Only 2 people were perfect, as created. But they were inexperienced, naive, immature morally. And they failed a simple test of obedience because they lacked real character or experiential knowledge of God.

So you're saying that "god" made only a little section of the world perfect (the garden) fully intending that we'd be banished to the "bad" part? So the plan was for us to fail and the world was created with that in mind?

 

Why would "god" require experience of any kind? The bible says that Adam was put in the garden to take care of it (genesis 2:15). We were gardeners to "god." Nothing more (at least that requires experience much less moral experience). Also, being created perfectly in "god's" image should have been enough to make us morally perfect as well. If you're saying that it wasn't enough for us to be (morally) perfect but to know why we were (morally) perfect then I think you're reading into the story.

 

Mainstream Christianity says that it is mankind's fault that they are as they are.... Arminians say that essentially they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps' date=' by believing the message of the "gospel"... the "Good News" that by saying a few words you can escape the prison you made when, years before you were born, you disobeyed God along with Adam.

Calvinism is even worse ... it says that God decided long ago to fry most people in hell forever. And that all the ones he chose to save will praise him forever for that, while they sit in heaven and listen to the anquished cries of the damned.

[/quote']

"Mainstream Christianity" is so vague. What would you consider to be the "right" version of xianty? It might be a sect (with some name) or some personal thing (you don't do church and go it alone or maybe a small group or something) but it would help to know what you think is "right" and also what "mainstream" means to you.

 

Also, if you really think about it the Calvinists aren't too far off base. If "god" knew everything from an eternity before the creation then he knew who would go to hell even before he started work (and hell existing is evidence of this). There was a master plan he is following and not "making it up" on the fly since he knows all things before they happen. So the epistles speak of the elect and give this argument weight. Who's right? Who knows? (For me? Who cares, but I'll talk about it anyway...maybe I'll change my mind).

 

What I'm saying is that experience is the best teacher' date=' and that we all learn new things about ourselves and about principles of life by coming up against problems we cannot go over or around -- and that sometimes actually kill us.

 

All of that would be a tragedy if it were the end of the matter. But it is not. All the people who have ever lived are explicitly stated in the Bible to be coming back. All in the graves. All in the sea. Etc. Coming back to learn from their past mistakes, and be reconciled to other human beings and to God.

[/quote']

This sounds good but once we're placed under the law in the next life and our will aligns perfectly with "god's" then all this is mute. There is no further chance for growth and what was experienced will be irrelivant if things truly are perfect in all aspects. Knowing what it was like to be "bad" serves no purpose if I can only be "good." If the next life is essentially the same as this one, only with "god" around and eternal, but with the possibility of "sinning" then this next life is just as precarious as this one. If "sin" is reintroduced in the next life then we're back in the mess we're in now. If "sin" cannot be reintroduced no matter what then knowledge of "sin" serves no purpose.

 

True' date=' the Bible encourages a moral standard, though it makes it a lot simpler, though a lot harder, than many legalistic traditions. For example, Micah 6:8 lays down 3 principles of conduct: do justly, love mercy, walk humbly. Psalms 15 lays down some fairly simple ethical guidelines. Jesus and Moses distilled it into 2 principles: Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.

 

But no one does any of those things fully, perfectly. Benjamin Franklin tried his 13 virtues for 60+ years and concluded that it was like pushing on a balloon. You can squeeze it down in some places, but then it bubbles back in some others.

