Christians: If God Loves Us and Wants Us to Join Him in Heaven, Why Didn't He Put Us There?

[Mr Cheese]

Holy Catholic Bible, American Translation, 1985 Edition, Encyclopedic Dictionary Section:

Resurrection of the Body: "The Christian belief that the resurrection of the entire person is basic to the faith and is attested by many passages in the New Testatment."

Luke 23:39: "Look at my hands and my feet; it is really I. Touch me, and see that a ghost does not have flesh and bones as I do."

Do you call those citings generalizations?

yes....

because there are centuries of catholic commentaries by theologians

can you comment on them also?

or just pull out some simplistic allusions...

 

[Mr Cheese]

Characteristics of the risen body


All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their entire, and in immortal bodies; but the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment. It would destroy the very idea of resurrection, if the dead were to rise in bodies not their own. Again, the resurrection, like the creation, is to be numbered amongst the principal works of God; hence, as at the creation all things are perfect from the hand of God, so at the resurrection all things must be perfectly restored by the same omnipotent hand. But there is a difference between the earthly and the risen body; for the risen bodies of both saints and sinners shall be invested with immortality. This admirable restoration of nature is the result of the glorious triumph of Christ over death as described in several texts of Sacred Scripture: Isaiah 25:8; Osee, xiii, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:26; Apocalypse 2:4. But while the just shall enjoy an endless felicity in the entirety of their restored members, the wicked "shall seek death, and shall not find it, shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them" (Revelation 9:6).
These three characteristics, identity, entirety, and immortality, will be common to the risen bodies of the just and the wicked. But the bodies of the saints shall be distinguished by four transcendent endowments, often called qualities.

• The first is "impassibility", which shall place them beyond the reach of pain and inconvenience. "It is sown", says the Apostle, "in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption" (1 Corinthians 15:42). The Schoolmen call this quality impassibility', not incorruption, so as to mark it as a peculiarity of the glorified body; the bodies of the damned will be incorruptible indeed, but not impassible; they shall be subject to heat and cold, and all manner of pain.
• The next quality is "brightness", or "glory", by which the bodies of the saints shall shine like the sun. "It is sown in dishonour," says the Apostle, "it shall rise in glory" (1 Corinthians 15:43; cf. Matthew 13:43; 17:2; Philippians 3:21). All the bodies of the saints shall be equally impassible, but they shall be endowed with different degrees of glory. According to St. Paul: "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory"'(1 Corinthians 15:41-42).
• The third quality is that of "agility", by which the body shall be freed from its slowness of motion, and endowed with the capability of moving with the utmost facility and quickness wherever the soul pleases. The Apostle says: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power" (1 Corinthians 15:43).
• The fourth quality is "subtility", by which the body becomes subject to the absolute dominion of the soul. This is inferred from the words of the Apostle: "It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). The body participates in the soul's more perfect and spiritual life to such an extent that it becomes itself like a spirit. We see this quality exemplified in the fact that Christ passed through material objects.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: General Resurrection

 

[MSizer]

yes....

because there are centuries of catholic commentaries by theologians

can you comment on them also?

or just pull out some simplistic allusions...

You're resorting to foolishness. Thanks for derailing my thread. I so appreciate that. How charitable of you.

 

[MSizer]

Characteristics of the risen body


All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their entire, and in immortal bodies; but the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment. It would destroy the very idea of resurrection, if the dead were to rise in bodies not their own. Again, the resurrection, like the creation, is to be numbered amongst the principal works of God; hence, as at the creation all things are perfect from the hand of God, so at the resurrection all things must be perfectly restored by the same omnipotent hand. But there is a difference between the earthly and the risen body; for the risen bodies of both saints and sinners shall be invested with immortality. This admirable restoration of nature is the result of the glorious triumph of Christ over death as described in several texts of Sacred Scripture: Isaiah 25:8; Osee, xiii, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:26; Apocalypse 2:4. But while the just shall enjoy an endless felicity in the entirety of their restored members, the wicked "shall seek death, and shall not find it, shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them" (Revelation 9:6).

These three characteristics, identity, entirety, and immortality, will be common to the risen bodies of the just and the wicked. But the bodies of the saints shall be distinguished by four transcendent endowments, often called qualities.

