How Many Christians Believe that Heaven is REALLY Real?

[emilynghiem]

It's amazing that grown humans could believe something that's just so obviously made up. Maybe the human race already peaked and now we're devolving back to cavemen?

Hi MrMax (and Huggy)
Just because religions or laws are made by man,
doesn't mean they don't reflect something real, flaws and all, about TRUE universal laws and relations.

Math is a language made by man, but it reflects relations between values
that "we didn't make up." We make mistakes all the time in math, but it doesn't mean the system is false.

We didn't make up the laws of science,
though our written language for this is clearly manmade
and, like religions, falls short of capturing all the truth out there consistently
we can never fully represent anyway.

We didn't make up natural laws on which the structure
and spirit of our civil laws were based, that were conceived and written by man.

Mr Max, what fascinates me about all the "manmade" religions and laws in the world,
is they follow the same basic patterns, of having some core "trinity"
that represent the same three levels of human experience:
* local/individual/physical
* some higher abstract that isn't concrete,
either collective or spiritual level that is faith based because it transcends
our immediate empirical perception and presence
* and some intermediary level joining the two,
usually on the level of relationship, conscience or agreement on laws

All systems I have found have these distinct levels, even secular systems like the Constitutional govt, and even individual people's philosophies in life who claim no religion.
Even psychology (superego, ego, id) has terms for the same "mind/body/spirit" paradigm from Taoism, that when collectively considered for all humanity combined,
becomes what "God/Christ/Holy Spirit" represent as a whole. The representations are biased and relative to different cultures or religions, but the principles behind them are universal
and repeat in every system made by man, since we inevitably understand life through our physical/mental/spiritual or collective experiences.

So you can look at this two ways:
A. either the same human nature or universal laws in the world "inspired" these relative systems, so you can call that inspired by God or Life or Universal Laws/truth we didn't make up but all have some sense of because it shows up in all our perceptions of laws and relationships between us as individual humans/human relations/collective human institutions or society/humanity
B. or as you put it, Christianity and all these other religions including Constitutional laws, are merely "man made attempts" to define our relations with society and the world.
And yes, they are all limited biased and flawed, because humans are finite and cannot contain, perceive or express all the knowledge out there; at most we can represent it in "symbols"
or "general rules" that apply to greater fields.

Either way, if these are purely concocted by man, or inspired by some universal source of laws that apply to all humanity we didn't make up, the point is to USE these systems
to try to COMMUNICATE what we think those laws are, so we can work together in a civilized society, under some common agreement of what the rules are we subscribe to.

manmade or divinely inspired, the point is to use these laws to agree how to manage our relationships with each other, between collective institutions, and globally with larger society or humanity as a whole. It can be religious or secular, but it follows these patterns.

that is what I find so fascinating especially where secular gentiles with a nontheist approach to life share ideas and perspectives with people of religious and personal theistic viewpoints; and the points and principles in common, between these diametrically polarized opposite viewpoints, STILL reflect universal concepts that we all relate to anyway.

Wow.

If Bruce could write down and edit a book on this, I am ready to pay for the first autographed copy. I want to reserve the first place in line to get the very first historic copy!

 

[emilynghiem]

Now you can see why you earned a rep, Jeremiah, and it wasn't for the compliment, per se.
Jim is what we come to expect from believers, and you were able to rise above that and separate your beliefs from an issue that is not connected to them.
That was no small thing.
Jim undermines his credibility with almost every post he makes and brings shame on his faith tradition.
For one moment, you rose above that.
Pretty cool.

Who is "we?"

Hmmm could "we" be a "faith based" reference to 'collective persons' outside
of the present empirical verifiable experience,
ie people Bruce believes exist out there and agree with him
even though this is not yet scientifically proven
and thus relies on faith in his accurate perception and honest intent?

As long as it aligns with what he agrees to be true anyway,
it's okay to make such a leap, because he knows what he is referring to as valid.
But it's not okay when others make such leaps
based on what they believe to be true by their experiences
which we are asked to take on faith?

Only Christian beliefs that are unproven to Bruce
cannot be presented or it's an imperfect argument?

