Here's what i see as a problem with heaven. Feedback appreciated
So you've made it to heaven. Well done! But when you get there, you find out that your husband/wife or children or some other person dear to you hasn't made it in.
How do you enjoy paradise knowing that person who is dear to you is suffering? Or is your memory of that person erased and if it is, would that be a desirable circumstance? Would you want that person you loved to cease to exist for you?
Thoughts?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
The same way everyone currently does in real life.
When you see someone with a dead child are they no longer allowed to ever smile again?
If someone’s parent is in prison for being bad is the child not allowed to laugh or play?
Heaven is as simple as a choice for forgiveness. Many of which refuse to take. It’s their own action and they’ll get what they want in life. And the others who get heaven will get what they want as well.
Heaven is a place of infinite wonders. Which means you’ll have the all to forgotten sense of childlike sense of wonder and discovery. Within the existence of infinite always at your fingertips. And being given your true family/heavenly family you’ll be preoccupied with them.
You’ll also be in agreement with God’s judgment and his will. As that was your choice to do so while on earth. You’re not going to be suddenly led astray to do the opposite when you’re in the most wondrous place of all existence. And on the finally judgement when everyone is suddenly incapable of lying, and their entire life is played back before them, including their inner monologues and everything they hoped to keep secret. Without the ability to lie, those being kicked out of heaven will do their best to make excuses since that will be their only defense. But they already made their decision at that point. But why would someone who passed through all the horrible trials earth gives you. Be concerned about what others chose to do? They chose to do bad things for their narcissistic pleasure. They caused division. They attempted to push away God’s truth. If you’re someone who agrees with God’s truth solely based on faith and the limited personal experiences you got to have with God. You’re going to infinitely double down on those feelings once you’re in his presence.
Families fight and clash and swear off one another all the time in real life. And that’s without the need of introducing all the mechanics of an afterlife and final judgement. People CHOOSE to leave you all the time in real life. And at that point they CHOSE to not be with you in heaven. It was their choice not only to reject God. But to also reject the family/friends that wanted them to be there but they said no. Why should anyone care about that kind of blunt and cruel person who chose such rejection, all to have their own narcissistic way instead?
That doesn't seem equivalent to me for a couple reasons:
1) I am grief stricken over the loss of people i have loved. Certainly i can go on to live my life and be happy but i will always carry that wound. Is that paradise if i still hurt?
2) Those people i loved, i only believe that they are gone and that hurts enough but how could i possibly be happy believing that not only are those people lost to me but that they are actively suffering while i live in paradise? Could you do that? I couldn't.
They chose to do bad things for their narcissistic pleasure
Or maybe like me, they just aren't convinced that the god of the bible is real or that Jesus rose from the dead....and that, according to that religion is sufficient reason to suffer forever.
Sorry, i've always found that to be an unthoughtful excuse to justify an excruciating punishment
@Pikachu It’s heaven. There won’t be hurt in heaven. It’s impossible to be hurt there. I already gave the explanation as to why. You’re trying to act like earth rises up towards heaven and all the same systematic laws apply to it. If someone is in heaven, and they were purposefully rejected by those that chose not to be there with them. Why would you feel bad?
It’s like when you break up with someone. Who maybe you loved with all your heart but eventually you get over them. The only difference is you don’t need time in heaven to be “over them” you’ve earned your reward and your joy. That’s the whole purpose of heaven. It’s not another “Earth” to put you through tests and trials. You reach the “I’m over my relationship with earth and everything in it.” Stage. You’re on your new path and new journey. Just like you see countlessly online with tons of “motivational quotes” people post about getting over lovers, or removing toxic friends, and blood doesn’t make you family. Those people are the toxic ones and they’re removed entirely and chose hell. You’re instantly set on a path of your best life without them. Have new family to share that life with including God himself.
You say you couldn’t because you’re already on a path without enlightenment. You’ve already chosen hell. It’s obvious that’s why you don’t “understand” it. Despite the clear examples being given.
Everyone who’s in heaven had their own hard life and their own hard choices to choose God or to choose the world. They chose God. That’s why you can’t create an example of their perspective in being fine. GETTING TO HEAVEN ISN’T A CHOICE ABOUT PICKING WHICH PEOPLE ON EARTH YOU LIKE. THERE’S COUNTLESS PEOPLE ON EARTH YOU’RE ALREADY IGNORING AND BETRAYING THAT OWN SET OF LOGIC WITH. WHO YOU COULD POTENTIALLY CARE FOR OR LOVE BUT ALREADY CHOOSE NOT TO. THEREFORE YOUR OWN EXAMPLE HAS ALREADY BETRAYED ITSELF. IF THAT’S WHAT IT WAS ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU’D CONSTANTLY BE TRYING TO KEET PEOPLE AND LIKE PEOPLE AND INVEST TIME IN PEOPLE AND NOTHING ELSE. GETTING TO HEAVEN IS ABOUT ESTABLISHING A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND CHOOSING HIM OVER EVERYONE ELSE! THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. And why your logic is so backwards.
