How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (6 Viewers)

[Paddington]

I've stayed away from here because arguing online about the Bible is a mostly fruitless and possibly counter-productive endeavor, so this may be it for me.

I wanted to just chime in on the crux of the book of Job because up thread on this page there seem to be some misunderstandings of the book and what I see as its purpose.

The central theme I've taken from it is that we are utterly clueless and specks in the eyes of God so to question him (especially in an accusatory way) seems pretty foolish.

Does it seem like he is playing with you? Does it seem like things are unfair? Does it seem like this world is a mess? What do you really know and/or understand?

God basically says "OK, if you think you have a right to question me about the large over-arching matters of the universe, explain how the basics of the physical world work". To put a modern spin on it, tell me exactly how big the universe is? How does the Quantum world work? Explain how life came from non-life? If you can't explain these things how can you understand a realm you can't see, hear or feel and (and here's the big one) how can you question the one who created it all and does know all of these answers?

The Bible gives VERY little insight into the spiritual realm honestly. How angels, demons, God and Satan interact is mostly unexplained. Job is one of the only books to give us any glimpse and it is also the second oldest book chronologically, taking place mid-Genesis. It's nuance is hard to grasp today, but I think the basic points are fairly universal.

Now there are a million steps beyond that for us to gain and understand in the Bible about humanity, God's relationship with us, Jesus (who/what he even is exactly) and what the point of all of this is. But as for Job, the point is we don't know squat so you might want to check yourself before you make accusations against the one who actually does know it all.

Honestly, I don't see much arguing here. I see MUCH worse at other sites. God has a more important purpose with the Bible than helping people understand how the spirit realm operates, but there is a lot of insight. His main goal is for mankind to be saved from an eternal hell. That's what you should fear and what should motivate all of us to learn the Way of Salvation. Read this first post.

 

[Grahamburn]

Bears go to heaven?

Only Black Bears. Because they're Best.

Bears. Beets. BattleStar Gallactica.

 

[dgreen]

@dkp993 I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you think someone should take every word of the Bible as literal or non-literal? That someone's interpretation shouldn't vary from one book/chapter/verse to another?

You asked Ivan if he takes anything in the Bible as literal. I assume that answer for everyone is yes. I'm not sure I've met anyone who claims that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that's literal (I'm assuming by "literal" you mean something like "actually happened"). Are you saying you don't take anything in the Bible as literal?

I’m not applying “should” to anything. Don’t feel that’s my place to tell someone what to do regarding their personal beliefs. What I am saying is I understand those that take it all (or overwhelmingly all) literal or those that only see it as a book of stories on morals better than those in the middle. And while I understand that the majority of believers fall into that middle category I just don’t understand how they can be fully convicted they are right in the certain things they chose to believe in and while picking and choosing what not to believe in. In other words for example…. Why is it they fully believe Jesus is the real son of God but not fully believe in the flood (for example) and say that’s a story to teach lessons.

My high-level answer to your question is going to be the one I've been giving this whole time. If the author is intending that I read something as if it happened, then that's how I want to read it. If they aren't, then I don't want to read it that way. We don't have access to the authors, so I can't ask them. I lean on experts, people out there who spend most of their life learning as much as they can about this stuff. Their research can inform my opinions. As I learn from them, I can learn how to read better and look for signs of their intentions. The more I've learned, the less I ask the question, "Did this actually happen?" Rarely do I think the point of the text is to convey historical facts as if it's a newspaper article, so my goal is to try to figure out what questions they are trying to answer.

What you're asking, though, is evidence for and against a couple examples.

Honestly, I'm not sure what it means to say Jesus is the "real son of God". Is that a biological question? If so, I don't know how to answer that. The "son of God" title was certainly a Caesar term and I'm confident the NT authors were subversively playing off of that. Additionally, Israel was metaphorically referred to as God's son in the Hebrew Scriptures and that's also part of what the NT authors are doing with the title for Jesus. I definitely see Jesus as the "real son of God" in whatever sense the NT authors were presenting him as the "son of God". I don't know they they had biology, or direct descendant, on their mind. Clearly Matthew and Luke tell stories that have God/Holy Spirit playing some kind of role in Mary's conception of Jesus. So maybe this is a question about the virgin birth. Other than Matthew and Luke, I don't think the rest of the NT authors make a big deal about it, certainly not as big of a deal as the resurrection. The resurrection is something that I do think the NT authors are communicating was an actual real event.

As for the flood, there are so many signs, IMO, indicating the author isn't intending it to be read in a literal manner. There's its relation to other flood stories, hyperbolic language, and literary structure and devices used by the author that indicate the goal is not to record historic facts. While you are asking how can one story be read as real and another not, I think there are also aspects within each story that can be differentiated too. For example, my assumption is there was some kind of flood(s) that led all these cultures to write these stories. So, I do believe it is referencing something that happened, but it is not trying to affirm all the details as historical facts. Instead, the flood story uses the details in its literary structure and devices to draw the reader towards its meaning.

 

[-fish-]

@dkp993 I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you think someone should take every word of the Bible as literal or non-literal? That someone's interpretation shouldn't vary from one book/chapter/verse to another?

You asked Ivan if he takes anything in the Bible as literal. I assume that answer for everyone is yes. I'm not sure I've met anyone who claims that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that's literal (I'm assuming by "literal" you mean something like "actually happened"). Are you saying you don't take anything in the Bible as literal?

I’m not applying “should” to anything. Don’t feel that’s my place to tell someone what to do regarding their personal beliefs. What I am saying is I understand those that take it all (or overwhelmingly all) literal or those that only see it as a book of stories on morals better than those in the middle. And while I understand that the majority of believers fall into that middle category I just don’t understand how they can be fully convicted they are right in the certain things they chose to believe in and while picking and choosing what not to believe in. In other words for example…. Why is it they fully believe Jesus is the real son of God but not fully believe in the flood (for example) and say that’s a story to teach lessons.