Is this truly objective logically? Or is it biased on whether
we believe the leaps we make MORE than we believe the leaps of others,
yet complain unequally of these leaps of others while excusing our own?

Is it fair to criticize others if we are all prone to make such leaps
because of our different experiences we take for granted as valid assumptions?

 

[RKMBrown]

smiles and thanks RKMB

Perhaps if the Christians on here admitted and demonstrated we do need to do better to
"speak the truth with love" and forgive and love our neighbors as Christ does
(ie unconditionally, with faith that corrections made will be equal between us),

and we DO need to be open to receive rebuke and correction and not reject it,
maybe Bruce and Huggy would not have such a "negative perception" that
Christians "do not follow their own teachings" so it is "all hypocrisy."

If we will not even receive or share corrections among ourselves as the Bible calls for us to seek, of course, Christianity appears nothing more than a huge "cult" or "scam" to rook followers and justify abuses instead of correcting them, claiming to forgive these, while allowing injustice to go unchecked by "blaming the critics" and denying responsibility for our fault in the conflicts, where both accuse the other of ulterior motives instead of correcting the problems being complained of.

Perhaps if more people saw that it actually DOES work to rebuke Christians within the spirit of the laws (not dividing or rejecting in conflict with them), so that these corrections ARE RECEIVED between peers, and it DOES make a difference,
they might be more open to the idea that
the message and laws in the Bible ARE valid and have authority after all.
And just because people are flawed in following or abusing these, doesn't mean they don't work. These laws can be enforced to compel believers to RECEIVE CORRECTION and follow consistently for the sake of truth and justice (and not for religious agenda or control), by NOT using the same "negative rejection, judgment, and coercion" that the critics oppose so much.

Not just with the Scriptural laws, but Constitutional laws can also be used to rebuke and correct problems (instead of playing "control games" to coerce people by attacking each other's groups as the problem). If we could correct political problems by agreeing to enforce common Constitutional principles that all people and parties align on,
this renews faith that we are under the same laws and invoking authority based on that which is common and equal among all people, and not just a tool for one group to use against another.

If we show how the church laws can also be used to correct problems, then there would not be such a loss in faith that these laws DO serve a positive purpose to help people, instead of merely enabling religious abuse to divide conquer and control by group force.

Power, money... all men are human, the churches are not immune. The result being what you see here with some men hating all who love one another because of what some humans did to them while proclaiming their rule over said love. Nutz. Have faith... but verify

Has anyone done that?

I mean, verified there's a heaven.

Besides the little 4yo whose daddy took 7 years to brainwash him into believing his dug-induced hallucinations were actually a visit to heaven.

That's really the crux of this - faith makes it possible for some to believe in spite of not having any real evidence.

To each their own but that doesn't work for me.

Yes, I can most certainly verify that there is a heaven. Want some pics?

Lack of faith makes it possible for some to disbelieve what is staring them in the face.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Power, money... all men are human, the churches are not immune. The result being what you see here with some men hating all who love one another because of what some humans did to them while proclaiming their rule over said love. Nutz. Have faith... but verify

Has anyone done that?

I mean, verified there's a heaven.

Besides the little 4yo whose daddy took 7 years to brainwash him into believing his dug-induced hallucinations were actually a visit to heaven.

That's really the crux of this - faith makes it possible for some to believe in spite of not having any real evidence.

To each their own but that doesn't work for me.

Yes, I can most certainly verify that there is a heaven. Want some pics?

Lack of faith makes it possible for some to disbelieve what is staring them in the face.

He asked for verification.
You confirm you can provide none.

 

[angstandvexed]

Hi hi's^^
I'm not Christian, but I still believe that Heaven exists. I"m just not quite sure how it exists. Different people and groups have differing ideas of what this reward is. It's not really my place to say which group is right and which is wrong. Personally I believe that all of you are right.
*Hugs and Bright Blessings*
angstandvexed

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're right, I can't figure out what that phrase has to do with the subject at hand. Another deflection perhaps?

It proves that the flow of time had to have a point of origin at some point, and whatever it came from is eternal if you go back far enough, 'eternal' meaning that the source for time is outside the flow of time itself.

