Lets say Heaven does exist.

[fallingblood]

So do you believe that the plan is to go to an imperfect place when we die? What exactly is hell then according to this belief?

As for God making Heaven and Earth good, the point still remains the same. If Earth was once good then something changed that brought about bad parts of it. If Heaven was good then something happened that caused Satan, Gods angel, to rebel.

So the argument just changes to, If our future Heaven is supposed to be good, and God has made 2 "good things" that turned out rather bad. Then what chance does anyone have of this future heaven being anything good?

The Bible also states that a new heaven and new earth will be made and the old will be washed away. Id imagine if our current Heaven and Earth was as "good" as God hoped it would be it wouldn't need a revamping.

Just because something is good, that doesn't mean that there will be no bad. I think a Mac is very good. However, they do have some problems (bad). That doesn't mean that the Mac isn't still good. Something being good does not rule out their being bad aspects.

As for what the Bible states about a new heaven and new earth, can you quote a verse?

 

[Blackdog22]

Just because something is good, that doesn't mean that there will be no bad. I think a Mac is very good. However, they do have some problems (bad). That doesn't mean that the Mac isn't still good. Something being good does not rule out their being bad aspects.

As for what the Bible states about a new heaven and new earth, can you quote a verse?

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for behold, I create a Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people a joy. (Isaiah 65:17-19)

Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat . . . Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:12-13)


So your saying that what God considers good is an earth with some bad? If Gods idea of good is good with some bad then that really makes my confidence level in Heaven dwindle. All hypothetical of course.

My argument would then become, if Gods idea of good is some sort of good/bad state then why should we have hope in anything better than earth on the other side? Who is to say natural disasters and talking snakes wont screw us for another lifetime? Why have faith in anything this being creates or does if it does it so poorly?

 

[Levite]

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for behold, I create a Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people a joy. (Isaiah 65:17-19)

Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat . . . Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:12-13)

Well, obviously the second reference has no relevance to me, but as for the quote from Isaiah, Jews don't read that literally. We take it as a metaphor.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I fail to see how any place that is ruled by a medieval tyrant as God’s Heaven is to be “perfect”.

 

[fallingblood]

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for behold, I create a Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people a joy. (Isaiah 65:17-19)

Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat . . . Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:12-13)

Since Levite covered the passage from Isaiah, I will cover 2 Peter. First, it is a forgery in the name of Peter.

Second, it is basing what it is saying on Isaiah. As Levite said, Isaiah was seen as a metaphor. Thus, 2 Peter should also be seen as a metaphor. Especially when the language is taken into account. Really, what we are looking at is a message of purification. That Earth and Heaven will be purified.

So your saying that what God considers good is an earth with some bad? If Gods idea of good is good with some bad then that really makes my confidence level in Heaven dwindle. All hypothetical of course.

You are twisting what I said. We are not talking about something that is perfectly good. Something that is only good and has not negatives. That would be perfect. And again, we aren't talking about something that is perfect. We are talking about something that is good. There is a difference.

We can use a very simple comparison. I have various books that I have bought off of Amazon. They are in good condition. That does not mean they are perfect though. Some of them have highlighter marks. Some of creased edges. Some have writing in the margins. All of those things can be considered bad. However, those few things do not make the whole bad. The whole still can be good.

So, in the verse in question, the Earth and the heavens are called good (heaven in this case is not the modern idea of the term). That does not mean there is no bad though. It means that as a whole, they are good.

My argument would then become, if Gods idea of good is some sort of good/bad state then why should we have hope in anything better than earth on the other side? Who is to say natural disasters and talking snakes wont screw us for another lifetime? Why have faith in anything this being creates or does if it does it so poorly?

Talking snakes, for the first part, was meant to be a metaphor. The story of creation is not a literal story. It was meant to be a metaphor. It is prehistory. So to base an argument on the idea that the creation story is 100% literal is simply built on very sandy ground.

Also, just thought I'd point out that when the Genesis story talks about the heavens being created, they are not talking about the Christian heaven. So really your point is moot anyway.

 

[fallingblood]

I fail to see how any place that is ruled by a medieval tyrant as God’s Heaven is to be “perfect”.

The problem is that you are using a very narrow view of God here.

 

[Blackdog22]

Well, obviously the second reference has no relevance to me, but as for the quote from Isaiah, Jews don't read that literally. We take it as a metaphor.

Of course its a metaphor.. It appears that everything in the Bible is a metaphor. For what is it a metaphor of exactly? It appears it could only be a metaphor for a new type of place which would still leave my argument wide open.

 

[Blackdog22]

Since Levite covered the passage from Isaiah, I will cover 2 Peter. First, it is a forgery in the name of Peter.

Second, it is basing what it is saying on Isaiah. As Levite said, Isaiah was seen as a metaphor. Thus, 2 Peter should also be seen as a metaphor. Especially when the language is taken into account. Really, what we are looking at is a message of purification. That Earth and Heaven will be purified.

You realize this changes nothing of my original argument right?

You are twisting what I said. We are not talking about something that is perfectly good. Something that is only good and has not negatives. That would be perfect. And again, we aren't talking about something that is perfect. We are talking about something that is good. There is a difference.

We are talking about God. You are comparing Gods idea of goodness to a human perspective on goodness. If Gods idea of goodness has some bad in it then it was because he decided for it to be so. Your comparison to a book in good condition, whilst having flaws is to say that God makes things good, but with flaws. My position doesn't change at all based on this.

So, in the verse in question, the Earth and the heavens are called good (heaven in this case is not the modern idea of the term). That does not mean there is no bad though. It means that as a whole, they are good.

Right, so you think Gods idea of good involved bad. What kind of good has bad?

Talking snakes, for the first part, was meant to be a metaphor. The story of creation is not a literal story. It was meant to be a metaphor. It is prehistory. So to base an argument on the idea that the creation story is 100% literal is simply built on very sandy ground.

You think everythings a metaphor dont you. What in the name of God could a talking snake be a metaphor for. It even gives specifics to the snakes appearance. What exactly is the appearance of the snake a metaphor for? When you take the story as a whole, calling it a metaphor just seems weird to me.

Also, just thought I'd point out that when the Genesis story talks about the heavens being created, they are not talking about the Christian heaven. So really your point is moot anyway.

Thats all a matter of opinion. It just depends on who you talk to. Since the Bible doesn't exclaim it was talking about the non heaven kind of heaven we can only guess at what it was talking about.

 

[Levite]

Of course its a metaphor.. It appears that everything in the Bible is a metaphor. For what is it a metaphor of exactly? It appears it could only be a metaphor for a new type of place which would still leave my argument wide open.

We see it as a metaphor for tikkun olam, the healing of the world, which we are working to achieve, and which will bring about the coming of the messiah.