You can go ahead and claim you’re not “convinced” all I see is a convinced person who is convinced by it. Threatened by the truth. And feels the incessant need to push their own narrative and agenda to fight the truth because it makes them uncomfortable. And on Judgement day you’ll have no excuse. If it was so “unconvincing” people wouldn’t be concerned over it. You wouldn’t feel an inkling of it being on your mind. How many times have you felt the need to clarify to the world that Santa isn’t real in the last ten years? How many posts about the Boogeyman did you feel the need to extrapolate on the lack of proof and existence? How many times did you talk to everyone and clarify there are no aliens? It’s so real to you. And so evident in its CONVINCING presence. That’s why you feel the need to fight it.
Unless you’re willing to admit that you’re a crazy person that’s fighting against shadows spending all your time and energy and words on something you don’t believe is “real” But maybe you are that. And then the rest of the world has to ask: why should we listen to you crazy person?
...so a holy lobotomy then? Is that a thing you want? I love the people in my life and i hurt to know they're gone, much less that they are in pain....but if you can just take a holy happy pill and not care that seems good to you?
Why would you feel bad?
...Do you love people so conditionally? Someone you love made a choice you think was bad so you don't care if they suffer? Woof.
GETTING TO HEAVEN IS ABOUT ESTABLISHING A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND CHOOSING HIM OVER EVERYONE ELSE! THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT.
I understand that it may be hard for you to understand how creepy that sounds....but it's fucking creepy dude. It's the same mentality that keeps a battered wife with her abuser and a cultist in their cult. You're probably not in a place to recognize that though. The ick factor aside, you're really just saying you could be happy if your mom or son or best friend was suffering somewhere because you prioritize one relationship over all. That's gross to me.
How many times have you felt the need to clarify to the world that Santa isn’t real in the last ten years?
lol believers in Santa are not currently trying to make their belief in Santa the rule of law in my country...Christians are. Once again, an unthoughtful but all too common argument.
Aaaanyway, i don't think we have a lot of common ground here. All your long-winded diatribes actually say are "Heaven good, unbelievers are bad and deserve what they get so why should i feel bad".
Speaking of trying so hard... Imagine using so many words just to say "i love daddy and i don't care about those who don't love my daddy".
lol
Personally i can't just turn off my empathy and love when someone i care about is in pain. I'm glad i don't have that ability. There's no hate like Christian love 😅
@AuRevoir There's one problem. No one can choose what to believe. If you disagree, please demonstrate by choosing to not believe in God for the next five minutes. If you can't choose to not believe in God, it's unrealistic for you to tell other people that they must choose to believe. If you can't change what you believe by force of will, neither can they.
@Lila15 Two people are in a relationship. They each give you different details on why they broke up. One says that it’s because the other cheated. The other repeats the sentiment but of course it’s directed towards the first accuser. You will then make a “Choice” on who you choose to believe. You inevitably will make a choice on what you believe. Choice is brought to you through information. Politicians do it every election cycle. “Vote on this bill. Vote on this measure. If you don’t vote this way X will happen.” You either choose to believe one side or the other and vote based on said choice.
I gave you TWO whole examples.
Where you think this “No one makes choices in their beliefs.” Narrative from makes no sense. As the world constantly revolves around information. Often from multiple sides giving you options. And your subsequent actions you take from there, are your choice on the matter.
Of your doctor tells you to eat this to start getting healthy again, or expect to have a heart attack and possibly die within the next few years. You can choose to disbelieve him. You have the right as a patient to get a second opinion. You can find another doctor that tells you not to worry about eating differently or changing your diet to improve your health. As many of these fat activist health advisors and doctors were attempting to do these last 10 years with their “Health at every size” mantra. But when you end up having a heart attack and dying because you didn’t listen to the first doctor. That was ultimately your choice to bear.
There you go. Even a THIRD example is provided.
If you want to play at your own little game show an example of how someone has virtually no will of choice when choosing to believe something.
I provided a multiple examples. What do you have as an example that backs up your weird set of logic on “choice” somehow being not an option when it comes to information and what a person will choose to believe?
You will then make a “Choice” on who you choose to believe. You inevitably will make a choice on what you believe. Choice is brought to you through information.
You're arguing against your case here: What you've described is not a choice of what to believe but being convinced. And that goes for the rest of your examples too. What you are describing is not a person choosing a belief but rather being convinced that something is true for good or bad reasons. The important part being that when they are convinced (for good or bad reasons) they cannot decide NOT to be convinced. Only a different argument or evidence might convince them of the opposite.