My high-level answer to your question is going to be the one I've been giving this whole time. If the author is intending that I read something as if it happened, then that's how I want to read it. If they aren't, then I don't want to read it that way. We don't have access to the authors, so I can't ask them. I lean on experts, people out there who spend most of their life learning as much as they can about this stuff. Their research can inform my opinions. As I learn from them, I can learn how to read better and look for signs of their intentions. The more I've learned, the less I ask the question, "Did this actually happen?" Rarely do I think the point of the text is to convey historical facts as if it's a newspaper article, so my goal is to try to figure out what questions they are trying to answer.

What you're asking, though, is evidence for and against a couple examples.

Honestly, I'm not sure what it means to say Jesus is the "real son of God". Is that a biological question? If so, I don't know how to answer that. The "son of God" title was certainly a Caesar term and I'm confident the NT authors were subversively playing off of that. Additionally, Israel was metaphorically referred to as God's son in the Hebrew Scriptures and that's also part of what the NT authors are doing with the title for Jesus. I definitely see Jesus as the "real son of God" in whatever sense the NT authors were presenting him as the "son of God". I don't know they they had biology, or direct descendant, on their mind. Clearly Matthew and Luke tell stories that have God/Holy Spirit playing some kind of role in Mary's conception of Jesus. So maybe this is a question about the virgin birth. Other than Matthew and Luke, I don't think the rest of the NT authors make a big deal about it, certainly not as big of a deal as the resurrection. The resurrection is something that I do think the NT authors are communicating was an actual real event.

As for the flood, there are so many signs, IMO, indicating the author isn't intending it to be read in a literal manner. There's its relation to other flood stories, hyperbolic language, and literary structure and devices used by the author that indicate the goal is not to record historic facts. While you are asking how can one story be read as real and another not, I think there are also aspects within each story that can be differentiated too. For example, my assumption is there was some kind of flood(s) that led all these cultures to write these stories. So, I do believe it is referencing something that happened, but it is not trying to affirm all the details as historical facts. Instead, the flood story uses the details in its literary structure and devices to draw the reader towards its meaning.

Resurrection has to be literal or the whole thing falls apart, doesn't it?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

In an attempt to move past your saying we have nothing to gain by this interaction (yet you continue to interact), as well as your continued condescension of my ability to understand, I’ll ask you a simple question that will help frame our conversation going forward. Do you believe Jesus was the literal Son of God? Or I’ll even expand on that, do you believe anything in the Bible is literal truth?

Yep.

So with that said you really can’t fathom how someone like myself would wonder how individuals like your pick and choose what to believe is literal and what isn’t?

Yes, I really can't fathom that. It's just basic media literacy. Luke-Acts is history. Job isn't. Like I said earlier, if you don't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you.

To clarify, Luke-Acts might not be true, but it purports to be true. By way of contrast, the author of Job doesn't seriously contend that the titular character even existed. None of us have any problem understanding this sort of thing in other contexts. We all know that the movie Fargo is a work of fiction even though it says "Based on a true story" at the beginning. I will grant that there are Bible stories where reasonable people of goodwill might disagree about authorial intent, but in general this isn't a difficult thing to tease out.

TBH, the only way this conversation even makes sense to me is if you're thinking of the Bible as a single book written by a single author. In that case, I guess I can see why it might be weird to real that book like Wikipedia in one section and like literature in another section. But I don't conceive of the Bible as anything like that. I think of it as an assortment of books written by different people, for different purposes, at different places and different moments in time. So of course I read each of those books differently. I can't relate to doing anything else.

 

[dgreen]

@dkp993 I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you think someone should take every word of the Bible as literal or non-literal? That someone's interpretation shouldn't vary from one book/chapter/verse to another?

You asked Ivan if he takes anything in the Bible as literal. I assume that answer for everyone is yes. I'm not sure I've met anyone who claims that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that's literal (I'm assuming by "literal" you mean something like "actually happened"). Are you saying you don't take anything in the Bible as literal?

I’m not applying “should” to anything. Don’t feel that’s my place to tell someone what to do regarding their personal beliefs. What I am saying is I understand those that take it all (or overwhelmingly all) literal or those that only see it as a book of stories on morals better than those in the middle. And while I understand that the majority of believers fall into that middle category I just don’t understand how they can be fully convicted they are right in the certain things they chose to believe in and while picking and choosing what not to believe in. In other words for example…. Why is it they fully believe Jesus is the real son of God but not fully believe in the flood (for example) and say that’s a story to teach lessons.

My high-level answer to your question is going to be the one I've been giving this whole time. If the author is intending that I read something as if it happened, then that's how I want to read it. If they aren't, then I don't want to read it that way. We don't have access to the authors, so I can't ask them. I lean on experts, people out there who spend most of their life learning as much as they can about this stuff. Their research can inform my opinions. As I learn from them, I can learn how to read better and look for signs of their intentions. The more I've learned, the less I ask the question, "Did this actually happen?" Rarely do I think the point of the text is to convey historical facts as if it's a newspaper article, so my goal is to try to figure out what questions they are trying to answer.

What you're asking, though, is evidence for and against a couple examples.

