How can we be possibly be happy in Heaven?

And/or they put sugar on their porridge. No one in a genuine relationship with their Scots ancestry puts sugar on their porridge.
Do you plan to be the judge, J., of whether Prozacman had a "genuine relationship with God?" How else do you plan to determine if he's "the exception?"[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 09-09-2003]

I must begin by congratulating you, Brian - you are one of the most civil non-believers that I can recall. Trust me, they are extremely rare and I, for one, appreciate you.

​

Also, these posts are getting extremely long so I'll just address what I perceive the more significant points of your response - hope that's okay.This I am interested in. In relation to the Old Testament, if you any references to archaeological evidence, non-biblical texts or any anthropological evidence that you feel supports the historicity of the Old Testament, then I would dearly love to see them. A bibliography would be fine, I should be able to pick up any material of a decent academic standard from the libraries I use. It'll be my pleasure to supply you with some bibliography. It's now 11:05 PM ET and I'm just about done for the day so please remind me to follow-up on this lest I forget.Evidence for Jesus is something I am not really interested in, and anyway, if the Old Testament is unreliable then it follows that the New is as well. If you really wanted to discuss the reliability of the Old Testament, I’d be happy to open a thread on the topic. The OT speaks of Jesus many times and with many prophesies about Him. There is a continuity that is clear to any Bible student. Because of this, what you say is puzzling to me.

​

As a detective seeking to "solve a mystery", I would seek my strongest evidence first and then my weakest. Because of the historical proximity of the NT (relative to the OT), it stands to reason that if the NT is verified, and since there is a continuity between OT and NT, then NT support leads to OT support.

​

You may wish to consider this, Brian.As I am sure you will agree, everyone is subjective to a certain degree, however, anything that I write from my research is scrutinised by my advisor at university, so he does try to keep me balanced. Assuming, of course, that he himself doesn't have a heavily biased view which he then employs as a 'rudder' to direct your own research / conclusions.Yes, this is a danger on a theological level, and indeed I know ‘in my heart’ that there is no God, I know this just as strongly as you know in your heart that there is a God. But on a historical level, I conclude that there really is no doubt amongst scholars that the early history of Israel as portrayed in the Bible is grossly erroneous, I could not come to a conclusion like this if there was convincing contrary evidence, trust me I have looked for it. If you can provide contrary evidence then I will seriously consider it, but I really think I have read almost everything from the maximalist camp.
Anyway, we are all guilty of bias, Yes, we are all biased. Yes, part of what you say above is true and, yes, my mission is to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ. With enough time I think that you can be shown that this, however, is not just a fanatical, blind belief but rather is as logical and 'scientific' as is reasonably possible.

​

God leaves it up to you - it ultimately depends on if you want to find Him or not.I do not doubt that you are on a mission to support your conclusion that God is behind everything in the universe, nothing at all will ever convince you otherwise, if I am wrong about this then tell me what would convince you that there is no God. Could I ever convince you that two plus two does not equal four?

​

BTW, I fully understand what you are saying - I really do - and in many ways you speak the truth. But I perceive that you are missing certain points which I believe would make a difference.

​

Now, you might counter that with, "No, it is you that is missing certain points." Logically, yes, you could say that. But I prefer for the evidence and sound reasoning to then resolve the matter in favor of one position or the other - at least to the point that this is possible.

​

One thing to keep in mind is that ultimately it will NOT be resolvable by logic or empirical evidence alone - God made it that way.But this still could make us unhappy, to see things as they really are might be a total nightmare. 'Logically' you are correct - it could be a total nightmare. But the Word that God has given mankind (if you believe it as I, based on evidence, do) tells us that it will NOT be a total nightmare but rather too wonderful to describe. Am I to believe in God in one area but not in another? He has proven true and faithful in every area of my life... I will therefore trust in Him in this area also (based on the evidence in my life and that of others).Understanding that they are enemies of God might help us to understand why He has decided to torture them, but will it wipe away all those memories of your mum kissing your knee where you fell, her loving hugs when you wake from a bad dream, the sacrifices she made so you could have a safe and loving home, taking her breakfast in bed on a Sunday morning, opening Christmas presents together, holidays together, the list is endless, and God wants me to think of her as an enemy. This is horrendous, I will keep my memories and God can do what He wants. (sorry for the mini rant!) Mini-rant is okay. Here's what I see : you have many very fond memories and you have clearly indicated that you choose to place them above God. That is your prerogative.