 

I agree that true Christian faith results in salvation for the individuals involved; I agree that all people should follow their conscience, their rulebook, which whether informed by Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or Moslem traditions has some basic elements of righteousness or virtue. But everyone is still quite incomplete morally, and needs a large load of both discipline and nurture to become the glorious creation that God has envisioned for each human being. (Psalm 8)

[/quote']

So what I was thinking was right. You're not really a "Christian" are you? This isn't an insult or a compliment. Now, based on how you read the gospels (one in particular, although which one isn't coming immediately to mind) you can see a jesus that teaches your beliefs. It's essentially a version of enlightenment. We can become "better" if we want to become better. Change yourself through meditation (prayer) and all that (with the added "belief" in "god" thrown in). Sure, why not? It beats the hell out of the "fire and brimstone" "god" that I'm very familiar with.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the "next age." Is this the 1000 years or the new heaven/earth? If the former then the bible really doesn't say too much as to what happens during this period. If you mean the new heaven/earth then the bible seems to say that "god" is the only authority since everyone (including angels) are servents to "god." So there's no "lessons" to be carried over from this life to the next since knowledge of "bad" and "evil" really has no purpose in a place that is "good" and "perfect."

 

The 1000 years IS the new heaven/earth. I think the Bible itself authorizes readers to interpret the "burned up" language as a metaphorical change' date=' a change in the rulership and structure of the society upon the earth, not the planet itself. See Zephaniah 3:8,9 as an example. First the whole earth is burned up, then all the people are taught a new "language", and call on the Lord with one consent. Or Ezekiel 16, end of chapter. First Sodom and Israel and other cities come back from the grave, and are restored to their former estate -- and God rebukes them. And then God is reconciled to them and they all live happily ever after.

[/quote']

Ahhh...I think I see what you're saying. Interesting. Sort of a purification ritual for the heavens/earth (no new creation). So let me see if I get this straight. So we segway from this current state into the tribulation into the 1000 years, at the beginning (end?) of which the purification happens and then into eternity. Am I seeing things essentially the way you do here? Without looking at the text myself, I rather like this reading of the whole thing. I still have quite a few "issues" with the revelation but this view smooths some wrinkles.

 

Agreed' date=' free does not imply choosing evil. But if a free person chooses evil, and God is enforcing standards of morality, the freedom to choose becomes the freedom to die, if "evil" is the choice they make.

 

So God instituted a policy of "dying thou shalt die" -- gradual death for Adam and his children -- so that while in a state of judicial death they can still be conscious and make choices, either from a range of good choices, as you say, or from a range of evil choices. While their characters are indeed damaged by evil choices or enhanced by good choices, everyone is still in the same boat -- a dying creature, not quite ready to live in a universe where good would be the enforced standard.

[/quote']

However, being created perfectly in "god's" image (which I take to mean emotionally and morally as opposed to physically) then the choice of "evil" becomes impossible because the perfect moral choice is always "good" (in alignment with the perfect moral code of "god"). This becomes a big problem with the entirety of the concept. If "god" created/allowed "evil" and we did not have the perfect moral code to not choose it then "god" created an imperfect being for on reason and that was to fail the test, suffer and, for most, go to hell for an eternity of punishment (I think if "hell" were a "reasonable" place that allowed one to leave once they paid the price and "learned" their lesson that more people would have less problems with the whole religion but as-is this is an unreasonable construct).

 

Also, once people become perfect then "good" would no longer need enforcement as it would just be the way people are. If it needed enforcement then we're back to the way things are now. The possibility of "sin" or "evil" would not exist in a perfect place. Which was the problem with the garden and the problem for the next life (at least if I understand you correctly).

 

The purpose of the last 1000 "day" of human history is to provide a disciplining and nurturing environment' date=' where, for the first time, people will actually gain experience with seeing the clear, straightforward judgments of God. The time of their past lives was murky, and God "hid himself" as Isaiah puts it. Not so in the Messianic era. The Messiah will make right clearly evident, and wrong clearly exposed, and as you point out, a whole new range of good choices, wonderful options for choice and opportunity, will emerge. Then, evil will be increasingly seen as something to leave behind, and good will become more and more vividly understood and appreciated.

 

And this opportunity is for all people who have ever lived, regardless of their religious tradition during their "first life".

[/quote']

Again, I have to point out that you're reading things that simply aren't written in the bible. This is a much better (healthier?) way of looking at things in my mind but not biblical (unless you are really good at cherry picking verses).