Honestly, I'm not sure what it means to say Jesus is the "real son of God". Is that a biological question? If so, I don't know how to answer that. The "son of God" title was certainly a Caesar term and I'm confident the NT authors were subversively playing off of that. Additionally, Israel was metaphorically referred to as God's son in the Hebrew Scriptures and that's also part of what the NT authors are doing with the title for Jesus. I definitely see Jesus as the "real son of God" in whatever sense the NT authors were presenting him as the "son of God". I don't know they they had biology, or direct descendant, on their mind. Clearly Matthew and Luke tell stories that have God/Holy Spirit playing some kind of role in Mary's conception of Jesus. So maybe this is a question about the virgin birth. Other than Matthew and Luke, I don't think the rest of the NT authors make a big deal about it, certainly not as big of a deal as the resurrection. The resurrection is something that I do think the NT authors are communicating was an actual real event.

As for the flood, there are so many signs, IMO, indicating the author isn't intending it to be read in a literal manner. There's its relation to other flood stories, hyperbolic language, and literary structure and devices used by the author that indicate the goal is not to record historic facts. While you are asking how can one story be read as real and another not, I think there are also aspects within each story that can be differentiated too. For example, my assumption is there was some kind of flood(s) that led all these cultures to write these stories. So, I do believe it is referencing something that happened, but it is not trying to affirm all the details as historical facts. Instead, the flood story uses the details in its literary structure and devices to draw the reader towards its meaning.

Resurrection has to be literal or the whole thing falls apart, doesn't it?

Well, I will say that I thought a lot of things would make the whole thing fall apart, but it hasn’t. Some people do see the resurrection as metaphorical and continue to consider themselves Christians. For me, it does seem important. I’d like to learn more about its theological significance. Most of my life, I’ve simply considered it to be a major ta-da moment, but it has to be more than that and I’d like to be able better understand that.

 

[dgreen]

I wish there was a way to easily communicate to non-believers that the Bible is not actually a list of approved and unapproved activities, as if you're just supposed to check the right boxes so you can pass some kind of exam when you die.

I mean, you can make a good argument that books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually that sort of book

Seems like you've figured out the crux of the issue.

That and the fact that many (most, I don’t know as I haven’t attended every single one) churches preach that they are.

Look, I don’t pretend to have all the answers and as I’ve said upstream I perfectly happy with whatever someone wants to believe, especially if it’s leading them on a path to trying to be the best person they can be. But it all seems pretty convenient to me that we get to pick and choose what is “real” and “true” (say the 10 commandments, or Jesus as the actual son of God for example) but disregard the parts that aren’t or don’t suit our current world view. The it’s up to you to interpret the truth and guidance angle makes no sense to me with a God that is going to hold us accountable.

I guess what I’m saying is I understand more the “fundamentalist” viewpoint than the “interpreters” even if I disagree with them.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand because I think there's no way around interpretation, but I could be using that word differently than you. I'd say even the "fundamentalist" is interpreting. They may claim they aren't, but they are, IMO.

Fair question. I guess in the simplest of terms I mean it in the sense of picking and choosing what “real” (ie Jesus is the literal Son of God) and what is not, is story for effect and what is no longer valid (burning bush, Noah and the ark, or stoning people for transgressions).

We've discussed this exact issue over and over again for over 20 years. With respect, if a person on this forum genuinely does not understand why a Christian might read the book of Jonah metaphorically while taking Acts literally, I don't know what to tell you. Literally. There's nothing I can say that is going to make this click for you at this point. Neither of us is going to gain anything from this sidebar.

So then why do you feel the need to interact IK? Is it only to condescend or is it you can’t possibly fathom I (or others) haven’t read every word you’ve wrote on this subject over the past 20yrs?

I genuinely can't fathom how a person gets to middle age and doesn't understand how other grown adults distinguish between literature and history. I've been a fairly avid reader all my life, and I can't recall a time when I was unable to do this -- I'm sure such a time existed, but it was prior to any of my recorded memories. When a person tells me that they are unable to make this kind of distinction, or that they need a rubric of some sort, it reminds me of people who say that they don't have an internal monologue. I believe them, but I also recognize that we have very little in common and our internal mental lives are wildly different from one another.

An alternative explanation is that everybody else is able to make these distinctions just fine, and this line of argument is being made in bad faith. If you spend a lot of time in religion threads, you'll notice that the Richard Dawkins types really want you to be a fundamentalist who takes the Bible very literally, because that's an easy view to refute. They hate it when you're not a literalist, because then they're reduced to the point-and-sputter tactic of complaining about "picking and choosing." Non-fundamentalist versions of Christianity still have their philosophical weak points of course, but you're not going to find them by quoting random Bible verses out of context.

So when a person says something like "Well, how you do know that the creation story is supposed to be a fable? How do you know that Job isn't supposed to be taken literally? How do you know that Jonah didn't literally live for three days in the belly of a whale?" I know that this is a conversation doomed to go nowhere because these questions have all been asked and answered. And at the end of the day, the Bible is available for free online. Read the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, and ask yourself whether the author sees himself as describing history or whether he's using metaphor to impart wisdom. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that exercise. Or read Jonah -- it's very short. Ask yourself whether it even matters whether Jonah was a real person or not.

In an attempt to move past your saying we have nothing to gain by this interaction (yet you continue to interact), as well as your continued condescension of my ability to understand, I’ll ask you a simple question that will help frame our conversation going forward. Do you believe Jesus was the literal Son of God? Or I’ll even expand on that, do you believe anything in the Bible is literal truth?

Yep.

So with that said you really can’t fathom how someone like myself would wonder how individuals like your pick and choose what to believe is literal and what isn’t?

Yes, I really can't fathom that. It's just basic media literacy. Luke-Acts is history. Job isn't. Like I said earlier, if you don't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you.