​

I, on the other hand, place nothing above God. In other boards that I've participated my signature line is "Though He should slay me yet I will trust in Him." (from the Book of Job).

​

One of the things that God is looking for is what any of us would place ahead of Him. He calls this spiritual idolatry and it is condemnable and rightly so. Reasons for this are at the same time simple and complex but always sensible and beautiful (to me, at least).It just seems so utterly pointless, God knows everything, He knows before the first man was created exactly who is going to spend eternity with Him and who isn’t, this nonsense in the middle is just shows how incompetent God is. Cut out the middle man and let God have His ego massaged by his robots now, instead of all this silly messing about. Not that simple, Brian. You seem like a reasonable man. Answer this : do you truly think that any of us, no matter how many IQ points we may have, could hope to understand the purpose of a Being that is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient?

​

Personally, I am overjoyed when He sees it fit that I should understand in part a single grain of His hundred-mile-high mountain of 'sand'.I am sorry about your mum, the pain does lessen some, but I still get upset about it at certain times of the year, and this is 25 years later. 25 years later - I feel your pain! I apologize to God often for I feel that such an attachment isn't proper. I do know that He understands and I also remind myself that soon enough I'll be joined with her again.Well if there is a God it will certainly be a surprise for me! I'll pray that it won't be a surprise for you.I have never been convinced by this argument, it implies that God is not omniscient. A being that knows everything cannot actually ‘test’ anyone, because He knows what that individual will choose anyway. The 'test' isn't for Him, Brian, it's for US. Trials and tribulations, for example, are opportunities through which we strengthen our faith in Him.

​

You are correct, the Book of Life contains the names of the saved and this Book existed before the foundation of the Earth. However, not even the Son, Jesus Christ, knows these names - only the Father does. To understand this we would need to speak about time and provide analogy with other spatial dimensions. I'll pass on that for now.I should have explained this more. In my opinion, man has written the Bible and God is a figment of man’s imagination, therefore we actually control ‘God’. When something is discovered, certain people say that God decided it was time for us to find this. My opinion is that we are giving credit to an entity that we have created, hence my claim that we dictate what God does and doesn’t do. Ah, I see.Your post was excellent and very much appreciated, it has gave me a much better understanding of the subject. Although I will admit that it is a good answer, it is one that I have difficulty in believing as Truth, although you did state that it is our limited understanding that causes this.Thanks again. Don't mention it. You know, long ago I used to resent this "limited understanding" and then, one day, God "explained" it to me and it doesn't bother me any more (He allowed me to understand that it's part of His plan and to trust Him for the rest - I do!).

​

Thanks again for your civility.

​

Joralex

"Do you plan to be the judge, J., of whether Prozacman had a "genuine relationship with God?"" There's only One with the authority to judge in matters such as this. Hint : it isn't me.How else do you plan to determine if he's "the exception?" By their fruits ye shall know them.

​

Any more questions?