 

Beyond that it then begs the question of why not do it this way to begin with? Why not allow people to simple live long enough to go through this "growth" process? All you're really describing is "life" (ie. birth, youth, middle-age, old-age). We start out young a naive, grow up and make some "bad" choices (then die as spiritual teens), (get resurrected) "learn" from our youthful mistakes and mature and finally reach full moral and spiritual maturity (in our "old-age"). If we fail this then I imagine that those who reach "old-age" and still don't "get it" are the ones who would be punished (sent to hell maybe).

 

I disagree. Perfection' date=' in this case, simply means the ability to do the right thing. Moral character is a whole different matter. Apparently Satan was perfect, too, and perfect, but he became ambitious and developed a bad attitude from within. This is the essence of moral freedom -- the power to choose to do the wrong or destrutive thing. God chose not to take away this power, and he chooses not to force people into obedience. He wants to inform, educate, motivate, guide, shepherd, lead -- but not force people to do the right thing. He wants to rear them like children. He wants to encourage them to see what is best, and to learn to appreciate other people as valuable and equally deserving of happiness. So he has arranged for people to live their lives in a situation where they can work through self-will without eternally destroying their hope of life. They can use these experiences like the prodigal son -- as a lesson of humility, and then, when they are prepared to return, God will meet them half way, and throw a party.

[/quote']

Well, I'm not exactly sure why people have this vision of Satan. It seems to come from mis-reading the verses about Lucifer which is unfortunate. However, according to the Lord's prayer "god's" will is always done in heaver. If Satan really were to choose evil in heaven the it was "god's" will that he do so. There's no other option. Also, not knowing of evil could you even choose it? It's only when a choice is known to someone does it become an option. To even have the slightest ability to become ambitious Satan would have had to have been exposed to ambition. If he was the tempter for Eve, so that she would be "tricked" into the wrong choice, then what was the catalyst for such action on the part of Satan? Unlike the story of Eve, who had the serpent to aid her, I am to believe that "evil" appeared spontaneously for Satan in the ultimate realm of "good?" I am also to believe that "god" respects free will so much that he would not put down the rebellion and, in fact, allow it to corrupt all his perfect creation just so we could "grow" as individuals (something that could have simply been instilled in us)? This does not work logically.

 

No' date=' I'm not saying all of that.

 

No one was condemned to hell at all, let alone forever. "Hell" is the unseen, the sleep of death. It is not a place of torment, but of silence and lack of consciousness. Souls go to hell, meaning people die and their souls are dead. And they are resurrected out of death. Everyone experiences death, which is first, last, and always what is stated as the consequences of "sin."

 

And both death and hell are thrown into the "lake of fire". That is, all people who were in death come out of it. All people who were in the grave, the state of oblivion (hell) will come out of it. That is how death and hell come to an end, are annihilated -- by bringing all people who have ever lived back to life.

[/quote']

Okay, so in your view (which I'm coming to see as Universalist) it's either heaven (a next life of some sort) or oblivion and not pain and suffering? It also seems that everyone gets a shot and makes it in so oblivion is really too strong a word. It would appear that your view of hell (which is death) is just a state of suspended animation. What about the references to "gnashing of teeth" and all the other colorful descriptions of hell? I know death is equated to sleep but hell is presented as something different altogether.

 

It would not be a good system if you were right. But God does indeed educate. In fact' date=' I submit that ALL punishment by God is intended as educational, not punitive. The final penalty, eternal death without a resurrection, is only reserved for the absolutely incorrigible -- no doubt a comparatively small number of folks.

 

God teaches his children in this age (those who relate to him through faith) -- John 6:45, Hebrews 12:6, Phillippians 2:13

 

God will teach the formerly unbelieving world in the coming age -- Isaiah 26:9, Zephaniah 3:8,9; Isaiah 35, Micah 4:2, Psalm 10:15.