To clarify, Luke-Acts might not be true, but it purports to be true. By way of contrast, the author of Job doesn't seriously contend that the titular character even existed. None of us have any problem understanding this sort of thing in other contexts. We all know that the movie Fargo is a work of fiction even though it says "Based on a true story" at the beginning. I will grant that there are Bible stories where reasonable people of goodwill might disagree about authorial intent, but in general this isn't a difficult thing to tease out.

TBH, the only way this conversation even makes sense to me is if you're thinking of the Bible as a single book written by a single author. In that case, I guess I can see why it might be weird to real that book like Wikipedia in one section and like literature in another section. But I don't conceive of the Bible as anything like that. I think of it as an assortment of books written by different people, for different purposes, at different places and different moments in time. So of course I read each of those books differently. I can't relate to doing anything else.

Just to add some nuance, while Luke-Acts purports to be historical, I don’t think that has to mean every detail is intended as historical fact. Just as we can identify differences between Luke-Acts and Job, we can conclude that the author is using literary license at times to make a point through some other means than strict, modern recording of history.

 

[TennesseeJed]

His main goal is for mankind to be saved from an eternal hell.

That strikes me as odd. Isn't God setting the criteria for who is saved, and who is not? This makes it sound like someone/thing other than God is passing judgement - and God is just trying to help.

Seems to me if God's main goal was to save mankind from eternal damnation - then he should simply accept everyone.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Luke-Acts is history.

Some is likely history, but much is likely myth consistent with the story-telling of the time.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Luke-Acts is history.

Some is likely history, but much is likely myth consistent with the story-telling of the time.

Okay, thanks.

 

[Zow]

His main goal is for mankind to be saved from an eternal hell.

That strikes me as odd. Isn't God setting the criteria for who is saved, and who is not? This makes it sound like someone/thing other than God is passing judgement - and God is just trying to help.

Seems to me if God's main goal was to save mankind from eternal damnation - then he should simply accept everyone.

Knock knock

Who’s there?

It’s me, G/god. Let me in.

Why?

So I can save you.

Save me from what?

From all the things I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in.

 

[Rich Conway]

His main goal is for mankind to be saved from an eternal hell.

That strikes me as odd. Isn't God setting the criteria for who is saved, and who is not? This makes it sound like someone/thing other than God is passing judgement - and God is just trying to help.

Seems to me if God's main goal was to save mankind from eternal damnation - then he should simply accept everyone.

Knock knock

Who’s there?

It’s me, G/god. Let me in.

Why?

So I can save you.

Save me from what?

From all the things I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in.

Sounds like mob protection money. "Nice restaurant you got here. Be a shame if something happened to it."

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Sounds like mob protection money. "Nice restaurant you got here. Be a shame if something happened to it."

As long as Joe Pesci doesn't play God. That would be quite disappointing.

 

[-fish-]

His main goal is for mankind to be saved from an eternal hell.

That strikes me as odd. Isn't God setting the criteria for who is saved, and who is not? This makes it sound like someone/thing other than God is passing judgement - and God is just trying to help.

Seems to me if God's main goal was to save mankind from eternal damnation - then he should simply accept everyone.

or not create hell in the first place. seems like a massive time-saver

 

[Paddington]

Have you read the old bible I told you about? Probably one of the first old English bibles? There were, of course, centuries of bibles before that.

I have the UVERSION Bible with dozens of translations. Probably every available English Translation. These are all Translations from the same manuscripts. They aren't a translation of a translation...

This is the 1540 version. Have you EVER seen it? Much less attempted to READ it? I doubt it. Try page 3.

Some translations are more accurate than others.

[link to www.originalbibles.com (secure)]


I've read my fair share of ancient texts, and let me tell you, these Roman historians are a fascinating bunch.

Cool. Roman historians are the best from their day and would be put to death for putting inaccurate info into the history.

They mention Jesus, they do! Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius – all of them have something to say about this guy who seems to have caused quite a stir in the Roman Empire. But let's break down what they're really saying.

There are a lot more than those even.

Tacitus mentions Jesus being executed by Nero. Well, that's a pretty big deal, isn't it? But remember, Tacitus was writing decades after Jesus' supposed death. So, how accurate can his account really be?

VERY accurate. The Romans took history VERY seriously. A few decades is actually very soon for back in the ancient days.


Pliny the Younger and Suetonius mention Christians worshipping Christ as God. Now, that's interesting, but it doesn't necessarily prove that Jesus was divine. After all, people have worshipped all sorts of things as gods throughout history.

No, but it proves that people believed that He was divine. Now what would make them believe that other than His miracles were true and His death and resurrection was true?

And then there's Josephus, the Jewish historian. He mentions Jesus, but some scholars have questioned the authenticity of certain passages. So, can we really trust his account?

Only Liberals who will stop at nothing to disprove the Bible and Jesus. Yes you can trust his account. Liberals don't care about what is true, they care about proving what THEY want to be true.

As for the archaeological evidence, well, that's a different story. It's always good to have physical proof to back up historical claims. But even archaeological evidence can be interpreted in different ways.

Well, there has never been an archaeological find that has DISPROVED anything in the Bible and there have been plenty of finds that actually AFFIRM stories in the Bible.

So, what does it all mean? Well, I think it's clear that Jesus was a real person, a historical figure who lived and died in the Roman Empire. But whether he was the Son of God, that's a question of faith, not history. And as for the miracles, well, that's a whole different can of worms.

Yes a real person, who was prophesied about hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and How He would die and much more.

In the end, the truth about Jesus is probably a lot more complicated than any of us can fully understand. And that's okay. Sometimes, the most interesting mysteries are the ones we can't solve.