• The first is "impassibility", which shall place them beyond the reach of pain and inconvenience. "It is sown", says the Apostle, "in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption" (1 Corinthians 15:42). The Schoolmen call this quality impassibility', not incorruption, so as to mark it as a peculiarity of the glorified body; the bodies of the damned will be incorruptible indeed, but not impassible; they shall be subject to heat and cold, and all manner of pain.
• The next quality is "brightness", or "glory", by which the bodies of the saints shall shine like the sun. "It is sown in dishonour," says the Apostle, "it shall rise in glory" (1 Corinthians 15:43; cf. Matthew 13:43; 17:2; Philippians 3:21). All the bodies of the saints shall be equally impassible, but they shall be endowed with different degrees of glory. According to St. Paul: "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory"'(1 Corinthians 15:41-42).
• The third quality is that of "agility", by which the body shall be freed from its slowness of motion, and endowed with the capability of moving with the utmost facility and quickness wherever the soul pleases. The Apostle says: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power" (1 Corinthians 15:43).
• The fourth quality is "subtility", by which the body becomes subject to the absolute dominion of the soul. This is inferred from the words of the Apostle: "It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). The body participates in the soul's more perfect and spiritual life to such an extent that it becomes itself like a spirit. We see this quality exemplified in the fact that Christ passed through material objects.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: General Resurrection

If you want to debate interpretations, start your own thread rather than derailing the threads of other people who are trying to have an informed discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe, like any good parent, He wants us to earn our own way.

Or maybe not.

But by most Christian theology, it's Christ, not us, that earns us our way.

According to LDS doctrine, we started out in Heaven, living as the spirit sons and daughters of God, in His presence. Our love, admiration and respect for Him was boundless and we wanted to be like Him. Since He, too, wanted this for us, but knew that we could only attain this state of perfection by first experiencing mortality and learning to distinguish between good and evil, He proposed a plan by which we could come to earth to gain physical bodies and be tried and tested. We were informed that in order for us to be able to return to Him, one of two things must happen -- we must either live perfect lives (something we all recognized would be impossible) or someone for whom this was possible must be willing to accept the responsibility to pay the price for our sins. The Father's Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, accepted this role and we chose to come to Earth. One third of God's spirit children rejected the plan and instead chose to follow Lucifer, who had also offered to be our Savior but who had insisted that the resulting glory be his instead of his Father's. He and his followers were cast out of Heaven, while the rest of us awaited our chance to be born to mortal parents and start on our journey to become like our Father in Heaven. I know... it's a pretty different view from that of most other Christians.

Yes... but it also seems to be internally consistent, which I think gives it a leg up on most other explanations I've heard.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I eat my words....

It appears many catholics do believe that their bodies will be in heaven
which frankly I still think is a gross misunderstanding...but there....

oh well aliens are part of catholicism and not subject to the fall



my apologies....

you can go back to attacking christians now...:sarcastic

 

[MSizer]

I eat my words....

It appears many catholics do believe that their bodies will be in heaven
which frankly I still think is a gross misunderstanding...but there....

oh well aliens are part of catholicism and not subject to the fall



my apologies....

Apology appreciated and accepted.

you can go back to attacking christians now...:sarcastic

I'm not attacking christians - I'm trying to point out what I consider to be an inherent flaw in thier doctrine. If I'm shown otherwise, and that I've misunderstood the doctrine, then so be it, and I will have learned.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I've never understood how god supposedly loves us and wants us to join him in his family in heaven, yet he put us on earth first with the capacity to fail, for which we could potentially loose the priviledge of joining him.

I doesn't make sense. Why didn't he just put us right in heaven from the beginning?

Have you ever stopped to think that God doesn't care whether it makes sense to you or not?

"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken. Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all."
Job 38:1-18 KJV

 

[MSizer]

Have you ever stopped to think that God doesn't care whether it makes sense to you or not?

Of course I have. It's one of the biggest "get of out jail" cards believers use when they're cornered between to oppositional doctrines. "well, we can't expect to understand god's plan, since our intelligence is of no comparison to his...blah blah blah".

If that's true, then why do people even bother discussing debating faith matters at all? If that's true, then it's pointless to even bother trying to interpret scripture at all.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Of course I have. It's one of the biggest "get of out jail" cards believers use when they're cornered between to oppositional doctrines.

blind belief is just that, blind...

typically...

fortunatly, for us 'orrible believers....
there is esoterica and mysticism...

