So what’s so great about a Christian heaven? (Jesus Christ, priests)

[jeffrey]

s2a, I understand what you are saying, and noticeI said some. I guess my best example would be a person what is constantly being told that the life style he is living will send him to hell. (I disagree with telling anybody that. It's not their call, it's Gods' call) So instead of changing, they refuse to believe in Heaven or Hell. But I also still think it's easier not to believe then believe. Most Christians, somewhere in the back of their mind are wondering if the lives they are leading is good enough to get you to Heaven. I'm 51% Christian and 49% Truck Driver. Don't take much for the trucker to come out in me. The occasional cursing a stupid driver, or glancing over at the car next to me to find a naked lady smiling at me thinking "I really shouldn't be looking at this........I really need to watch the road.......WOW, BABY!.....Jeff, your married, QUIT!...." And finally look away but wondering if this will cost me?

[Melody]

I don't really think of myself as going to a physical place, but rather being in God's presence...which doesn't necessarily require a corporeal form or a physical place.

[s2a]

Hello again jgallandt,
You said:

>"s2a, I understand what you are saying, and noticeI said some. I guess my best example would be a person what is constantly being told that the life style he is living will send him to hell. (I disagree with telling anybody that. It's not their call, it's Gods' call) So instead of changing, they refuse to believe in Heaven or Hell. But I also still think it's easier not to believe then believe. Most Christians, somewhere in the back of their mind are wondering if the lives they are leading is good enough to get you to Heaven. I'm 51% Christian and 49% Truck Driver. Don't take much for the trucker to come out in me. The occasional cursing a stupid driver, or glancing over at the car next to me to find a naked lady smiling at me thinking "I really shouldn't be looking at this........I really need to watch the road.......WOW, BABY!.....Jeff, your married, QUIT!...." And finally look away but wondering if this will cost me?"<

It's non sequitur as far as I'm concerned (regarding "belief", or "lifestyle"), but for the record:
My only arrest was for a traffic violation (expired vehicle tags) nearly 20 years ago.
I don't cheat on my taxes, or my wife (never have in 16 years of marriage, or 32 years of paying taxes).
I haven't stolen anything since I was six years old (a chocolate bar - which my mother made me return, with tearful apology).
My lies are confined to "little white lies". ("Honey, do these pants make my butt look too big?"; "Um , no dear.")
I'm not gay, nor "bi-curious". (Never have been).
I swear like a drunken Marine when properly motivated, and sometimes without any motivation whatsoever.

In essence, your "confession" amounts to "it's harder to be 'good' than 'bad'", and generally speaking, you'll get no disagreement from me. Sure, at some point, we'd all like to throttle the idiot in our way, or smack the numbskull for saying/doing something utterly stupid, but...our more civilized nature takes hold, and we refrain from acting upon our baser instincts.

Just the same, good qualities and rational behavior are not the exclusive domain of Christians, nor are they (Christians) often the best exemplars of such. And yet, Christians will repeatedly proclaim "I'm not perfect, just forgiven (and going to Heaven!)". Unbelievers must satisfy themselves with, "I'm not perfect, just accountable/responsible for my own actions." No deity to praise, no demon to fault.

If you believe that the Christian rationale is more personally challenging than that of an unbeliever, I will not quibble with your estimation. It is, after all, your choice.

[I note that you (still) have yet to proffer any Scriptural support/detail for what your Heaven actually provides believers (as per my initial post), just for the record. ;-)]

[s2a]

Hello Melody,

You said:

>"I don't really think of myself as going to a physical place, but rather being in God's presence...which doesn't necessarily require a corporeal form or a physical place."<

Hmmm, OK.

Is that a stated Christian perspective supported by Biblical Scripture (as you profess yourself as "believer", without sectarian/religious affiliation/adherence), or a personalized one derived from alternate/unique beliefs?

I ask because yours seems to be an equivocated response ["...doesn't necessarily require..."], which is typically beyond mainstream, literalist, or "conservative Christian" claims of absolute certitude beyond any doubt.

[michel]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

The presense of God. Hell of course, is the absense of God.

That, of course is a wonderful answer, NetDoc; but wouldn't you say that that applies as much while we are alive?

[Mister Emu]

Would you apply the same lack of skepticism and inquiry to virtually any other promise of "Trust me, you'll love it."?

Depends on the person issueing the statement.

As to your compasrisons, they do not represent the situation accurately, there is quite a difference between a salesman, and the Lord.

Your Scriptural support is negligible.

You sure?

Here I will quote you

Originally Posted by s2a

Live forever. Check. No suffering forever. Check. No evil. Check. Constant and eternal bliss. Check. Always happy. Check.