Did that help, or do I need to burp you now too?

Sure.

But I still fail to see what it has to do with what I said, which is this: So anything you don't know and/or are afraid of, you attribute to god?
So to keep your Big Bang theme going, because you don't know the what and why of the BB, that it has to be some invisible superbeing's doing? And this "god" has some kind of code that you need to follow?

No, though we know from the nature of time that there had to be a beginning to it and thus there is something outside of time itself (i.e. eternal), that in and of itself does not define exactly what that eternal object is. There are other lines of reason and evidence to further detail the eternal source.

But for the record, theologians have long stated that the flow of time cannot be eternal, then mathematicians proved it, and the same sequence has occurred with the Big Bang as well. In fact the theory was written by a Catholic priest who tried to describe Biblical Creation using Einstein's theories of Relativity. Once again, the theologians were right, but this time scientists finally caught up.

As to the 'code to live by', well it isn't only Christians that say we shouldn't murder, steal, lie, cheat, etc. So there is no need to leap from God existing to a code of ethics. Both can stand largely separate from each other.

 

[RKMBrown]

Has anyone done that?

I mean, verified there's a heaven.

Besides the little 4yo whose daddy took 7 years to brainwash him into believing his dug-induced hallucinations were actually a visit to heaven.

That's really the crux of this - faith makes it possible for some to believe in spite of not having any real evidence.

To each their own but that doesn't work for me.

Yes, I can most certainly verify that there is a heaven. Want some pics?

Lack of faith makes it possible for some to disbelieve what is staring them in the face.

He asked for verification.
You confirm you can provide none.

What a piece of shit liar you are.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes, I can most certainly verify that there is a heaven. Want some pics?

Lack of faith makes it possible for some to disbelieve what is staring them in the face.

He asked for verification.
You confirm you can provide none.

What a piece of shit liar you are.

How so?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi hi's^^
I'm not Christian, but I still believe that Heaven exists. I"m just not quite sure how it exists. Different people and groups have differing ideas of what this reward is. It's not really my place to say which group is right and which is wrong. Personally I believe that all of you are right.
*Hugs and Bright Blessings*
angstandvexed

Yes I believe that Heaven, like God, represents something universal to all people.
But we either perceive or define it differently, so that part is relative. And we don't recognize, understand or believe in each other's systems.

Most people have a sense of peace that they seek, that is independent of conditions we know we can't control. So whatever that level of peace we naturally seek, that collectively is the equivalent of heaven; and whatever greater good, truth, wisdom, or universal laws or principles we respect in life as above all else, that collectively is what God's will or the Kingdom of God represents. We all have our own part, purpose or vision of this; and together the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, I can most certainly verify that there is a heaven. Want some pics?

Lack of faith makes it possible for some to disbelieve what is staring them in the face.

He asked for verification.
You confirm you can provide none.

What a piece of shit liar you are.

C'mon RKMB nobody can prove God or Heaven exists
because these exceed our finite human capacity.

We know it is faith based.

We can't even prove what we dreamed last night
but have to take that on faith that we and others are telling the truth.

The most we can do is remove "barriers" of
fear or unforgiveness preventing us from agreeing
what we are talking about and what we really mean.
if we understood each other, we wouldn't have these arguments,
though our perceptions of God and Heaven would STILL be faith based,
we just would trust each other to have no deceitful intent.

The issue is people like Bruce don't trust faith based arguments of others,
but they either trust their own perceptions, or expect others to with or
without giving others equal "benefit of the doubt" if that's how they were treated.

So that is the conflict, equal trust if each other is telling the truth
or is biased by some other intent or misguided notion:

And this objection comes out as arguing:
if certain people are more hypocrites than others,
and who has biased intent compared with whom,
and who has equal or more right to complain!
Don't we all have our own biases and complaints?
Do we really have to attack each other's intent?

 

[emilynghiem]

No, though we know from the nature of time that there had to be a beginning to it and thus there is something outside of time itself (i.e. eternal), that in and of itself does not define exactly what that eternal object is. There are other lines of reason and evidence to further detail the eternal source.