I think the Bible and History makes it very clear who He is and that He is the very Son of God, prophesied hundreds of years before His birth. I know Him personally. Yes I do. He has performed true miracles in my family and in my life. I have no doubt who He is. He is why I come on to this board and share the Gospel because He has come to me when I was both awake and in dreams and spoken to me. He led me to a Church that discipled me in the foundational doctrines of the faith.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Not sure if it's worth doing but to keep the alien thread on topic (LOL) I'm pulling this from that thread to this one.

Some folks took note of the "people that rely on religion to get through their days" thing.

I get it. The "you need a crutch" thing is a basic level passive-aggressive shot people have used for ages. And not just with faith. It's often used to insult someone they feel is inferior and rationalizing something in the "Whatever helps you sleep at night" jab.

It can land for some, especially people who put a high value on strength and self-sufficiency. The modern macho American Hero doesn't need anything from anyone. He's completely independent, and any hint of needing something from anywhere else is seen as a weakness.

So for some, the "You need your faith to get through" is an effective insult.

But if we're following Jesus, I don't think it should be.

The reality is for Christians, the tenant of our faith is we can't do it by ourselves. We literally call Jesus a Savior.

As I talk to people, especially strong / independent / successful people, that's often their biggest obstacle.

In some ways, it's easy to do ministry somewhere like prison. People there clearly are having trouble. I think it's much more difficult to reach people who seemingly are doing great on their own.

I know that was my biggest obstacle. As Christians we do need our faith.

So when they go with the "you need faith to get through the day", the answer I think is and agree and move forward.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Only Liberals who will stop at nothing to disprove the Bible and Jesus. Yes you can trust his account. Liberals don't care about what is true, they care about proving what THEY want to be true.

Cool.

 

[Captain Cranks]

So for some, the "You need your faith to get through" is an effective insult.

I understand how that would be insulting, but I have met a lot of people where this is true. Jesus saved them from addiction or from anger or hopelessness and therefore he can save me too. But I don't need saving. Could I improve my life and be a better person by putting in the effort to live by Jesus' principles? No doubt. But there are countless other roads I could take to reach the same end that don't include Jesus. So while a generalized "Christians use Jesus as a crutch" accusation is unfair, there are definitely Christians who needed Jesus to save them from their struggles.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Only Liberals who will stop at nothing to disprove the Bible and Jesus. Yes you can trust his account. Liberals don't care about what is true, they care about proving what THEY want to be true.

Drop the political talk and insults to liberals.

We can have a civil discussion on this but do not take it down these paths.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not sure if it's worth doing but to keep the alien thread on topic (LOL) I'm pulling this from that thread to this one.

Some folks took note of the "people that rely on religion to get through their days" thing.

I get it. The "you need a crutch" thing is a basic level passive-aggressive shot people have used for ages. And not just with faith. It's often used to insult someone they feel is inferior and rationalizing something in the "Whatever helps you sleep at night" jab.

It can land for some, especially people who put a high value on strength and self-sufficiency. The modern macho American Hero doesn't need anything from anyone. He's completely independent, and any hint of needing something from anywhere else is seen as a weakness.

So for some, the "You need your faith to get through" is an effective insult.

But if we're following Jesus, I don't think it should be.

The reality is for Christians, the tenant of our faith is we can't do it by ourselves. We literally call Jesus a Savior.

As I talk to people, especially strong / independent / successful people, that's often their biggest obstacle.

In some ways, it's easy to do ministry somewhere like prison. People there clearly are having trouble. I think it's much more difficult to reach people who seemingly are doing great on their own.

I know that was my biggest obstacle. As Christians we do need our faith.

So when they go with the "you need faith to get through the day", the answer I think is and agree and move forward.

I agree, but that comment was intended as an insult, and I think it's fine to take it in the manner that it was intended.

Sorry -- I know that's not the most excellent thing in the world, but I'm growing weary of pretending that people are engaging in good faith when they're very obviously not.

But that doesn't matter, because we all get to enjoy a classic Big 10 showdown of USC vs. Michigan today. Have a good weekend.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Not sure if it's worth doing but to keep the alien thread on topic (LOL) I'm pulling this from that thread to this one.

Some folks took note of the "people that rely on religion to get through their days" thing.

I get it. The "you need a crutch" thing is a basic level passive-aggressive shot people have used for ages. And not just with faith. It's often used to insult someone they feel is inferior and rationalizing something in the "Whatever helps you sleep at night" jab.

It can land for some, especially people who put a high value on strength and self-sufficiency. The modern macho American Hero doesn't need anything from anyone. He's completely independent, and any hint of needing something from anywhere else is seen as a weakness.

So for some, the "You need your faith to get through" is an effective insult.

But if we're following Jesus, I don't think it should be.

The reality is for Christians, the tenant of our faith is we can't do it by ourselves. We literally call Jesus a Savior.

As I talk to people, especially strong / independent / successful people, that's often their biggest obstacle.

In some ways, it's easy to do ministry somewhere like prison. People there clearly are having trouble. I think it's much more difficult to reach people who seemingly are doing great on their own.

I know that was my biggest obstacle. As Christians we do need our faith.

So when they go with the "you need faith to get through the day", the answer I think is and agree and move forward.

I agree, but that comment was intended as an insult, and I think it's fine to take it in the manner that it was intended.

Sorry -- I know that's not the most excellent thing in the world, but I'm growing weary of pretending that people are engaging in good faith when they're very obviously not.

But that doesn't matter, because we all get to enjoy a classic Big 10 showdown of USC vs. Michigan today. Have a good weekend.

Go Blue!

 

[belljr]

So liberals can't be Christians??

Well that took a turn. I didn't know you had to vote a certain political party to believe in God

 

[Joe Bryant]

So liberals can't be Christians??

Well that took a turn. I didn't know you had to vote a certain political party to believe in God

You don’t. That’s why I told him to drop that talk.

