Do you have the hope of going to heaven

[JehovahsWitness]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I do not have a hope of going to heaven (when I speak of "heaven" I mean the spiritual abode/realm where God lives).

- Do you personally entertain the hope of going to heaven to spend eternity with God when you die? (if this question is too personal I respect if you do not want to share this information)

- If so, do you believe such a literal spiritual realm exists?

- Do you believe that Jesus is presently in heaven where God exists?



* My question is for people that do believe that a God exists, since I presume that those that do not believe in God do believe he exists anywhere and therefore there is no "heaven" where God is.

[JehovahsWitness]

... a god who offers no evidence of his existence outside a book written by middle aged peasants.

Well if by that you are refering to the bible, that "book for middle aged peasants" is authorative in this forum. If I had no interst in discussing a topic on the basis of that book I personally (this is my personal opinion about what I would do) I would personally go to another subforum.

The OP is based on the presumption of the existence of God. Please note...

* My question is for people that do believe that a God exists, since I presume that those that do not believe in God do [not] believe he exists anywhere and therefore there is no "heaven" where God is.

JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 208 by onewithhim]


[center]

Compassion[/center]

You don't feel that the religious leaders who treated the people like less than animals and who constantly sought to kill Jesus deserve to be called "hypocrites" and "sons of snakes"?

Hypocrite is such a hateful word.

Some people make mistakes.
Some of those mistakes are really big ones.

We can be compassionate, if we truly want to.

We can even be compassionate to Charles Manson, for heaven's sake.
What's the POINT of calling a person nasty names?


Calling each other names is so childish.


Times have changed since the Bible days.
Let's behave towards one another as if it DID.

[tam]

[Replying to post 232 by Blastcat]

noun: compassion; plural noun: compassions

sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
"the victims should be treated with compassion"

The Pharisees and Sadducees to whom Christ spoke were causing the suffering of others. And they were the ones in charge. They were the ones who were supposed to be 'shepherding' the flock. Instead they were beating the flock. Loading up burdens upon the flock that even they could not live under; judging and condemning the flock.


That being said, calling them hypocrites was not hateful or nasty. It was truthful; it was direct. He told it like it was. Something that might be needed, especially by those who think they are above others and/or cannot get caught or called out for doing wrong.

And hypocrisy is hard to see (in ourselves).

If they wished to take offense, then so be it. But some might also have taken a good, hard look in the mirror BECAUSE Christ was direct and spoke truthfully to them.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 233 by tam]



[center]
Some people may think it's compassionate to call each other names. I call it "Quite childish".[/center]

The Pharisees and Sadducees to whom Christ spoke were causing the suffering of others.

They might have shown a bit more in the way of compassion, perhaps.

That being said, calling them hypocrites was not hateful or nasty.

Use the terms that you prefer.
Don't call ME a hypocrite, because I will take that as an insult.

I won't be calling you a hypocrite for the same exact reason, tam.

It was truthful; it was direct. He told it like it was.

So is Donald Trump.
What's your point?

People should be as rude as humanly possible?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

See this is where I start to lose the concept of the bible as the word of god. People like yourself say that god would never roast anyone alive. But the bible (specifically the new testament) disagree's with you.

Mathew 25:31-46 defines this explicitly; explaining in 25:46

Mathew 25:46
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.�

For me to believe that you have to believe in Christ to enter heaven and be saved; or that 'god has a purpose for everyone' seems to me a fallacy that everyone has a reason. Am I to believe that the non-believer who gives the last of his meal to the hungry is less righteous than the priest who feasts among the starving?

And on your point of 'knowing the creator'. What benefit is there to knowing whom created something. I have no benefit of knowing whom the creator of a wrist watch is; I am only of need to know it gives me the time when I ask of it. If I was to ask the name of the maker; what information could I garnish from this that would be of any use? If at all?

No; if there is a god that loves then there can be no hell. No damnation. No punishment for a finite arbitrary amount of time paramount to the seconds hand on a clock. And I offer for every moment spent on worship; one could have assisted alleviating the suffering of another instead. Perhaps something to think about.

Matthew 25:46 does not disagree with me. It doesn't mention a place of fiery torture at all. It says, "Eternal punishment." That simply means "dead forever." The idea of people roasting in a fire for eternity with no hope of it ever ending is a sadistic, ghoulish idea that doesn't even make sense. The Bible says that DEATH is the punishment for wickedness, not life in a fire. Death means the cessation of life---no consciousness. (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10)

Perhaps you don't wish to become friends with the manufacturer of your watch, but don't you have some interest to know the Person who created humans? He created us for a reason, and he says in the Bible that he wants to be our Friend.

