What would heaven be like?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
As to goodness I am taking a strictly US interpretation from the undelegated powers to STATES or citizens by the 10th ammendment but by the 11th it can not be defined by what a state did that was 'bad'instead I would have to have had it built in case law from violation socially of something true in the biological community of Aristotle's position but the distribution of such a power I have not principalled on this station on Earth. First it would be known biologically as to the equality of all men. This however could be alineated by some virtual reality however. As to how this totally is cut out that may depend on distinguishing this legal appearence from the appearence of truth itself.

---

Brad,
Could you restate this? I'm not getting it, at all. Sorry.-Shiloh

Question: If no one is capable of a sin-free life (other than Christ, which I believe) then how is sin a function of free will?If I am unable, by definition, to fly, how can my failure to fly be held as a product of my "free will?"Isn't it more reasonable to simply accept the idea that God alone is holy, that we are not, and that this is simply a result of our imperfection? If one uses this paradigm, then so-called "free will" is not an issue in heaven. I enjoy my health and do not need to be sick occasionally to help me value wellness. An illness might in fact have that result, but it certainly is not required.In keeping with this analogy, being free from "sin" in heaven, or anywhere for that matter, might simply put us into a state of holiness that could best be described as "well."I don't need to go slam a rig of heroin to know that it isn't for me.Does this make any sense?(Side bar: my wife just walked in and pointed out that, if you are a literalist, angels in heaven revolted against God, which would have to be "sin." So, the question that follows is: Do angels have free will? Clearly THEY had the ability to sin in heaven. Of course one could argue that angels were never bought by the blood of Christ. So I'm not sure how that plays into all this.)-Shiloh

[QUOTE]Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:Could you ever appreciate summer if there was no winter?[/B][/QUOTE]I take it from your profile information that you're from Canada and may be under a pile of snow right now! So I understand your question!Having said that, I must disagree with the suggestion that without bad we would not value good. I certainly don't need my wife to cheat on me to help me better value her fidelity.Summer is nice for what it is- baseball, lemon-aid, shorts, walking the dog- not for what it isn't- glittering snow fields, crisp air, nights at home with family around the fireplace...It's all in how one sees it. But it doesn't seem to me to define good v. evil, right v. wrong, sin v. righteousness.-Shiloh

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gzus:
Why is it bad to be unfree? Because, then you are unconscious, you have no freedom of mind as there can only be one perfect thinking pattern.[/B][/QUOTE] ________________________________________________________________
I don't see this as true.There is no qualitative value of red over blue, Yankees over Mets, or lions over spring bucks. One does not engage in "sin" by having a differant thinking pattern, so long as that thinking pattern is within the vast range of the nature of God.I do not have to experience death to appreciate life. I don't need my A/C to go out in the summer to value nice cool air. It may have that effect, but it is not required. All that is necessary is to be aware of the world around me, open to it, and (for me) to speak that appreciation out loud.This notion that a strict dichotomy exists between good and bad and that good cannot be truely appreciated without experiencing bad is a uniquely Western thought, one we might ought to struggle free from.If you had a nice Christmas dinner yesterday, was it more enjoyable for you because you knew that many people had nothing at all? Or did your heart go out to them; did you feel somehow guilty or pained for their lack? I'm not saying that we should feel bad about the generosity we show our own families, rather simply that there are many ways to view/react to the things we value.Like red or blue, Yankees or Mets...and it has little to do with sin or free will.One of the failings of the church, it seems to me, is the obvious effort to squeeze everyone into the same tiny box. It is not un-Christian to hold differing views on the EvC issue, or the KJV-Only issue, or many other topics on which reasonable people may disagree.It is only un-Christian if we disagree in a way which offends the nature of God. As if we had a firm handle on that!-Shiloh

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gzus:
[B]Take water for example. Water is water not bater. But do we appreciate this, no! because bater is a word I just made up. Before I invented/thought about the ‘bater concept’ no one appreciated the fact that water is water and not bater, since bater did not exist in fact or mind.
B][/QUOTE]_________________________________________________I always liked and appreciated water, particularly since there was no "bater" at all for me to consider. I think your arguement accidently disproves your case.We will all we better off when we learn to value things for what they are without comparison to any other thing. Do you love one of your children at the expense of the others?-Shiloh