But for the record, theologians have long stated that the flow of time cannot be eternal, then mathematicians proved it, and the same sequence has occurred with the Big Bang as well. In fact the theory was written by a Catholic priest who tried to describe Biblical Creation using Einstein's theories of Relativity. Once again, the theologians were right, but this time scientists finally caught up.

As to the 'code to live by', well it isn't only Christians that say we shouldn't murder, steal, lie, cheat, etc. So there is no need to leap from God existing to a code of ethics. Both can stand largely separate from each other.

Not necessarily Jim.

It could be said that the perception of a beginning is man's perception.

I believe all the same notions and concepts regarding "universal laws"
can be discussed WITHOUT assuming there is a source or beginning point.

These "universal laws" can still operate the same for theists as nontheists
for people who see the universe/creation as having always existed,
with no beginning or no end, but just being.

That does not affect the operating laws of the world and relations that affect us
(unless conflict over this prevents us from working with other neighbors who differ).

If we practice true forgiveness and detachment from worldly conditions,
we should still be able to work out agreements with people who don't
assume there needs to be a creator or starting point.

If their disbelief or denial is caused by "unforgiveness"
it is the "unforgiveness" that is blocking us from working together,
not the concept itself, which is not a necessary "condition"
for believing in the same universal laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

And if you want your neighbour to change the ugly color on their house, maybe you should just paint your own house?

Not that literally.

The point is if we want people to be open to suggestion and change,
without conflict or coercion or other negativity,
then we ourselves should open our hearts and minds to the same level we ask of others.

This is not easily said, and less easily done.

If we want people to respect our consent, we respect theirs.
If there is a conflict of interests, we negotiate freely with equal respect.

People do tend to respond reciprocally, but it can take quite a process to get there
if other issues need to be resolved first in order to establish equal trusting relations.

 

[thebrucebeat]

He asked for verification.
You confirm you can provide none.

What a piece of shit liar you are.

C'mon RKMB nobody can prove God or Heaven exists
because these exceed our finite human capacity.

We know it is faith based.

We can't even prove what we dreamed last night
but have to take that on faith that we and others are telling the truth.

The issue is people like Bruce don't trust faith based arguments of others,
but they either trust their own perceptions (or expect others to
without giving others equal benefit of the doubt because that's how they were treated, too)

So that is the conflict:

If certain people are more hypocrites than others,
and who has biased intent compared with whom,
and who has equal or more right to complain!
Don't we all have our own biases and complaints?
Do we really have to attack each other's intent?

Close, but I rarely share my own "perceptions".
I apply logical argument and leave my perceptions out of it as best I can. Of what use are they to those that don't share them.
I poke holes in and fun at those that present their own perceptions as established "truths".
Now you can make the case that the application of logic is simply my mechanism of creating my own perceptions, and that could be argued. I believe the evidence would be strongly skewed against that, but you could go that way if you like. You can also make the case that my application of logic is flawed, which assuredly it will be now and again, but far less often than most, as that actually matters to me. That is why I have a low tolerance for your occasional forays into applying arguments to me that I have never made, extrapolations that reach far beyond my arguments. They represent poor logic in your responses. You hide behind what you perceive as my desire for "literalism" as you once put it. In fact it is a call to accuracy.
But you will virtually never find my posts discussing my views on god, as they have no support and are not valid in any sense of the word that is useful or universal. I find them as unsupportable as anyone else's and not worthy of defense.

 

[RKMBrown]

He asked for verification.
You confirm you can provide none.

What a piece of shit liar you are.

C'mon RKMB nobody can prove God or Heaven exists
because these exceed our finite human capacity.

We know it is faith based.

We can't even prove what we dreamed last night
but have to take that on faith that we and others are telling the truth.

The most we can do is remove "barriers" of
fear or unforgiveness preventing us from agreeing
what we are talking about and what we really mean.
if we understood each other, we wouldn't have these arguments,
though our perceptions of God and Heaven would STILL be faith based,
we just would trust each other to have no deceitful intent.

The issue is people like Bruce don't trust faith based arguments of others,
but they either trust their own perceptions, or expect others to with or
without giving others equal "benefit of the doubt" if that's how they were treated.