Not only do I believe it’s incorrect, it’s not helpful at all.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Not sure if it's worth doing but to keep the alien thread on topic (LOL) I'm pulling this from that thread to this one.

Some folks took note of the "people that rely on religion to get through their days" thing.

I get it. The "you need a crutch" thing is a basic level passive-aggressive shot people have used for ages. And not just with faith. It's often used to insult someone they feel is inferior and rationalizing something in the "Whatever helps you sleep at night" jab.

It can land for some, especially people who put a high value on strength and self-sufficiency. The modern macho American Hero doesn't need anything from anyone. He's completely independent, and any hint of needing something from anywhere else is seen as a weakness.

So for some, the "You need your faith to get through" is an effective insult.

But if we're following Jesus, I don't think it should be.

The reality is for Christians, the tenant of our faith is we can't do it by ourselves. We literally call Jesus a Savior.

As I talk to people, especially strong / independent / successful people, that's often their biggest obstacle.

In some ways, it's easy to do ministry somewhere like prison. People there clearly are having trouble. I think it's much more difficult to reach people who seemingly are doing great on their own.

I know that was my biggest obstacle. As Christians we do need our faith.

So when they go with the "you need faith to get through the day", the answer I think is and agree and move forward.

I agree, but that comment was intended as an insult, and I think it's fine to take it in the manner that it was intended.

Sorry -- I know that's not the most excellent thing in the world, but I'm growing weary of pretending that people are engaging in good faith when they're very obviously not.

But that doesn't matter, because we all get to enjoy a classic Big 10 showdown of USC vs. Michigan today. Have a good weekend.

Understood.

Go College Football!

 

[Paddington]

Happy Sunday! Find a good Bible Believing Church and attend!!!

 

[Paddington]

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet thank you.

 

[belljr]

The golf god was unkind today

 

[SWC]

pretty sure to get there youre gonna take main out of town until you hit 67 then head west until you see the big oak and take a north cant miss it on your left side probably three miles down the way take that to the bank bromigos

 

[Navin Johnson]

Had ten kids show up for optional hoops practice from 10-1, scouted a league opponent who was playing a friendly, got back home in plenty of time to check actives, set my line ups and watch the games. It was a great Sunday - except for SFO chokiing

 

[BlackCrowes]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

 

[dkp993]

- except for SFO chokiing

Ironically this is a part of what made my Sunday great.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

 

[Navin Johnson]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

Except they don't believe good (or bad) deeds determine where you spend eternity

 

[3C's]

That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

That's not how it works though. A good person can burn in hell while a child murderer goes to heaven, all dependent on what they "believe", even if it's a death bed belief.

 

[zoonation]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

A child murderer, in the Christian faith, will not necessarily be punished for eternity. Depends on if accepts Jesus as his lord and saviour or not.

 

[Paddington]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

You have to understand the PREMISE of Salvation. Salvation is NOT based on our Good deeds because we are ALREADY sinners, so we can't do enough good deeds to undo our sins. ALL men are sinners. Some are worse sinners than others and there are different degrees of hell. Being a good person does NOT get you into heaven and cannot. If it could, then Jesus Christ died for nothing. Because we are all sinners and can't do enough good deeds to get to heaven, Jesus Sacrificed His life for every man, so that ANYONE who places their Faith in Him and His death and Resurrection, shedding His blood for our sins, gets to go there. It's Christ's Sacrifice that gets us to heaven, NOT being a good person. His Sacrifice provides a PARDON for our crimes against God (sins) but the Pardon is ONLY applied IF we place our Faith in Jesus Christ and HIs Sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sins. So that is why the evil murderer that turns to Christ and places his faith in Christ and His Sacrifice will go to heaven, while the person who is trying to do good deeds to get to heaven, goes to hell. You can't do good deeds to get to heaven. Salvation is by God's Grace when He sees our Faith in Him. Grace is when God does something for you that you can't do for yourself. Our choice to believe Him (Faith) gives us access to God's Grace (God's work that we can't do for ourselves). God chooses to save us when we place our faith in Him. It's that simple. Anyone that goes to hell, goes because they failed to place their faith in Christ Jesus and His death and resurrection to save them. Faith in anything else to save you will lead you to hell.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

You have to understand the PREMISE of Salvation. Salvation is NOT based on our Good deeds because we are ALREADY sinners, so we can't do enough good deeds to undo our sins. ALL men are sinners. Some are worse sinners than others and there are different degrees of hell. Being a good person does NOT get you into heaven and cannot. If it could, then Jesus Christ died for nothing. Because we are all sinners and can't do enough good deeds to get to heaven, Jesus Sacrificed His life for every man, so that ANYONE who places their Faith in Him and His death and Resurrection, shedding His blood for our sins, gets to go there. It's Christ's Sacrifice that gets us to heaven, NOT being a good person. His Sacrifice provides a PARDON for our crimes against God (sins) but the Pardon is ONLY applied IF we place our Faith in Jesus Christ and HIs Sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sins. So that is why the evil murderer that turns to Christ and places his faith in Christ and His Sacrifice will go to heaven, while the person who is trying to do good deeds to get to heaven, goes to hell. You can't do good deeds to get to heaven. Salvation is by God's Grace when He sees our Faith in Him. Grace is when God does something for you that you can't do for yourself. Our choice to believe Him (Faith) gives us access to God's Grace (God's work that we can't do for ourselves). God chooses to save us when we place our faith in Him. It's that simple. Anyone that goes to hell, goes because they failed to place their faith in Christ Jesus and His death and resurrection to save them. Faith in anything else to save you will lead you to hell.