[/quote']

This seems to sound like the (based on the small amount I know of) Jewish view of things. Of course this totally negates any need at all to "believe" or have "faith" in any way shape or form in "god" or jesus (or the bible or anything else for that matter). This life loses it's urgency (in a religious way) and if I decide to simply screw around and waste it (on sex, drugs and rock and rock) then it doesn't matter since I'll come back and start my schooling then. So why be a xian at all? Why be anything at all? Why not just toss all that and enjoy the ride? Why would "god" make this information known now since we'll all get it, and in its perfect form from a perfect teacher, in round 2? Why cause all the problems that go along with the religion when it doesn't matter until next time?

 

Don't get me wrong. It would be nice if your version of xianity really was the "right" one. It would be more in line with what I think and that is if we're animals/children to "god" then let us play now. Let us be kids. There's an eternity for us to grow up. Unfortunately, this, as I already said, negates any need for a "god" right now. There's no reason to even know of a god much less believe in one and do what he says since we'll get that when we enter school in the next life.

 

 

The priests are there for a reason -- they are mediators between God and man. They are servants' date=' during the Messianic age or Millennium, of the process of redemption for all the rest of the world.

 

Actually, little speculation is needed. Lots of explicit material is given. The amazing thing is that the mainstream concept presented by Christianity has forgotten what to the Jews was the obvious plan of God -- Messiah would come and the whole world would be redeemed and restored. Each camp, Christian and Jewish, has a portion of the good news that they understand -- but seem unable to fathom, at the present time, the other part of God's plan.

[/quote']

I don't care for mysteries especially when they involve me. This particular "view" does not appeal to me. I see no reason any aspect of salvation would be so awkward in its presentation. It also leaves out everyone else. This view of things says only Jews/Christians are in on the secret and everyone else (ie. Muslims, Budhists, etc.) is out in the cold (until the convert or are converted in the next life). Again, this begs the question of why have any religion at all if a mass conversion (of sorts) happens upon resurrection? I guess it helps with the manufacture of future priests but that's a whole lot of effort for that to occur. So wouldn't this mean that converting Jews to xians (as jesus seemed to want) would be pointless just to convert them back again? Considering the Messiah is to convert everyone to Judaism it seems a bit odd that anything xian will come along for the ride.

 

I agree much in the Bible seems to disagree' date=' but I haven't found anything in the Bible I could not harmonize with this concept. I think this is the only perspective, in fact, that CAN harmonize the Bible. As far as mainstream religion, yes, they disagree. But the Bible says mainstream Christianity is going down. (Revelation 18) (but the people in it are still loved by God, too) and lots of great people are involved in Christianity, and have every assurance in the Bible that their faith in Jesus is not in vain, their good deeds, done in sincerity, are not in vain, and God will reward them for all the good they do -- in spite of the damage and misrepresentation of God's true character they may have been involved in. Jesus said that blasphemy of himself and of God can and will be forgiven. And I think most of the anger and upset focused on God and Jesus by today's unbelievers have come from the sins and misguided beliefs of God's supposed "friends".

[/quote']

I agree that the bible is not harmonious. It does claim to be and tries to enforce a literal reading of itself. The problem is that this is impossible. A true literal reading will show many problems that cannot be resolved. Your reading does this, in a way, but fails in others. Again, if I had it to do all over again (with this knowledge) there's a good chance that I would take your route. Don't get your hopes up since there's just so many problems with the whole thing that I won't be coming back (at least in this life...but according to you that doesn't matter anyway). I guess since you believe now you'll be getting more treasures and all but I guess I can live with that. If I can't I guess I'll start an uprising and take it from you.

 

mwc

[diggin]

On all three points, I asked 'how do you know...' and you reply that your knowledge is derived from having read about Heaven somewhere: the bible. I don't think I would be far off from assuming you have also heard other christians (fellow christians, clergy, et. al.) stating the same or similar.