 

[Zadok]

One has to ask, then, why this is so. if this is the "inspired words of god" then one must presume that the god who inspired it is completely incapable of comprehensible communication. If it is not "inspired by god" then it is what it appears to be; one absurdity after another that is beyond comprehension because there is nothing to comprehend.

You are making unfounded assumptions about almost everything. The Pythagoreans of ancient Egypt (about 4,000 years ago) developed a mathematical model and scientific paradigm that was not matched or understood until the end of the 19 century of our modern era. Most likely few college graduates alive today are versed enough in math and science superior to what was anciently developed and lost for centuries. I am assuming your statements are thoughts of ignorance expressing sour grapes.

If I wanted to learn math – I would not seek out someone who is incapable of performing basic rudimentary mathematics (failure to comprehend) or someone that does not believe mathematics (the unschooled and undisciplined critic). I would seek out the best expert at math that is passionate about its capabilities as my teacher.

But modern society seems to be a ship of fools unwilling to prove much of anything for themselves and most willing to follow failures and charlatans that cater to personal desires and passions over enlightenment and intelligence. Not just in religious notions but politics as well.

To judge the inspiration of the Bible (or any discipline) based on clerics that cannot and will not and do not present themselves example of their own doctrine or critic that is incapable or unwilling to live by any prescribed covenant themselves is the very epitome of stupidity.

I would love to discuss what you have found failing and compare that with what you have found successful.

Zadok

 

[MSizer]

You are making unfounded assumptions about almost everything. The Pythagoreans of ancient Egypt (about 4,000 years ago) developed a mathematical model and scientific paradigm that was not matched or understood until the end of the 19 century of our modern era. Most likely few college graduates alive today are versed enough in math and science superior to what was anciently developed and lost for centuries. I am assuming your statements are thoughts of ignorance expressing sour grapes.

If I wanted to learn math – I would not seek out someone who is incapable of performing basic rudimentary mathematics (failure to comprehend) or someone that does not believe mathematics (the unschooled and undisciplined critic). I would seek out the best expert at math that is passionate about its capabilities as my teacher.

But modern society seems to be a ship of fools unwilling to prove much of anything for themselves and most willing to follow failures and charlatans that cater to personal desires and passions over enlightenment and intelligence. Not just in religious notions but politics as well.

To judge the inspiration of the Bible (or any discipline) based on clerics that cannot and will not and do not present themselves example of their own doctrine or critic that is incapable or unwilling to live by any prescribed covenant themselves is the very epitome of stupidity.

I would love to discuss what you have found failing and compare that with what you have found successful.

Zadok

You're avoiding the point. Would there be any value in sending you a message you don't understand? If I wanted a pizza delivered to my house, would it make sense for me to send my address in Cantonese? Should I expect to recieve my pizza if I don't bother to convey the necessary information in a form that is comprehensible? Of course not.

 

[Mr Cheese]

MSizer: I read through most of the posts on this thread. I do not think you have gotten any answers. Part of the problem is the Bible. We could talk about textual criticisms but in essence there are two problems. First: there is little evidence that the “Bible” is understood in our modern time and less throughout history – beyond the lives of those so inspired to create what is now recognized as Biblical text. Second: there continues to be a great deal of discussion (argument) about what the Bible really says. Who is the authority for what the Bible teaches? Clerical scholars? If we think this is the answer – Jesus tells us in the Bible that the clerical scholars of his time, the Scribes and Pharisees, did not understand the ancient scriptures and to follow them would be worse than not having the scriptures in the first place and following “Satan” directly.

I submit there is a great deal missing in your understanding. Let my demonstrate by simple rhetorical logic. If G-d made anyone they way they are – how is it that G-d is not responsible and can damn anyone to hell? The Bible in Genesis starts out by saying, “In the beginning”. I am told that a variant reading could be used to translate those ancient Hebrew words to “When G-d first established his covenant with man.” In other words man also existed before what the Bible states as the beginning. Now some would argue that man was “created” later – but it is obvious from the account that the forming of man was a physical embodiment which was given life – but if that which is spirit existed then life is to be understood as the combination of spirit and body and death is the separation of spirit and body.

My point is that your question is genuine – but that you will not find your answers in traditional Trinitarian Christianity – that does not mean that your answer does not exist within the extent of Christian thought .

Zadok

well said

although I dont think the LDS church have any greater handle on things either
to be frank....with its allusions to lost ancient egyptian languages, kolob and lucifer...