​

Joralex

Hi, I hope you and your family are well. That’s fine, I didn’t mean to hog your time with the long reply, it is just that us isn’t often someone from the ‘opposing’ camp is as articulate as you. That’s fine, there is no hurry even if it is two or three weeks that’s no problem. Of course this is only from a Christian and, to a lesser extent, Muslim viewpoint. Jews do not see any sign of Jesus at all in their Bible, to them the messiah is still to come.I would also venture to say that the prophecies about ‘Jesus’ in the Hebrew bible are tenuous at best, argument from prophecy has long been abandoned as a worthwhile task, the sources are simply too limited and too unreliable. Nope, not clear to any Bible student. A student of the Hebrew Bible can study that without even considering Jesus. There are literally thousands of courses in universities that teach some aspect of the Hebrew Bible and never mention Jesus. There are many things to study in the Hebrew Bible without considering Jesus, for example, you could study the origins and the development of the Hebrew Bible, you could study source criticism, documentary criticism, documentary hypothesis, archaeology and the Hebrew Bible, the list is endless.Granted IF you were studying the Bible from a Christian perspective you could find many alleged links to Jesus in the OT, however, it is not only Christian that study the OT, the OT is not the sole property of the Christian. Of course you know that the Hebrew Bible was around for a very long time before the NT, that Christians see Jesus in it is fundamental to their faith, but it isn’t everyone that shares this belief, so they can study another aspect of the Bible, such as how many people wrote Isaiah’s book, which can be done independently of the NT. Yep, makes sense; however this depends on what it is the detective is investigating. For example, if I were to investigate the historical accuracy of Conquest Of Canaan, then the NT would be of no use to me, I would use the text that is closest to the time of the event, hence the NT is never used for investigating this event. Sorry, but I strongly disagree on this one, it is a non-sequitur. You need to verify your primary sources first, the OT is closest in proximity to all the events described in the OT than the NT is. If I were looking for evidence of King David I would look at texts that may be contemporary to him, not some inscriptions that were written more than a thousand years later. The longer the gap in time between the sources and what they are portraying then the less reliable they are. Archaeologists would claim that the Tel Dan Stele was proof that King David was real (in truth, very few actually do), but they would never think that the mention of King David in the NT is proof that such a character lived.Many events in the NT are said to be related to the OT, takes as an example Jesus’ flight to Egypt as a parallel of the Exodus, the ‘out of Egypt’ prophecy, if the OT version of the account is false then the prophecy in the NT is false. Jesus may well have been to Egypt but that the Israelites were never there means that it wasn’t done to fulfil anything.Think of it this way, the OT would have been available to whoever it was that wrote the gospels, they could simply have been making things up to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophecies that were in the OT. Given that the vast majority of the events in Jesus life are ignored by Jesus' contemporaries then this is a possibility. I mean, who else witnessed the triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, or the cleansing of the temple, or the Sermon on the Mount, or the dead walking the streets when Jesus died, no one noticed this except whoever wrote the Gospels, there are no independent witnesses.
If the sources that the gospel authors used contain only myths or ideologies, then the NT is based on faulty sources. Hence, if the OT is erroneous then some, not all, of the NT is as well. I have considered this. But this only applies to certain areas of research, the Hebrew Bible can be studied without even the slightest thought for the NT, it depends on what you are hoping to prove/disprove. Well I hope not! But it does get graded by an external assessor, and my advisor is a very famous scholar in the field that I am researching, so he should know the pitfalls. Nope,but what you are asking me to believe, in my opinion, is that that two plus two equals five! Well of course I agree, if I had the same experiences as you or had the same agenda as you then I would no doubt have found these certain points. In fact, I may already have found these points but dismissed them as fantasy, who knows? Oh I am a stickler for evidence and reasoning, this is why I know that the Hebrew Bible’s record of many events is erroneous. This is not based on any personal crusade, but only on evidence, or, more accurately, negative evidence of the historical events portrayed in the Hebrew Bible. The spiritual stuff can be argued over all day without agreement, but the cold hard facts of archaeology and history are harder to deny. I understand this, but something extraordinary would have to happen in my life for me to even consider placing God before anyone or anything. I do know that such things do happen, whether it is actually God or a psychological episode is arguable. I had a friend who we all expected to die from drug abuse but he is now a born again Christian and working for a church in England. Something obviously happened to change his life, he says it was Jesus, I am more inclined to put it down to his imagination. If God exists then he has to be far beyond us in every department. But why can’t God understand that some people need more convincing than others, he has to know that some of us reject him by using the talents he gave us, some of us didn’t deliberately set out to deny Him, we have reached our conclusions by using our abilities as best we can, why condemn us if we are too stupid to see God in everything?I am short of time here too, so I need to get going, if you would like to discuss the historical evidence for the OT, then can I suggest that we open another thread so as this one can remain on topic?Thanks again for your time and information.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 09-10-2003][This message has been edited by Brian, 09-10-2003]