So that is the conflict, equal trust if each other is telling the truth
or is biased by some other intent or misguided notion:

And this objection comes out as arguing:
if certain people are more hypocrites than others,
and who has biased intent compared with whom,
and who has equal or more right to complain!
Don't we all have our own biases and complaints?
Do we really have to attack each other's intent?

I believe we can make heaven right here on earth. Pretty sure I've seen it quite a few times. I can't even imagine how a heaven off earth could be any better than the small samples of heaven that I've seen right here on earth.

Thus the issue is one of "definition." If one chooses to define heaven as a thing that can't be seen, touched, smelled, ... well yeah then you can make an argument that such a heaven can't be proven.

If however your view of heaven is more rooted in what can be seen, touched, smelled, shared, etc. well then that's pretty darn easy to prove isn't it?

My view of god is similar... to me god is the everything and nothing, not a man, but all men, not a beam of light, but all light, the very architecture of all matter and the universe in all dimensions, not to be bottled up as we would as some deity with a limited mind. Thus if you want proof of god I have but to point to the universe.

And I'm very glad that he sent his only son to save us, essentially from our sins but also from our old vengeful laws. But no I have no physical proof that the greatest man to walk the earth was the son of god... I can simply argue that he's the greatest man to ever walk the earth, who I believe to be the son of god, which as I defined earlier is the universe itself, thus the son god to me is the a man sent to us by this universe as a representative of the universe. This to use terms that would be less egregious to folks who don't want to worship a supreme leader.

 

[emilynghiem]

Therefore, it isn't grace, the undeserved favor of God.
It is a quid pro quo relationship. I'll do this if you do that.
Got it.

Hi Bruce: I think I get what you are objecting to.
The WAY people are teaching grace of God is
coming out like "quid pro quo" or conditional.

This is the "retributive" view of justice by "man's" ways.
But this version of man's justice, when PROJECTED
onto God, I agree with you, is contradictory.

If we perceive and teach God this way, and inflict
conditional retributive justice on others, then we get that in return.

If THIS is what you are objecting to, I AGREE that APPROACH is conflicted
and wrongful to teach and preach, as it only begets more rejection and retribution!

The understanding of God's love as unconditional is NOT for the purpose of retribution but restoration of justice by establishing agreement on truth.
So this is more like the natural laws of cause and effect in the flow of life:

if you plant seeds and water them, they grow.
if you do things with love and good will, they tend to multiply in good ways.
if you do things with ill will and revenge, these tend to backfire on you.

So the shift from OT retributive justice ways of enforcing and teaching laws
"by the letter," to the NT restorative justice approach of seeking and speaking truth with love, or living by the "spirit of the laws,"
reflects more a CHANGE in human perception and awareness of our
relationship with God or collective/universal laws affecting humanity.

Ultimately what the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus represents is
the losses to injustice in the past, the break in this vicious cycle
by "collective forgiveness of all humanity", and the renewal of justice and peace
after all these ills from the past are resolved, including the chain of consequences.

To break free from the retributive patterns of the past
is what unity and freedom in Christ Jesus represents to bring peace.

So this is why it takes such great forgiveness, of all things and all people and all wrongs that have ever been committed collectively over time, it exceeds far beyond what humans
normally choose or can will on our own, that it is considered divine intervention.

You are right, Bruce, that very few people, including Christians, if any
have this much faith and forgiveness. Most if not all people have conditions and limits on our forgiveness, and that is why it comes across in how Christians perceive or teach God as "conditional" and contradict the message.

Christianity seeks to depict an infinite level of such unconditional love and forgiveness that humans cannot even demonstrate ourselves without failing due to our finite limitations.

Sorry, Bruce, if you find yourself disappointed.

But I find Christianity and Buddhism both do a pretty good job of trying to capture universal laws in a contained system that can be shared with people to relay these concepts and principles, despite the failings of humanity to actually meet them.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe we can make heaven right here on earth. Pretty sure I've seen it quite a few times. I can't even imagine how a heaven off earth could be any better than the small samples of heaven that I've seen right here on earth.

Thus the issue is one of "definition." If one chooses to define heaven as a thing that can't be seen, touched, smelled, ... well yeah then you can make an argument that such a heaven can't be proven.