I agree that there is no fiery hell, and only the persons who will not behave themselves will be put to sleep. That will happen to people who refuse to recognize Jehovah's right to be the Sovereign of the universe, and who desire to do evil things. Jehovah doesn't destroy people just to show that he can. He does so to save the good people from harm.

"Though the wicked is shown favor, he does not learn righteousness; he deals unjustly in the land of uprightness [Paradise Earth], and does not perceive the majesty of the LORD." (Isaiah 26:10, NASB)

Our worship IS helping other people. That is how we please Jehovah. He is a loving God.


"I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea." (Isaiah 48:17,18)



what Jehovah wants to do to each of us

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 208 by onewithhim]


[center]

Compassion[/center]

You don't feel that the religious leaders who treated the people like less than animals and who constantly sought to kill Jesus deserve to be called "hypocrites" and "sons of snakes"?

Hypocrite is such a hateful word.

Some people make mistakes.
Some of those mistakes are really big ones.

We can be compassionate, if we truly want to.

We can even be compassionate to Charles Manson, for heaven's sake.
What's the POINT of calling a person nasty names?


Calling each other names is so childish.


Times have changed since the Bible days.
Let's behave towards one another as if it DID.

Wouldn't a strong word be germaine for people who sought to kill Jesus Christ? Wouldn't it be applicable to people who placed burdens on the backs of the people rather than making their lives easier? Especially people who make a big show in public of their own alleged righteousness and claim all of the honor that their position as priests and elders would suggest that they deserve.....and yet they are nothing but cruel task-masters?

I wouldn't want to be a common Jew back in Jesus' day, relying on the Pharisees to shepherd me with lovingkindness.


.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 236 by onewithhim]

Wouldn't a strong word be germaine for people who sought to kill Jesus Christ?

Be as compassionate as you desire to be.

[OnceConvinced]

(As an illustration to answer your question though... Pharaoh in Egypt placed Joseph in charge of all His belongings. Joseph was second only to Pharaoh. If one wanted something from Pharaoh, then one needed to go to Joseph. Joseph was to be honored as one honored Pharaoh. If one was dishonoring Joseph, one would be dishonoring Pharaoh.

As a more modern example perhaps, an oil tycoon decides it is time for his son to take over, inherit. So he puts his son in charge of everything. You think he does not expect all of this employees, partners, etc, to treat the son he has placed in charge with the same respect and honor as they treated him? If one of them tries to come to him, would he not send them to his son, whom he has placed in charge?)

We should not be taking the father/son aspect too literally. If you are to say that Jesus is a literal son of God then that must mean he had a mother. This would mean that there was some female God there who mothered Jesus, as he existed before he came to earth as a human.

(If Jesus is the human version of God, what version of God are you suggesting the Father is?)

Did I say Jesus was the human version of God? If I did, then I did not mean it that way. Jesus is part of God, part of God which was sent down in human form. There are no versions.

Anyone who doubts the trinity needs to look at an earlier verse in John 14. Verse 6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Where is the third person in this verse?

If you want to exclude the holy spirit as part of the trinity then go right ahead. I don't really care. I did quote a verse though where Jesus spoke as though he were the holy spirit.

Verse 9 also states:
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father

Again he is showing us here that he is part of the trinity.

How does 'he who has seen me has seen my Father'... depict a trinity, when a trinity requires three?

Why is there a problem that these verses don't include the holy spirit? The holy spirit is mentioned in other scriptures.

Vs 10:
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Once again a perfect example of the trinity.

A perfect example of the trinity would be three.

I think you are being pedantic. If there can be two who are one god, then that tells me that a third could be part of that one god. These verses, to me are evidence of the trinity. That is why they scream out trinity to me.

Verse 16-17 the holy spirit is mentioned. Then what does Jesus say in vs 18?
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Who is the comforter? The Holy spirit of course. He just mentioned him. Then he says “I will come to you.� Who is coming to you? The holy spirit. Jesus is speaking on behalf of the holy spirit too. Why? Because the holy spirit is also part of the trinity.

This is a tricky one because of the scribes.

It's not tricky as far as I'm concerned. You wanted your third? Well here you have it.

The scribes always personified holy spirit. But in fact, he/she/it are interchangeable, and the choice doctrine led to the choice of which pronoun to use.


This Holy Spirit sounds as though this is Christ - because Christ says later in the verse "I" will come to you. He is the Holy Spirit (He is both Holy and the Spirit, making Him the Holy Spirit.)

Ouila! Trinity!