And i noticed you ignored Lila's challenge so let me offer you one that is perhaps less religiously charged:
Make the choice that you are, at this moment convinced that Santa is real and delivers presents to the good boys and girls at Christmans. Were you successful? Make the choice that you are, at this moment convinced that your mother is actually an alien who kidnapped you from your real parents. Were you successful? Make the choice that you are, at this moment convinced that (and i realize i'm rolling the dice here😆) the earth is flat and you could walk off the edge of it. Were you successful?
There, even THREE examples of how you cannot simply make the choice to be convinced by that which you find unconvincing. What now?
Here's a tip: actually read the posts you're responding to instead of crashing out based on snippets. Your name means until we see each other again....that can happen sooner sometimes lol.
You don't strike me as a thoughtful person but do try your best...or of course stay mad and run away. Couldn't care less either way 😘
All that implied was I’ve made the right choice by not reading anything further when it amounted to a discussion that was supposedly “done” being talked about.
@AuRevoir You're confusing faith with trust. If my doctor says I have high blood pressure and must take a pill to lower it, I believe him because he went to medical school and has a license to practice medicine from the state. Or I don't believe him and go to a different doctor for a second opinion. Faith isn't involved at all.
Religious statements can't be verified the same way. I can't visit heaven or hell or talk directly to God or Satan and decide which one I'm going to follow. Faith is belief without evidence. Kierkegaard said that if a man managed to prove the truth of Christianity beyond any doubt whatsoever, by doing so he would have destroyed it.
Are you choosing to not believe in Scientology? Or do you not believe in it because it's absurd? So you can't "choose" to believe in it; you're incapable of believing in it. If someone views Christianity as absurd, it's just as unreasonable for you to tell them that they must choose to believe it anyway, just as it would be absurd for a Scientologist to tell you to choose to believe in Scientology despite how absurd it is.
@Lila15 I am not confusing faith with trust. Plenty of people who start their life in a faith walk with their creator read and know the scriptures where God asks them to know the fruits of his blessings to know that he is real. They’ve experience small miracles and large miracles as their life goes on. That can’t be explained by anything other than divine intervention. And that’s how trust is formed, that if one part of the Bible becomes edified. Then other parts even though you can’t use a Time Machine to clarify results, also edify themselves. When God proves himself to those that rely on him, granting anxious people peace that surpasses all understanding despite their situations being completely chaotic etc… Trust becomes built, because the supernatural has taken place in their life, and they were comforted in situations that would normally have been impossible to find comfort in. Trust was EARNED at that point. The leap of faith starts more at the beginning of that journey. So your entire perspective is skewed because you never with a sincere heart choose to even take a leap of faith.
Scientology is automatic hogwash. It was written as a sci-fi fantasy novel. But the author was having a conversation with one of his friends and told that friend he could convince people the book is real because people are stupid and easy to fool. And he did just that. We already know the origins of Scientology. So what’s the point in believing it when we can search the historic records of books where he published it as FICTION? You’re bad at making arguments. Scientology isn’t even a contender on what to believe vs. what not to believe as a religion. Anyone who gets fooled into believing it are just as the founder/author claimed them to be. Simpletons who are easy to fool.
All people have a choice. The moment you are told Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, for you to repent and turn your way from that sin, and to live a new life, with the plans God has in store for you for that life. It’s now your choice to make to either accept it, or disregard it. It’s a choice you make. Look up the definition of choice if your brain is so atrophied that you truly believe your own definition of choice somehow supercedes that of the original definition. You’re the one who’s confusing “Feelings” someone has towards something with the word “Choice” just because you have a feeling doesn’t mean tat implies automatic choice. You’re attempting to become more convoluted with “factors” and disingenuously claiming them as “Choice” your argument is thus: “Based on a persons ‘feelings’ they will never make that ‘CHOICE’ because their ‘feelings’ won’t allow them to.”
This is a blatant fallacy in argument. Feelings amount to variables and likelihoods of a final decision being made. But a choice is separate. You still either reject something or accept something at the end of the day. There are COUNTLESS TESTIMONIES of people who were atheists for years who had that “feeling” no longer become a factor when they finally changed their mind and changed their choice on what they believe.
The feelings you’re attempting to add to the argument and equation can only be factored as to the likelihood of rejection vs. acceptance by the choice. But it is not a “replacement” on what a choice comes down to by definition. The fact that you can’t even understand basic definitions and concepts simply validated my initial posts. And makes it pointless to read anything you have to say further. You’re either intentionally disingenuous, or you’re moronic and don’t understand what a “choice” is. People are making hundreds if not thousands of choices a day. Both on a subconscious and conscious level. Even routines, and bad habits are formulated through “choices” made long into the persons past. You need to fucking reeducate yourself if this is truly the dipshit perspective you believe.