OK, your on! Matthew 27 relates how Judas betrayed Jesus, led the men to Jesus, then went and hanged himself. That is obviously a suicide according to the NRSV text. Peter in Acts 1 relates to a crowd of believers that Judas led the men to Jesus, but then he fell down in his field and spilled his guts. That story is not obviously a suicide. Judas could have tripped over a rock or got showered by hornets and then fell. Maybe he was pushed by a vengeful christian. We don't know because Peter doesn't go into detail. Anyway you slice the pie, Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, dies different deaths, and the death in Acts may not be a suicide. Also, there were not TWO Judases who betrayed Jesus unless you wish to read into the bible that Judas, a brother of Jesus, went along with Judas Iscariot. But you can't because nowhere does the the text say that. Also, you can't say that Judas lived after being disemboweled and then hung himself later for two reasons; they didn't have modern surgery with which to save a disemboweled person back then, and you can't read that idea into the text either. Nevertheless, I'm willing to hear your twists and turns on the matter. All this makes me wonder if Judas is happy in heaven; after all, we are supposed to believe that he was used by the devil to betray Jesus, but it was all in God's plan in order to save mankind anyway. So God is using the devil who is using Judas who is betraying Jesus who is saving us from our sins which God hates in the first place! Judas is not happy, he's angry.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-10-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-10-2003]

This thread looks like it may drift into a Bible contradiction discussion, there are already various threads in progress relating to this.if you want to discuss Judas and the various 'contradictions' concerning him, either go to one of the current 'bible contradictions' threads, or open a new thread.Thank you.AdminBrian.

"If God exists then he has to be far beyond us in every department.

​

But why can’t God understand that some people need more convincing than others," May I ask what has convinced you that He doesn't understand this? You can't go by appearances here, Brian, because His purpose is often hid from us and, thus, we arrive at a faulty conclusion based on our incomplete observations."he has to know that some of us reject him by using the talents he gave us, some of us didn’t deliberately set out to deny Him, we have reached our conclusions by using our abilities as best we can, why condemn us if we are too stupid to see God in everything?" Don't be offended but these words reminded me of the me that was long ago. I asked the same question, almost word for word.

​

In time those same abilities that permitted me to "deny" Him were used to affirm Him. I sometimes wonder how it was even possible for me to have been so blind before - denying God now makes no sense (to me) at all. But then I realize, of course, that 'affirming' God makes no sense at all to other people.

​

Here's where I think the actual 'heart condition' of a person enters the picture to solve this dilemma. First it must be noted that the true state of a person's heart (his/her 'inner self') is known only to God.

​

I've met many people (not even insinuating here that you're one of these) that loudly proclaim being "impartial, objective, true seekers of the truth, etc..." only to have later discovered that they carried a preference all along and that their objectivity was severely skewed by this preference.

​

It is impossible to weigh evidence objectively when one is carrying a preference. In time God showed me this truth and He led me to understand certain principles, one of which is that, ultimately, the matter has very little to do with 'evidence' or 'logical arguments' and mostly to do with the person's exercised volition.

​

As a person that has spent most of his life in a scientific environment, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this principle is completely true. I could supply you with many scientific arguments for God and you could probably find some counter-arguments against them. The issue of God is, in the final analysis, non-decidable by empirical evidence or logical argumentation (I firmly believe that He meant for it to be this way). There remains only sufficient support for one's choice - said choice, of course, stemming from the true inner self.

​

God knows the heart so He knows what each of us is inclined to do with the evidence that He has supplied.

​

I hope this answers your question, Brian.

​

Jorge

Whatever happened to: "the heavens declare the glory of God." Actually I would agree with you Jorge! It really is about faith. PM[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-10-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-10-2003]

No, my point was not to debate a contradiction in the Bible concerning Judas Iscariot. I was trying to show how the Bible is not without error. My opinion is that God had to work with the fact that the people who wrote the Bible were fallible, and so the two different deaths of Judas passages are relevant to the ? of the Bible being inerrant or not; but if you want me to discuss judas on the "Bible Contradictions" thread, I will. PM

Hi, PM.I appreciate your response and appreciate you clarifying your intentions.However, to keep the forums running smoothly we need to try and keep the discussion in line with the topic heading, this one being 'How can we possibly to be happy in Heaven?'.If your error is directly related to this question then that's fine, I was only pointing out that it was possible that this thread could drift off topic.I have been involved in many debates over the Bible references to Judas to know that often it the debate gets round to the subject of how he died, or what he did with the 30 pieces of silver, and that pieces of silver were outdated as coins were in usage, things lke that.Feel free to discuss Judas here if it is related to being happy in heaven, anything else really needs its own thread or can be added to an existing thread.It is up to you.AdminBrian.

"Whatever happened to: "the heavens declare the glory of God." Actually I would agree with you Jorge! It really is about faith. PM" I apologize for promoting a false image of my position (I realize that I did so).

​

There is plenty of natural evidence that "declares the glory of God".