 

Previously, I asked if you desired to go to heaven, and in this reply you stated what it is that you desire. To this I ask: Did you first desire Heaven and then read/hear about it, or did you first read/hear about Heaven, then desire it?

103312[/snapback]

 

When I was 16 I became convinced from reading the Bible that God planned to make the world and its people into a paradise. To me, that prospect was fine. I'd be delighted with that. Heaven didn't seem like much of a personal attraction to me. About that time, my best friend died off leukemia. Part of me was angry with God for the unfairness of having a brighter fellow than me die of a disease, while I kept lurching along. Over time, however, I became persuaded, again by reading and talking to other believers, that the only real door of opportunity available right now for someone who wants to make his life count is to take advantage of the "high calling" I read about in the Bible. So when I had "counted the cost", I made a decision to meet the conditions of Romans 12:1,2.

 

That's way too wordy but I'm trying to answer you straight-up. I read, (Ephesians 3:4) and as a result I began to understand the Mystery of God's will for me. But lots of Christians have different approaches to the matter. How we know things, epistemology, is always challenging.

105690[/snapback]

 

You did not desire heaven until you first read about it. What comparison and/or methodology did you use to confirm your desire of heaven that (1) heaven does exist, and (2) it truly is as you read about it?

 

I think in my case the most motivating thing is the idea of helping people in the future to work through their mental struggles on the way toward peace and harmony with God and their fellow men. I have never really been motivated by the desire for heaven, except for the idea of meeting and conversing directly with God.

 

But the thing that makes God appealing and impressive to me is his love for the meek of the earth, and even for the arrogant. That fairness and patience is extremely appealing.

 

As for the issue of epistemology, I consider the Bible to be more than words on a page. I find that it is luminous and living, and reading it is more like having a conversation with a good friend than "reading". It's experiential, and I often get the feeling, as I did when I was being drawn as a teenager, that its message is being confirmed in my own experience as I read and meditate about it.

 

But for me, saying that is not a condemnation of those who have not found it to be a "living word". The Bible is full of promises for all who, such as yourself, remain unpersuaded by it at this time.

 

Bottom line, the desire of heaven is scant motivation for me. What's exciting is being a reconciler, mediator, nurturer.

[Mythra]

But the thing that makes God appealing and impressive to me is his love for the meek of the earth, and even for the arrogant. That fairness and patience is extremely appealing.

 

Huh. You must have a different bible than the one I'm familiar with.

[Skankboy]

Perfection, in this case, simply means the ability to do the right thing.

 

That's an interesting interpretation of "perfect". I wonder how you arrived at it?

 

But the thing that makes God appealing and impressive to me is his love for the meek of the earth, and even for the arrogant. That fairness and patience is extremely appealing.

 

Hmm. Seems to me the million plus children killed in the global flood would have been fairly "meek". Does this kind of genocide seem fair to you?

 

I can see what you are trying to say, the problem is that while you may have a very nice interpretation of christianity, it's just that an interpretation. Subject to all of the bias and preconceptions that goes w/the process. Please don't get me wrong, if it brings you peace, go for it. But be careful you aren't confusing personal truths w/objective reality...

 

IMOHO,

[Eponymic]

I think in my case the most motivating thing is the idea of helping people in the future to work through their mental struggles on the way toward peace and harmony with God and their fellow men. I have never really been motivated by the desire for heaven, except for the idea of meeting and conversing directly with God.

 

But the thing that makes God appealing and impressive to me is his love for the meek of the earth, and even for the arrogant. That fairness and patience is extremely appealing.

 

I certainly appreciate your desire to help others, though it always befuddles me how Christians like to seperate out the fact that the cause for the greatest destructive forces in history has been courtesy of the Biblical God.

 

Not much fairness or patience when it comes to murdering first born children (just one of the ample examples available).