Kinda seems like a flawed system

 

[Zow]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

You have to understand the PREMISE of Salvation. Salvation is NOT based on our Good deeds because we are ALREADY sinners, so we can't do enough good deeds to undo our sins. ALL men are sinners. Some are worse sinners than others and there are different degrees of hell. Being a good person does NOT get you into heaven and cannot. If it could, then Jesus Christ died for nothing. Because we are all sinners and can't do enough good deeds to get to heaven, Jesus Sacrificed His life for every man, so that ANYONE who places their Faith in Him and His death and Resurrection, shedding His blood for our sins, gets to go there. It's Christ's Sacrifice that gets us to heaven, NOT being a good person. His Sacrifice provides a PARDON for our crimes against God (sins) but the Pardon is ONLY applied IF we place our Faith in Jesus Christ and HIs Sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sins. So that is why the evil murderer that turns to Christ and places his faith in Christ and His Sacrifice will go to heaven, while the person who is trying to do good deeds to get to heaven, goes to hell. You can't do good deeds to get to heaven. Salvation is by God's Grace when He sees our Faith in Him. Grace is when God does something for you that you can't do for yourself. Our choice to believe Him (Faith) gives us access to God's Grace (God's work that we can't do for ourselves). God chooses to save us when we place our faith in Him. It's that simple. Anyone that goes to hell, goes because they failed to place their faith in Christ Jesus and His death and resurrection to save them. Faith in anything else to save you will lead you to hell.

Got creates Earth and the first man. By making first man, he makes first man capable of sinning. Unsurprisingly (since God created him this way), first man sins creating original sin. God then closes all doors to heaven and dooms us all to eternal damnation for doing exactly what he created us to do unless we put our faith in God despite how we may act towards each other? Is that what you're saying?

Assuming arguendo the above is accurate and true, this doesn't nonetheless seem grossly unfair to you and that such a God is, well, a bit of a self-absorbed *******? I mean this sounds like something the Zeus character currently played by Jeff Goldblum on that Netflix show would do and not some benevolent creator who loves his creation. I don't know how to otherwise objectively interpret the bold.

 

[dkp993]

Jeff Goldblum on that Netflix show

He is crushing that role. In full Goldblum form.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

You have to understand the PREMISE of Salvation. Salvation is NOT based on our Good deeds because we are ALREADY sinners, so we can't do enough good deeds to undo our sins. ALL men are sinners. Some are worse sinners than others and there are different degrees of hell. Being a good person does NOT get you into heaven and cannot. If it could, then Jesus Christ died for nothing. Because we are all sinners and can't do enough good deeds to get to heaven, Jesus Sacrificed His life for every man, so that ANYONE who places their Faith in Him and His death and Resurrection, shedding His blood for our sins, gets to go there. It's Christ's Sacrifice that gets us to heaven, NOT being a good person. His Sacrifice provides a PARDON for our crimes against God (sins) but the Pardon is ONLY applied IF we place our Faith in Jesus Christ and HIs Sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sins. So that is why the evil murderer that turns to Christ and places his faith in Christ and His Sacrifice will go to heaven, while the person who is trying to do good deeds to get to heaven, goes to hell. You can't do good deeds to get to heaven. Salvation is by God's Grace when He sees our Faith in Him. Grace is when God does something for you that you can't do for yourself. Our choice to believe Him (Faith) gives us access to God's Grace (God's work that we can't do for ourselves). God chooses to save us when we place our faith in Him. It's that simple. Anyone that goes to hell, goes because they failed to place their faith in Christ Jesus and His death and resurrection to save them. Faith in anything else to save you will lead you to hell.

sounds awful.

 

[northern exposure]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

You have to understand the PREMISE of Salvation. Salvation is NOT based on our Good deeds because we are ALREADY sinners, so we can't do enough good deeds to undo our sins. ALL men are sinners. Some are worse sinners than others and there are different degrees of hell. Being a good person does NOT get you into heaven and cannot. If it could, then Jesus Christ died for nothing. Because we are all sinners and can't do enough good deeds to get to heaven, Jesus Sacrificed His life for every man, so that ANYONE who places their Faith in Him and His death and Resurrection, shedding His blood for our sins, gets to go there. It's Christ's Sacrifice that gets us to heaven, NOT being a good person. His Sacrifice provides a PARDON for our crimes against God (sins) but the Pardon is ONLY applied IF we place our Faith in Jesus Christ and HIs Sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sins. So that is why the evil murderer that turns to Christ and places his faith in Christ and His Sacrifice will go to heaven, while the person who is trying to do good deeds to get to heaven, goes to hell. You can't do good deeds to get to heaven. Salvation is by God's Grace when He sees our Faith in Him. Grace is when God does something for you that you can't do for yourself. Our choice to believe Him (Faith) gives us access to God's Grace (God's work that we can't do for ourselves). God chooses to save us when we place our faith in Him. It's that simple. Anyone that goes to hell, goes because they failed to place their faith in Christ Jesus and His death and resurrection to save them. Faith in anything else to save you will lead you to hell.

Kinda seems like a flawed system

Exactly. You can live a virtuos life, only treating others well the whole time and if you choose not to put your faith in Jesus Christ you are headed to Hell.
Meanwhile a mass murderer can find Jesus and end up in Heaven when he dies.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Wouldn't God have known that the reasoning abilities he gifted me with lead me to a path of unbelief?

And anyway, I wasn't consulted on the creation of me. Had I been shown what my earthly existence would be like and the ramifications of unbelief would be, I'd have opted for a hard pass. I wasn't missing existence before I existed and I'm okay not missing it after I do.

 

[Paddington]

Was thinking about this yesterday. There are absolutely times when I envy people of faith. It’s not often, but it happens.

