Zone1 Heaven VS Hell! Where does that leave us?

[The Irish Ram]

If Jesus floated, it means he wasn't bound by gravity. Natural vs. Spiritual. Your entire premise is wrong right out of the gate. Spiritual is not the same as natural.

 

[Michigan Swampbuck]

If Jesus floated, it means he wasn't bound by gravity. Natural vs. Spiritual. Your entire premise is wrong right out of the gate. Spiritual is not the same as natural.

Sure. Thanks. You're absolutely correct, I'm wrong from day one and you are entirely right. I guess I don't have to make any more comments as you got that covered.

Boy is that ever a load off my mind to know how wrong I am, and you're not even my old lady.

Well, glad to know you, have a nice day

 

[The Irish Ram]

Sure. Thanks. You're absolutely correct, I'm wrong from day one and you are entirely right. I guess I don't have to make any more comments as you got that covered.

Boy is that ever a load off my mind to know how wrong I am, and you're not even my old lady.

Well, glad to know you, have a nice day

Good. Glad we got that settled!

 

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I am making a comment . . .
If God and the heaven world are perfect and the opposite of our mortal existence, it sure makes life on Earth look like a living hell to me. With no real proof of life after death or the existence of an eternal soul, we are just meat-puppets if looked at from a materialistic perspective.

Suppose for a moment that God never allowed such a curse as mortal existence to befall his beloved children. What if suffering is not necessary to grow, learn, and evolve spiritually? If either of these are valid possibilities then how could I possibly see my suffering as loving and benevolent? It sounds like a controlling, sadistic, and abusive relationship. Then we have the Eucharist, the cannibalistic consumption of Christ's flesh and blood, and his crucifixion with the whipping and all. Man that is some evil fetish that is supposed to get me into heaven.

 

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Well, it appears that I have played out this subject on the US Message Board. My thanks to all those members who contributed regardless of their stand on this.

I'll be back to the drawing board and continuing my project. For those who may come back to this thread, I leave you with the following, not so much as an explanation, but to leave you to ponder my real motivation.

In the last decade, the horror genre has experienced a renaissance. Horror films have seen a huge increase in critical acclaim, increased critical engagement in analysis of the genre, and an increase in available budgets for horror films and box office returns.

One of the most noticeable trends within the genre in the 2010s has been an increasing divide in the stylistic approach to the genre. On one hand, we have more mainstream, “jump scare” horror films, on the other, there are horror movies that take an art-house approach to the genre. The mainstream type leans into the conventional, established approach to scaring the audience, while the more art-house horror films focus more on the metaphorical or psychological, looking to disorient its audience and create a sense of dread or unease instead of straightforward scares.

LINK