I will trust that your scriptural references are correct.

Sounds like everything will be good

Yet as far as I can see there is no reference to the specifics of what we will be doing. Thus not being sure is the only scriptural stance I can take.

Wait, we have a place prepared, sounds like it is all planned out.

[Scott1]

Well said Mr E!

[kevmicsmi]

Similarly, simply stating "I don't know about 'A', but it's got to be better than 'B'" is an argument from ignorance abetted by an appeal to force/adverse consequence (ie., "I'm not sure about Heaven, but it's better than pain and suffering in Hell", or "Obey God...or suffer in Hell").

Special pleading, false choices, and appeals to (especially unseen and unknowable) adverse consequence are not especially compelling or persuasive argument in support of a Christian Heaven...especially amongst heretical/skeptical "unbelievers".[/quote]
I did not think you asked what is the reason to beleive in heaven, I thought you asked what makes it so great. "The lesser of two evils" choice is not an ignorant choice in all cases. Assuming there are only two choices, and according to the Bible, which is what we are discussing, there are only two choices! President Bush was not the originator of "you are either for us or against us"...

If the house you were suposed to receive....sight unseen.....Was being offered to you by someonewho had nothing to gain, either way, would you trust them more? How about if they "sacrificed" their own money to purchase this house for you, would you have any reason to doubt their motives?

[s2a]

Hello Mister Emu,

When I said:
>>"Would you apply the same lack of skepticism and inquiry to virtually any other promise of "Trust me, you'll love it."?"<<

You replied:

>"Depends on the person issueing the statement."<

C'mon. That's pretty much a cop-out (and you know it). We're not talking about minor issues of trust, like tasting a new ice cream with your eyes closed (even then, you're likely to ask for "clues" about the ingredients or flavor before you partake). The "dependent" person (within our context) is asking you to (willfully and wholeheartedly) engage in an active and on-going, life-altering, transformation that will essentially change how you live, and how you perceive the world that surrounds you (not to mention...the acceptance of a realm in the hereafter).

>"As to your compasrisons, they do not represent the situation accurately, there is quite a difference between a salesman, and the Lord."<

Not my doing, nor my problem to remedy. The God of the Bible sent Jesus as His prophet/redeemer, but Jesus (post-execution) ascended to rejoin God, leaving the task of evangelism to those that choose to believe and "share" His "Truth".

Indeed, God/Jesus are NOT the salesmen - they're the foremen/boss(es). It's the remaining faithful adherents that are tasked with the "selling".

See - Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15.

If Christian adherents (and the Bible upon which they predicate their faith and convictions) are NOT the "salesmen" of God's revealed Word, then who is? Is it your contention that Jesus Himself makes regular personal housecalls upon the unsaved, urging them to repent and seek salvation? Or does He rely (as instruments of His Will and Command) upon mere mortal righteous adherents to knock on doors, hand out flyers, buy TV/radio air time, etc., to evangelize, proselytise, and testify?

[Note: This is not intended as an assail upon the inherently flawed human nature/aspects of the anointed/appointed "messengers", but rather the lacking/wanting aspects of the "message" itself].

If Christians (and their Bible) *are* the salesmen as initially suggested/inferred (with their textual tool as support), then I find the previously provided allegory most apt indeed. (You are welcome to again dismiss out-of-hand the drawn parallel, or you may indulge illustrative contextual rationale that demonstrates how/why the alluded comparison is flawed/misrepresentative).

Perhaps you could provide a more "accurate" representation to ponder.

Keeping matters within the proper context of a specified/claimed Christian Heaven, I submit again:

>" If you were a salesperson, and tasked to sell these items/services to anyone; but were not permitted:
- to present (in person) the prospective buyer the item/service for sale;
- to provide details of what the item/service offers;
- to show a photo, picture, or detailed schematic;
- to illustrate/demonstrate how the item/service operates, or is of specific use to the buyer...

...you're simply left to go make the sale, and if/when a prospective client confronts you with specific questions for which you don't know/aren't permitted to lend answer, your practiced answer is, "My boss says you'll love it! So, trust me!"..."<

Again, as reminder, we're talking about the concept of a Biblically-defined *Heaven*, not a generalized acceptance of Christian dogma or faith.


I said:

>>"Your Scriptural support is negligible."<<

You inquired:

>"You sure?"<

Yep. Perhaps you would benefit from re-reading my initial post. The request for Scriptural support in rebuttal was not to confirm what I provided...but to amend/enhance/illustrate specific details upon the questions that I posed.