Thanks for sharing. What is it you envy? And does it come up at certain times or things?

a genuine belief in an afterlife seems like something that would be very comforting at certain times. Who wouldn't find comfort in thinking that you'll see a deceased friend or relative again one day? That you'll be rewarded for being a good person? That a child murderer will be punished for eternity?

You have to understand the PREMISE of Salvation. Salvation is NOT based on our Good deeds because we are ALREADY sinners, so we can't do enough good deeds to undo our sins. ALL men are sinners. Some are worse sinners than others and there are different degrees of hell. Being a good person does NOT get you into heaven and cannot. If it could, then Jesus Christ died for nothing. Because we are all sinners and can't do enough good deeds to get to heaven, Jesus Sacrificed His life for every man, so that ANYONE who places their Faith in Him and His death and Resurrection, shedding His blood for our sins, gets to go there. It's Christ's Sacrifice that gets us to heaven, NOT being a good person. His Sacrifice provides a PARDON for our crimes against God (sins) but the Pardon is ONLY applied IF we place our Faith in Jesus Christ and HIs Sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sins. So that is why the evil murderer that turns to Christ and places his faith in Christ and His Sacrifice will go to heaven, while the person who is trying to do good deeds to get to heaven, goes to hell. You can't do good deeds to get to heaven. Salvation is by God's Grace when He sees our Faith in Him. Grace is when God does something for you that you can't do for yourself. Our choice to believe Him (Faith) gives us access to God's Grace (God's work that we can't do for ourselves). God chooses to save us when we place our faith in Him. It's that simple. Anyone that goes to hell, goes because they failed to place their faith in Christ Jesus and His death and resurrection to save them. Faith in anything else to save you will lead you to hell.

Kinda seems like a flawed system

It's not flawed because Christ:

1) Is God in the flesh
2) Is Perfect and sinless, which qualifies Him to be our Sacrifice


A sinful man cannot sacrifice himself for another sinful man. All men have sinned except Christ.

 

[Jayrod]

Judging God based on...1) our personal standards of morality/goodness/etc., 2) our understanding of who/what God is, 3) our understanding of what God has done and is doing...is all incredibly foolish.

Even atheists must admit in theory that men are so woeful in comparison to an all knowing, all powerful God on those fronts, that it takes quite an opinion of one's self to speak as though qualified on the subject.

Yet every single time we do this it comes up over and over. Men seem fit to judge that which is greater than them and better than them. I've done it and the temptation is great to shake my fist at the sky and scream "Why!" when I perceive some injustice or inconsistency.

However, if the God of the Bible exists (as I firmly believe He does), then our understanding of Him is miniscule. He is unfathomable and unknowable outside of what he empowers us to know and understand.

You may think that "isn't fair", but what do we honestly know of fairness in such a world in the face of its Creator?

Whatever is true is so regardless of our own knowledge or opinion of it, despite what modern "philosophy" would have us believe. In other words God is God as He deems fit and our judgement of Him means nothing for Him, but everything for us.

And thanks be to God that He is good. That He does good and presents to all mankind a good life in Him. Not a life without trial, pain or difficulty, but a life of purpose, love, and yes, a blessed hope of eternity with Him. Doing all that we were made to do in a place made just for that purpose, uncursed and unobstructed by sickness or evil, a paradise (Jesus' own word).

And while belief is often thrown around as the prerequisite, it is FAITH that is the true key to salvation. Faith without works does not exist. If you believe in Him you would believe the words Jesus spoke and obey them. No one is able to do this apart from God. His grace saves you but your life is the evidence of that salvation. For a tree will be known by its fruit.

These things may seem confusing or even nonsense, but after 34 years at this I can assure you the pieces fit. No I don't have all of the answers, but there is a deep and perfect logic to God's work. He is both just and gracious at the same time.

 

[TennesseeJed]

Judging God based on...1) our personal standards of morality/goodness/etc., 2) our understanding of who/what God is, 3) our understanding of what God has done and is doing...is all incredibly foolish

Isn’t that exactly what you have done in this post?

“These things may seem confusing or even nonsense, but after 34 years at this I can assure you the pieces fit. No I don't have all of the answers, but there is a deep and perfect logic to God's work. He is both just and gracious at the same time.”

 

[JAA]

It’s not clear to me what Heaven actually is. How do I know I want to go there?

In all seriousness, can someone describe to me what my day to day will be like?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It’s not clear to me what Heaven actually is. How do I know I want to go there?

In all seriousness, can someone describe to me what my day to day will be like?

Jesus directly addresses this topic a bunch of times in the NT. Pretty much every time (I think 100% but I'm not sure), he speaks in parable form and basically tells his disciples that they're not going to get it and it's going to a bit of surprise.

 

[JAA]

It’s not clear to me what Heaven actually is. How do I know I want to go there?

In all seriousness, can someone describe to me what my day to day will be like?

Jesus directly addresses this topic a bunch of times in the NT. Pretty much every time (I think 100% but I'm not sure), he speaks in parable form and basically tells his disciples that they're not going to get it and it's going to a bit of surprise.

Ok

So how do I know I want to go there? Respectfully, I would be spending eternity there, so it feels like a really big decision.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It’s not clear to me what Heaven actually is. How do I know I want to go there?

In all seriousness, can someone describe to me what my day to day will be like?

Jesus directly addresses this topic a bunch of times in the NT. Pretty much every time (I think 100% but I'm not sure), he speaks in parable form and basically tells his disciples that they're not going to get it and it's going to a bit of surprise.

Ok

So how do I know I want to go there? Respectfully, I would be spending eternity there, so it feels like a really big decision.

It's up to you. Nobody's forcing you.