 

[Mr Cheese]

You're avoiding the point. Would there be any value in sending you a message you don't understand? If I wanted a pizza delivered to my house, would it make sense for me to send my address in Cantonese? Should I expect to recieve my pizza if I don't bother to convey the necessary information in a form that is comprehensible? Of course not.

think of this....

in order to use water, to drink it, to wash with it
we must contain it.
Water must be put through pipes, faucets, cups, hands.....

In so doing we are chaning the inherant nature of water,, that is to flow freely without constraint.

Mystics liken the message of God to water
In order to understand God's message, we constrain it...
In so doing, we do not get the full message

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Of course I have. It's one of the biggest "get of out jail" cards believers use when they're cornered between to oppositional doctrines. "well, we can't expect to understand god's plan, since our intelligence is of no comparison to his...blah blah blah".

If that's true, then why do people even bother discussing debating faith matters at all? If that's true, then it's pointless to even bother trying to interpret scripture at all.

You are making the mistake of trying to understand God rather than what God wants you to do. You don't like God and try and find fault with Him. God doesn't like sin and tries to correct your faults. You may not like that god gave you the ability to have faults but that's the way it is. it's like saying you don't like to wipe you arse but there are consequenses to not doing it.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You are making the mistake of trying to understand God rather than what God wants you to do. You don't like God and try and find fault with Him. God doesn't like sin and tries to correct your faults. You may not like that god gave you the ability to have faults but that's the way it is. it's like saying you don't like to wipe you arse but there are consequenses to not doing it.

see Msizer...

sandy understands God better than you and his/her motives

so stop worrying...
and learn to love the bomb

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are making the mistake of trying to understand God rather than what God wants you to do. You don't like God and try and find fault with Him.

Not to put words in MSizer's mouth, but my own personal take on it is that responses like "have you ever stopped to think that God doesn't care whether it makes sense to you or not?" assume facts not in evidence.

The argument in Job only works once we conclude that the religion in question does come from God. But if that religion is a human invention, then its logic is human logic and therefore quite within our ability to comprehend... if it's valid.

Many people, myself included, don't see a rational way to make the leap and conclude that some religion is divine to the exclusion of all others. Maybe a better way of looking at the question of the OP would be to ask why God would apparently leave so many people without this necessary ability.

 

[Zadok]

well said

although I dont think the LDS church have any greater handle on things either
to be frank....with its allusions to lost ancient egyptian languages, kolob and lucifer...

The things you talk about are just intellectual illusions and distinctions. I have found nothing better than LDS examples and teachings to support families. Since I see families as the basis of good society I find the LDS handle the best possible. If, however, you have found something better for the enlightenment of families then I am very interested.

Zadok

 

[Mr Cheese]

The things you talk about are just intellectual illusions and distinctions. I have found nothing better than LDS examples and teachings to support families. Since I see families as the basis of good society I find the LDS handle the best possible. If, however, you have found something better for the enlightenment of families then I am very interested.

Zadok

how do you deal with the facts of the LDS such as Joseph smith's claims of tablets, that no one ever saw...with writing that exists no where else....

with the idea that the bible discusses Kolob, yet this is not found anywhere else...

with the LDS 'faith" being tied up with free masonary.... (oh yeah those aprons are just a coincidence..as is every other masonic allusion)

....

given this, and the doctrine of lucifer being Jesus' brother.....

how do you reconcile these totally off the wall, in comparison to other christian dogmas...ideas... with bodily ressurection as discussed in this thread....

given that the LDS have what is really a unique take on things, what makes their take on the bible superior given that it kind of goes against established dogmas already set in place for thousands of years; kolob, masons, people becoming angels, native american jews, gays being evil, black people being cursed..... etc

Families? I made no mention of families...
If the LDS is good with family, all power to them

 

[Zadok]

You're avoiding the point. Would there be any value in sending you a message you don't understand? If I wanted a pizza delivered to my house, would it make sense for me to send my address in Cantonese? Should I expect to recieve my pizza if I don't bother to convey the necessary information in a form that is comprehensible? Of course not.

I believe it is you that has missed the point. A thief, a robber and a murderer can deliver pizza. The point is not getting something delivered – the point is to bring about a change in the deliverer.

It is not some much the Bible or anything else as it is how such things are used and to accomplish what. If one cannot see enlightenment in the Bible they most likely cannot see the enlightenment in the Koran, the writings or Buddha or anything else. My thought and my point.

Zadok