​

What I meant to say is that in the final analysis this 'natural evidence' is, by itself, insufficient to lead any person to accept God over Naturalism. The reason why this is so is because said evidence may be interpreted in ways that support an alternate metaphysic, e.g., Naturalism.

​

Even more important, a person may always choose to ignore evidence, or choose to be 'selective' about a body of evidence, in such a way so as to support his/her position.

​

Just felt that I needed to clear this up... this topic is clearly out of place here.

​

Jorge

Right on Jorge! In spite of all I've learned(not much by the way) as a self-designated amateur science enthusiast(having no formal science training other than a few college level courses), I still believe in God. It IS a matter of volition, and it is a personal journey; one that is both discouraging and uplifting at times.
One can both realize that the Orion Nebula, for example, is belching out newborn stars and planets and do the observational science. One can also choose to believe(or not) that Orion is awsome and beautiful and is in some sense a manifestation of God. That does not discount one's ability to doubt and question.

Ooh, ooh, ooh! Me, me, me! I want to try!I call this the "two in two" theory, and I got it from Justin Martyr and Tertullian (mostly, but also from an Arkansas Pentecostal named Dave).God has a son. That son is not human, but divine, because his Father is not human, but divine. The Son showed up many times as God's "angel." Those who saw him seemed to recognize him as divine, and referred to him as Yahweh or God, but also referred to him as "the Angel of God."Just based on my simple ol' reading, with nothing to go on but how the context sounds, the phrase "the Angel of God" seems to read like "the presence of God" or "the appearance of God" or something like that. God, the invisible and unseeable, appears by his Angel.I'm combining two thoughts here, that of the Angel, which comes from the Tanach (Law and Prophets), and that of the Son, which comes from the apostles and their descendants.The appearances of God on earth in the Tanach were the Son. Thus Yahweh on earth can call down fire from Yahweh in heaven in Genesis, and Yahweh can be sent by Yahweh in Zechariah (ch. 2, I think, towards the end).According to Tertullian and all the other early Christians, the Son can be confined to a place and thus can appear on earth. It is impossible to confine God to a place, and he does not make appearances on earth. Those are all the Son.Tertullian's explanation of the use of God in reference to the Son is pretty neat, and it is a real slap in the face to the later Trinity doctrine, especially since it comes from the guy who's supposed to have invented the term Trinity! He said that when a sunbeam shines through a window, you refer to it as the sun. However, if you are talking about the sunbeam and the sun at the same time, you immediately withdraw the name sun from the "mere beam," and speak of the sun and the beam. So it is with the Father and Son. The Son can be called God, but when you speak of the Father and the Son together, you immediately withdraw the term God from the Son, who is merely God's Word, and you speak of God and his Word or God and his Son.All that's in Against Praxeas. I think you'll find the NT usage of God in reference to the Son exactly fits Tertullian's description.

Would you say that 'angel of the LORD' is an equivalent saying? But, of course you would. The two sayings are presented equivalently in scripture, so far as I am aware. The problem with your 'two in two' theory, as I see it, is that except for the anointed king of Israel, none other, in the OT is referred to as 'Son of God.' The 'angel of the LORD' is very busy throughout the Old Testament.The 'angel of the LORD' called to Abraham from heaven. Genesis 22:11'God,' 'the LORD,' and 'the angel of the LORD,' are used equivalently in the 'burning bush' narrative. Exodus 3:4-6The 'angel of the LORD' provides military assistance to the Israeli's as they flee Egypt (Exodus 14:19) and leads the attack on Canaan (Ex. 23:20,23; 33:2).The 'angel of the LORD' kills 70,000 Israeli's (1 Chronicles 21:12) and 30,000 Assyrians (Isaiah 37:36).If you take 'the angel of the LORD' to be God in human form, then how many times was he incarnated? How many times did he appear in the flesh before becoming known as the man 'Jesus who is called Christ.'? I realize this is a complex study. The purpose of this post is, if nothing else, to demonstrate that neither the 'three in one' theory nor the 'two in one' theory do justice to the evidence. Is there a multiplicity of gods represented? Certainly. But only the One God for Israel.------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

OK, I'll take Judas out of this thread, and heaven(he,s angry there anyway).Besides some would question whether he should be in heaven, and that's another possible thread altogether![This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-12-2003]