But there is also holy spirit (the water of Life) that Christ breathed upon His apostles (and breathes also others, but the apostles first), which is not a person, but the breath/blood/seed of Jah. Christ is the one who gives this holy spirit to whomever He chooses. This holy spirit is not a person.

Once again there's your third part of the trinity.

Take the example of a human. Say me. I am Once Convinced. Let's say that I have
1) A spirit
2) a soul
3) a personality
4) an ego

Let's look at the spirit. It is me!
The soul. It is me!
The personality. It is me!
An ego. It is me!

So I am all four things and all these things are completely me.

Likewise you have the Trinity. You have Jehovah (God) who also has two parts of him that can act independently. If you want to say that the holy spirit is Jesus, then you have the Holy spirit, which is part of Jesus, which is part of Jehovah. Trinity.

Just as Joseph gave the grain that belonged to Pharaoh to whomever HE chose, and the people needed the grain to live, but the grain was not a person. Just as holy spirit (breath/blood/seed of Jah) is needed for us to live, but is not a separate person.

The holy spirit is still an aspect. A part. It is not a separate entity. And Jesus likewise is not a separate entity to Jehovah. He just works independently.

This makes three things... but only two of these things are PERSONS.

Actually now that I think about it I don't think it's right to describe them as three persons. They are not exactly persons. That is why they are not three separate gods.

Vs 23 once again shows a clear picture of the trinity:
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

This verse cannot scream trinity because there are only two persons in it.

It screams trinity to me. Two aspects of God are one. So why not three? And I've already posted those scriptures on the holy spirit which shows that it is another part of the trinity. All those verses as a group scream trinity to me. So going on about how there are only two in the trinity according to those verses in no way destroys the idea of a trinity. It does however destroy any idea that they are two separate gods.

But really I'm getting to the point where I'm starting not to care. The trinity is now no longer something I believe in. There's only so much defending of it I'm going to do. These debates tend to go around in circles and once that happens, the only reason to keep debating is if you are really invested in the perspective you are taking.

[William]

[Replying to post 220 by onewithhim]

Q: Why do you think a GOD can only be one thing and not many things as ONE?

I wasn't asking why you think Jesus and GOD are not the same being, I was asking why you think GOD cannot be many things, all of which are ONE thing?

Take the planet Earth as an example. It is one thing. There are many things on the face of the planet and all can be considered to be the ONE thing, collectively, even that those things appear to all be physically separate from each other.

Or zoom out, and see the Galaxy in your minds eye. It too is made up of many things, and this is what constitutes The Galaxy.

In the same way, why can you not understand GOD consisting of many things?

Why are the parts of GOD not considered by you to being the very things which make GOD, GOD?

Why do you separate the parts from the whole? Organised religions have organised the idea of GOD as being separate from Its creation, have called GOD a 'he' and even when words attributed as being spoken from whom you say you follow (indirectly it appears), you preach a different sermon.

Jesus says "I and GOD are ONE", he obviously wasn't saying that GOD is now just a human being called 'Jesus', but that he was inseparable from GOD, as is everyone. The only thing which separates individuals from GOD are their beliefs. And that in itself is illusion, because we cannot be separate from GOD in reality. We are all GOD.

The focal point of being 'one with GOD' is in how one understand GOD and how one relates that in their outward expressions into the world. That is essentially what Jesus taught. If you are ONE with GOD, you are GOD (as the particle of expression through your experience as a human being).

What does your forum avatar name mean to you? "One With Him"?

Never mind that the doctrine of the trinity is not to your particular liking, GOD is not a separate being independent from anyone else.

As forum member Once Convinced also pointed out;

OnceConvinced

We should not be taking the father/son aspect too literally. If you are to say that Jesus is a literal son of God then that must mean he had a mother. This would mean that there was some female God there who mothered Jesus, as he existed before he came to earth as a human.

That the Mother is not mentioned does not mean to say that she does not exist, unless before the incarnation of the GOD particle 'Jesus' into human flesh, Jesus was GOD, rather than existing as any other being.

Yet arguing for that, then forces the separation of creator and creation and begs the question as to where GOD gets the consciousness from which is then injected into the forms to create living self aware beings which have experiences. If not from Itself, from where does GOD get that?
See? The idea of a GOD separate from Its creation forces the question to need to be asked and answered.

Q: Why do you think a GOD can only be one thing and not many things as ONE?

See also:
"The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD"

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 236 by onewithhim]

Wouldn't a strong word be germaine for people who sought to kill Jesus Christ?

Be as compassionate as you desire to be.

Well, I guess I might just have seen it all......a person who equates Jesus Christ with Donald Trump!

(And it sure looks like you have no compassion for Jesus. You're all for the Pharisees, eh?)

Go figure.