You candidly answered the bulk of the questions in saying, "I don't know" (regarding what one actually *does* in Heaven). I acknowledged your candor and accepted your response. You reinforced your candor in following reply:

>"Yet as far as I can see there is no reference to the specifics of what we will be doing. Thus not being sure is the only scriptural stance I can take."<

Fair enough by my standard. Spoken like a true skeptic. ;-)

I was hoping for any Scriptural support of specificity/detail of Biblical claims BEYOND what I had already outlined in quoted Chapter and Verse. Point in fact, you provided none, beyond illustrating/reinforcing what I provided beforehand.

>"I will trust that your scriptural references are correct."<

If Easton's Bible Dictionary is considered credible source and reference, then I presume they may be correct.

>"Sounds like everything will be good...

...Wait, we have a place prepared, sounds like it is all planned out."<

I could refer you to some questionable/disreputable/desperate travel agents that would LOVE to meet you and plan your next vacation destination.

"Trust me, you'll LOVE it!"

"Sign here please (please remit full payment prior to departure, if you don't mind)."

"Oh, did I mention? No refunds."

"OK. Good. Just sign here...your plans are made, and your destination is prepared. Bon voyage."

[s2a]

kevmicsmi said:

>"I did not think you asked what is the reason to beleive in heaven, I thought you asked what makes it so great."

That was (and remains) the initial question at hand, yes..

I note for the record that you provided no enhancement to illustrate *why* (or how) the Heaven of Christians is "great". You simply suggested that the "alternative" (damnation) can't be as "bad" as Heaven. As I illustrated, such proffered inference is unpersuasive, and nothing more than argument from adverse consequence

>""The lesser of two evils" choice is not an ignorant choice in all cases."<

Not an argument I offered.

I merely submitted that more than two choices are available, thus rendering your two divergent and unrelated statements as fallacious argument.

>"Assuming there are only two choices, and according to the Bible, which is what we are discussing, there are only two choices!"<

First, we are not discussing the Bible (in general, per se), but rather the biblical claims as they relate to a Christian Heaven. There are plenty of ancillary debates (amongst adherent Christians of various sects) as to how one attains ultimate ascension to Heaven (some argue by "works alone" - absent confession/redemption; others, that only the "elect" will see Heaven; others insist that both good works and redemption are requisite; but these aspects are not at issue within this thread).

Second, your premise "assumes" that...an unbeliever accepts the notion that the Bible is authoritative fact. Unbelievers...by nature and definition...do not.

You, as an adherent, *are* presented with only two choices. Skeptics, heretics, infidels, and unbelievers(et al), have *more* than two at their disposal to contemplate (Hence, from an unbelievers perspective, a Biblical false dilemma). Far from dogmatically imposed "ignorance" ("Heaven or Hell? Take your pick buddy."), unbelievers have many other options to choose from...not the least of which is that an "afterlife" is merely a mortal's conceptual construct borne of wishful thinking.

>"President Bush was not the originator of "you are either for us or against us"..."<

I made no such claim. I salute you for knocking down that inferred strawman.

It would be difficult for me to illustrate/produce any exemplified original thoughts attributable to GWB. Certainly none of especial substance or merit come to mind...


>"If the house you were suposed to receive....sight unseen.....Was being offered to you by someonewho had nothing to gain, either way, would you trust them more?"<

Honestly, no.

Quite frankly, the "offering" person could be an idiot (or worse), with absolutely no knowledge or conception of what might suit my needs, interests, or wants.

>"How about if they "sacrificed" their own money to purchase this house for you, would you have any reason to doubt their motives?"<

Yes, for the ascribed reason stated above.

Their "motives" ("doubtful" or not) are secondary at best, and moot as far as I'm concerned.

How often can it be recounted that the greatest harm is frequently perpetrated by those that "mean well", or choose to offer their selfless service (and uninvited "direction") for "my own good" (I've run out of fingers and toes to implement in counting)?

To earnestly and honestly answer your premised inquiries, I would reply that whether a domicile was offered freely, or at another's expense, I would STILL want (in fact, demand) details as to the location, surrounding conditions, and accommodations.

If someone offered me a "magic" 1974 Chevy Vega (sight-unseen) for FREE (at their expense), I would retain no interest whatsoever, nor would I accept their "generous" offer....not even from my parents (and that's rejecting a *known* quantity/quality, mind you). Nor would I accept a "free" ground-floor domicile in a two-story outhouse, no matter how well it was portrayed, or how insistent was the plea that taking such residence would be "for my own good".

Maybe, you would.

You mileage, as usual, may vary.

Now that I have indulged you pointed statements/inquiries twicefold, would you care to pointedly respond to the question at hand (or address any of the specified/qualified questions presented within)?