If however your view of heaven is more rooted in what can be seen, touched, smelled, shared, etc. well then that's pretty darn easy to prove isn't it?

My view of god is similar... to me god is the everything and nothing, not a man, but all men, not a beam of light, but all light, the very architecture of all matter and the universe in all dimensions, not to be bottled up as we would as some deity with a limited mind. Thus if you want proof of god I have but to point to the universe.

And I'm very glad that he sent his only son to save us, essentially from our sins but also from our old vengeful laws. But no I have no physical proof that the greatest man to walk the earth was the son of god... I can simply argue that he's the greatest man to ever walk the earth, who I believe to be the son of god, which as I defined earlier is the universe itself, thus the son god to me is the a man sent to us by this universe as a representative of the universe. This to use terms that would be less egregious to folks who don't want to worship a supreme leader.

YES you bring up two key points I find very important
in relating with others on this.

1. one is how we DEFINE heaven or God

If we agree that the terms God/Christ/HolySpirit represent the positive interpretations,
and the terms Satan/Antichrist/FalseProphet represent the negative opposites,
then we can

a. align our "positive" concepts and terms, and not have to let differences divide us
b. agree NOT to assign "negative" meanings to God or Jesus, where it causes conflict
(because we are not using the same words to mean the same things)
Our terms don't have to agree or align perfectly, but at least separate the positives
from the negatives so we don't accuse each other of teaching false or conflicting things!

We don't need to be caught up in straw man arguments, defining God or Jesus or heaven to be something false or unreal and then arguing, but can resolve the issues by aligning our principles and definitions where they ARE in harmony instead of conflict.

I am okay with relative symbols or meanings "as the equivalent" of heaven to someone.
I have always found there is SOMETHING they believe in that is the "parallel" as
seeking God or heaven, whether it is truth, love, wisdom, peace, freedom etc.

I find people have their own concepts for each level of the trinity, so I try to align those up (as well as for the flipside negative opposites, so I try to identify those terms as well).

2. the other is making a "condition" of how we see or believe in Jesus or God as personified

I don't think this is a necessary condition either.
The forgiveness/unforgiveness or positive/negative issues involved may be a necessary factor to resolve, but not the depiction of God/Jesus per se.

Even if people do not personify God or Jesus or even believe in how these are taught,
why can't we agree on the process that these symbols are used to represent?

If we believe in the general human process of recovery from past trauma or injustice,
by forgiving and healing so the person's mind/body and relations can be restored to good health, can we agree that "collectively" this recovery process is what the sacrifice of Christ represents for all humanity? It doesn't have to be a causal relationship; but if we can at least agree the symbolism or story in the Bible "reflects" a natural universal process,
can't we still agree to work WITH the human process and not fight, divide or make it harder?

Do we really need to agree on historical things about Jesus that may or may not be proven? Can we agree, instead, on what Jesus and God represent which are universal and make sense to all people as good to work on to help us and humanity at the same time?

 

[RKMBrown]

I believe we can make heaven right here on earth. Pretty sure I've seen it quite a few times. I can't even imagine how a heaven off earth could be any better than the small samples of heaven that I've seen right here on earth.

Thus the issue is one of "definition." If one chooses to define heaven as a thing that can't be seen, touched, smelled, ... well yeah then you can make an argument that such a heaven can't be proven.

If however your view of heaven is more rooted in what can be seen, touched, smelled, shared, etc. well then that's pretty darn easy to prove isn't it?

My view of god is similar... to me god is the everything and nothing, not a man, but all men, not a beam of light, but all light, the very architecture of all matter and the universe in all dimensions, not to be bottled up as we would as some deity with a limited mind. Thus if you want proof of god I have but to point to the universe.

And I'm very glad that he sent his only son to save us, essentially from our sins but also from our old vengeful laws. But no I have no physical proof that the greatest man to walk the earth was the son of god... I can simply argue that he's the greatest man to ever walk the earth, who I believe to be the son of god, which as I defined earlier is the universe itself, thus the son god to me is the a man sent to us by this universe as a representative of the universe. This to use terms that would be less egregious to folks who don't want to worship a supreme leader.