 

As for the issue of epistemology, I consider the Bible to be more than words on a page. I find that it is luminous and living, and reading it is more like having a conversation with a good friend than "reading". It's experiential, and I often get the feeling, as I did when I was being drawn as a teenager, that its message is being confirmed in my own experience as I read and meditate about it.

 

You must be highly experienced at selective listening then.

 

But for me, saying that is not a condemnation of those who have not found it to be a "living word". The Bible is full of promises for all who, such as yourself, remain unpersuaded by it at this time.

 

Bottom line, the desire of heaven is scant motivation for me. What's exciting is being a reconciler, mediator, nurturer.

 

Again, I appreciate the desire to do good. I just wish you could take off the rose colored glasses and see that the Bible isn't all daffodils & rainbows.

[Poonis]

On all three points, I asked 'how do you know...' and you reply that your knowledge is derived from having read about Heaven somewhere: the bible. I don't think I would be far off from assuming you have also heard other christians (fellow christians, clergy, et. al.) stating the same or similar.

 

Previously, I asked if you desired to go to heaven, and in this reply you stated what it is that you desire. To this I ask: Did you first desire Heaven and then read/hear about it, or did you first read/hear about Heaven, then desire it?

103312[/snapback]

 

When I was 16 I became convinced from reading the Bible that God planned to make the world and its people into a paradise. To me, that prospect was fine. I'd be delighted with that. Heaven didn't seem like much of a personal attraction to me. About that time, my best friend died off leukemia. Part of me was angry with God for the unfairness of having a brighter fellow than me die of a disease, while I kept lurching along. Over time, however, I became persuaded, again by reading and talking to other believers, that the only real door of opportunity available right now for someone who wants to make his life count is to take advantage of the "high calling" I read about in the Bible. So when I had "counted the cost", I made a decision to meet the conditions of Romans 12:1,2.

 

That's way too wordy but I'm trying to answer you straight-up. I read, (Ephesians 3:4) and as a result I began to understand the Mystery of God's will for me. But lots of Christians have different approaches to the matter. How we know things, epistemology, is always challenging.

105690[/snapback]

 

You did not desire heaven until you first read about it. What comparison and/or methodology did you use to confirm your desire of heaven that (1) heaven does exist, and (2) it truly is as you read about it?

 

I think in my case the most motivating thing is the idea of helping people in the future to work through their mental struggles on the way toward peace and harmony with God and their fellow men. I have never really been motivated by the desire for heaven, except for the idea of meeting and conversing directly with God.

 

But the thing that makes God appealing and impressive to me is his love for the meek of the earth, and even for the arrogant. That fairness and patience is extremely appealing.

 

As for the issue of epistemology, I consider the Bible to be more than words on a page. I find that it is luminous and living, and reading it is more like having a conversation with a good friend than "reading". It's experiential, and I often get the feeling, as I did when I was being drawn as a teenager, that its message is being confirmed in my own experience as I read and meditate about it.

 

But for me, saying that is not a condemnation of those who have not found it to be a "living word". The Bible is full of promises for all who, such as yourself, remain unpersuaded by it at this time.

 

Bottom line, the desire of heaven is scant motivation for me. What's exciting is being a reconciler, mediator, nurturer.

 

 

Your reply detracts and alters the necessity of the post ("The desire of Heaven"). Specifically, I am trying to understand why it is you desire to go to Heaven when you die, and how you know this is a true concept. You have negated my questioning by replying that you have "never really been motivated by the desire for heaven...". Minimalizing my question or trying to steer it into another aspect regarding what you want to be ("What's exciting is being a reconciler, mediator, nuturer"), does nothing for answering how you know Heaven exists.

 

If you choose not to answer the post, or are unable to do so, then leave it at that. I do not, however, like being led along as if you know the answer to the questions I asked.

 

Concerns regarding what you want to be, or that you want to be with god, or the like, are all for a different post and are unrelated to this one.