YES you bring up two key points I find very important
in relating with others on this.

1. one is how we DEFINE heaven or God

If we agree that the terms God/Christ/HolySpirit represent the positive interpretations,
and the terms Satan/Antichrist/FalseProphet represent the negative opposites,
then we can

a. align our "positive" concepts and terms, and not have to let differences divide us
b. agree NOT to assign "negative" meanings to God or Jesus, where it causes conflict
(because we are not using the same words to mean the same things)
Our terms don't have to agree or align perfectly, but at least separate the positives
from the negatives so we don't accuse each other of teaching false or conflicting things!

We don't need to be caught up in straw man arguments, defining God or Jesus or heaven to be something false or unreal and then arguing, but can resolve the issues by aligning our principles and definitions where they ARE in harmony instead of conflict.

I am okay with relative symbols or meanings "as the equivalent" of heaven to someone.
I have always found there is SOMETHING they believe in that is the "parallel" as
seeking God or heaven, whether it is truth, love, wisdom, peace, freedom etc.

I find people have their own concepts for each level of the trinity, so I try to align those up (as well as for the flipside negative opposites, so I try to identify those terms as well).

2. the other is making a "condition" of how we see or believe in Jesus or God as personified

I don't think this is a necessary condition either.
The forgiveness/unforgiveness or positive/negative issues involved may be a necessary factor to resolve, but not the depiction of God/Jesus per se.

Even if people do not personify God or Jesus or even believe in how these are taught,
why can't we agree on the process that these symbols are used to represent?

If we believe in the general human process of recovery from past trauma or injustice,
by forgiving and healing so the person's mind/body and relations can be restored to good health, can we agree that "collectively" this recovery process is what the sacrifice of Christ represents for all humanity? It doesn't have to be a causal relationship; but if we can at least agree the symbolism or story in the Bible "reflects" a natural universal process,
can't we still agree to work WITH the human process and not fight, divide or make it harder?

Do we really need to agree on historical things about Jesus that may or may not be proven? Can we agree, instead, on what Jesus and God represent which are universal and make sense to all people as good to work on to help us and humanity at the same time?

I could not have written that better myself. Thx for sticking around, and responding. Normally when I describe my answer to the big question, folks from both sides of the debate call me names and run for the hills with their hands over their ears like I'm spewing blasphemy

 

[emilynghiem]

I could not have written that better myself. Thx for sticking around, and responding. Normally when I describe my answer to the big question, folks from both sides of the debate call me names and run for the hills with their hands over their ears like I'm spewing blasphemy

Oh my! Ppbbfftt!
You make me laugh! that's what I get or worse. I've been called Satan enough times to make me worry what if I really was, what if that was true!

Jesus did warn that for his sake, neighbors would kick each other out of congregations, or families would be divided. This effect of "hating" or separating from family, our lives, and the world, it is not intentional as a good thing to look forward to, like some kind of divine judgment where it is deserved punishment to smash each other up.

But it does provide a warning this will happen. If Jesus was called Satan of course we will be called names, out of fear or misunderstanding of differences. I don't think people can help when their fear of abuses or conflicts is greater than our ability to forgive and to trust those issues can be resolved.

If we've never seen examples of how to reconcile these things, of course we won't believe it and will think the worst!

How can we learn to forgive and work through our differences, to reach greater truth
and understanding, if we never run into them but run away from them instead? But that is our first instinct -- to "blame the messenger" for the conflict, discredit them and avoid it. Our political system and media feeds on this frenzy.

People are so funny, and so sad at the same time!
If I didn't laugh, I would cry.

I think you are refreshing and wonderful.
You are welcome to join my club anytime, if you let me join yours!

Thanks to you for being here,
and to Jim for putting up with this "party line" in heaven
just getting started on this thread.

Carry on!

 

[HUGGY]

I believe we can make heaven right here on earth. Pretty sure I've seen it quite a few times. I can't even imagine how a heaven off earth could be any better than the small samples of heaven that I've seen right here on earth.

Thus the issue is one of "definition." If one chooses to define heaven as a thing that can't be seen, touched, smelled, ... well yeah then you can make an argument that such a heaven can't be proven.

If however your view of heaven is more rooted in what can be seen, touched, smelled, shared, etc. well then that's pretty darn easy to prove isn't it?

My view of god is similar... to me god is the everything and nothing, not a man, but all men, not a beam of light, but all light, the very architecture of all matter and the universe in all dimensions, not to be bottled up as we would as some deity with a limited mind. Thus if you want proof of god I have but to point to the universe.

And I'm very glad that he sent his only son to save us, essentially from our sins but also from our old vengeful laws. But no I have no physical proof that the greatest man to walk the earth was the son of god... I can simply argue that he's the greatest man to ever walk the earth, who I believe to be the son of god, which as I defined earlier is the universe itself, thus the son god to me is the a man sent to us by this universe as a representative of the universe. This to use terms that would be less egregious to folks who don't want to worship a supreme leader.

YES you bring up two key points I find very important
in relating with others on this.

1. one is how we DEFINE heaven or God

If we agree that the terms God/Christ/HolySpirit represent the positive interpretations,
and the terms Satan/Antichrist/FalseProphet represent the negative opposites,
then we can

a. align our "positive" concepts and terms, and not have to let differences divide us
b. agree NOT to assign "negative" meanings to God or Jesus, where it causes conflict
(because we are not using the same words to mean the same things)
Our terms don't have to agree or align perfectly, but at least separate the positives
from the negatives so we don't accuse each other of teaching false or conflicting things!

We don't need to be caught up in straw man arguments, defining God or Jesus or heaven to be something false or unreal and then arguing, but can resolve the issues by aligning our principles and definitions where they ARE in harmony instead of conflict.

I am okay with relative symbols or meanings "as the equivalent" of heaven to someone.
I have always found there is SOMETHING they believe in that is the "parallel" as
seeking God or heaven, whether it is truth, love, wisdom, peace, freedom etc.

I find people have their own concepts for each level of the trinity, so I try to align those up (as well as for the flipside negative opposites, so I try to identify those terms as well).

2. the other is making a "condition" of how we see or believe in Jesus or God as personified

I don't think this is a necessary condition either.
The forgiveness/unforgiveness or positive/negative issues involved may be a necessary factor to resolve, but not the depiction of God/Jesus per se.

Even if people do not personify God or Jesus or even believe in how these are taught,
why can't we agree on the process that these symbols are used to represent?

If we believe in the general human process of recovery from past trauma or injustice,
by forgiving and healing so the person's mind/body and relations can be restored to good health, can we agree that "collectively" this recovery process is what the sacrifice of Christ represents for all humanity? It doesn't have to be a causal relationship; but if we can at least agree the symbolism or story in the Bible "reflects" a natural universal process,
can't we still agree to work WITH the human process and not fight, divide or make it harder?

Do we really need to agree on historical things about Jesus that may or may not be proven? Can we agree, instead, on what Jesus and God represent which are universal and make sense to all people as good to work on to help us and humanity at the same time?

Emily... please... we are not discussing the question "what is pornography?" where the answer is truly up to the individuals perception.

We are discussing what to some religious folks the concept of heaven ..the "reality" of heaven is as true as the existance Disney Land.

We are discussing what to some folks like myself where the possibility of a place called heaven is totally impossible.

All this talk of shades of grey and concepts that resemble what heaven means to each individual are cop outs to the real question.

Question: Is there a place you can go with god's permission when you die that we call heaven?

Yes ?...or...No ?

With THAT question there are associated questions that need answered including : Is there an individual spirit that lives on after we die? among others.

The question IS NOT if heaven is a place where god lives...or is heaven a place here on earth? or in some people's minds that are now still living?

You guys are having a "special" discussion about the merits of HOW to have a discussion but you are getting no closer to answering the original question.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, I can most certainly verify that there is a heaven. Want some pics?

Lack of faith makes it possible for some to disbelieve what is staring them in the face.

He asked for verification.
You confirm you can provide none.

What a piece of shit liar you are.

I know; its just incredible how libtards think that they can prove their case with bald faced lies.

And they do it so much.