My problem with atheism

[thau]

I recently saw a series of pictures that depicts either an interview or conversation with Stephen Fry. He discusses God. A video can be found here:

Guy Byrne: "Suppose what Oscar believed in as he died, in spite of your protestations. Suppose its all true. And you walk up to the pearly gates and are confronted by God. What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?

Stephen Fry: "I'd say, 'bone cancer in children? Whats that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? It's not right. Its utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-spirited, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?' That's what I'd say."

Guy: "And you think you're going to get in?"

Stephen: "No! But I wouldn't want to. I wouldn't want to get in on his terms. They're wrong. Now, If I died and it was Pluto, Hades, and it was the twelve Greek gods, then I would have more truck with it, because the Greek's were... they didn't pretend not to be human in their appetites, their capriciousness and unreasonableness. They didn't present themselves as being all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent. Because the god who created this universe, if indeed it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac. Utter maniac. Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees, thanking him? What kind of god would do that? Yes, the world is splendid, but it also has in it insects, whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. That eat outwards from the eyes. How -- why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didn't exist. It is simply not acceptable.

So you know, atheism is not just about them not believing there is a god, but on the assumption that there is one, what kind of god is he? It's perfectly apparent that he's monstrous, utterly monstrous, and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, your life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, and more worth living in my opinion."

I am sure those of you who read this as Gnostics can see where the problem rests.

I agree with everything he said, because he is describing the so-called "Demiurge." However, he is able to go outside the social norms but instead of trying to think outside of the box, he throws the box away completely. He says "I do not believe in this (Judeo-Christianity), so I will instead believe in nothing!" He does not say "perhaps there is something else?" And he certainly does not seem to be able to think "millions of people have had a number of religious and spiritual connection to something, so I should look at others." Instead, it is "this religion (Judeo-Christianity) is correct or nothing is."

If you existed in a culture that did not know other modes of faith, I could understand. But we are in an age of globalization. Unfamiliarity is no excuse to dismiss all faith. To do so is just intellectual laziness. It is a childish reaction to the faith you grew up with. It is an act of rebellion that lacks maturity.

Of course not all Atheists are like this. Yet I have seen few Atheists who have seriously considered all there is in the world. Few have tried to walk different paths and still found them lacking. Instead, they say "this path is twisted. No more walking for me," and then choose to simply sit down instead of walking a different direction!

There are many objections to Judeo-Christianity. I feel all of these are answered by Gnosticism. And sadly, these people don't know about it, don't care about it, or are simply too afraid for it.

This Stephen fellow presupposes God's ways cannot be of any higher or more sublime value than ours, and therefore, He (God) can never justify our temporal sufferings. Nor can any promise of eternal life and peace justify our sufferings.

For myself, I cannot deny the God of Bible's divine manifestations and tell Him you neither exist nor matter. On the other hand, all Greek, Egyptian and Indian gods are silent as stones, there is no race or competition to consider here. Nor has "Allah" or his "prophet" Muhammad ever shown any true sign of divine providence. Nor has Gnosticism ever manifested support from the reigning Deity.

 

[Jumi]

On the other hand, all Greek, Egyptian and Indian gods are silent as stones, there is no race or competition to consider here. Nor has "Allah" or his "prophet" Muhammad ever shown any true sign of divine providence. Nor has Gnosticism ever manifested support from the reigning Deity.

We can say the same about the Christian God.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I recently saw a series of pictures that depicts either an interview or conversation with Stephen Fry. He discusses God. A video can be found here:

There are many objections to Judeo-Christianity. I feel all of these are answered by Gnosticism. And sadly, these people don't know about it, don't care about it, or are simply too afraid for it.

You can hardly judge this last statement based off of this video. The main reason is because it is already established what they were talking about and the question was asked from the position of traditional Christianity and his reaction meeting god with the assumption that the premise was correct. This rejection of religion isn't based upon the idea of suffering in this world, anger at god, disgust with the archaic and immoral morality proposed but RATHER the rejection of a claim without evidence. Especially since it is a claim that is fantastical in nature and starkly contradictory to other similar claims. Claims that can be traced and tracked through time and studied. They can be viewed to shift with the spirit of the times and the culture. Religion and its views bend to the will of the people just as much if not more than the people bending their will to the religion.

Though in this particular case of Christianity he makes valid points within the contexts. If the Baptist concept of god was correct I would like to think I would have a similar answer.

 

[Bunyip]

How is this a problem with atheism as opposed to a gripe with Fry?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

However, he is able to go outside the social norms but instead of trying to think outside of the box, he throws the box away completely. He says "I do not believe in this (Judeo-Christianity), so I will instead believe in nothing!" He does not say "perhaps there is something else?" And he certainly does not seem to be able to think "millions of people have had a number of religious and spiritual connection to something, so I should look at others." Instead, it is "this religion (Judeo-Christianity) is correct or nothing is."

Well, he's probably not here in this forum, so you can't really converse with him, or get any rebuttal for putting words in his mouth. He actually did say, if you listen closely, that if he instead encountered the old Greek gods in the afterlife things would be different since those beings aren't as omni-ego-everything gavel-smashing as the Abrahamic one.

If you existed in a culture that did not know other modes of faith, I could understand. But we are in an age of globalization. Unfamiliarity is no excuse to dismiss all faith. To do so is just intellectual laziness. It is a childish reaction to the faith you grew up with. It is an act of rebellion that lacks maturity.

By 'globalization', what exactly do you mean. World was always 'globalized', I don't get that term. Culture? What culture, there are so many outside the Christian sphere as of yet. What happens to all of them at the pearly gates?

 

[Sha'irullah]

How is this a problem with atheism as opposed to a gripe with Fry?

Well, theists love holding on to their delusions. It is how they are apparently.

 

[skl]

[QUOTE="thau, post:
"Nor has "Allah" or his "prophet" Muhammad ever shown any true sign of divine providence."

Maybe, but these two appear to have fired up the Muslim radicles enough that they are killing the Christians and everyone else.

 

[thau]

[QUOTE="thau, post:
"Nor has "Allah" or his "prophet" Muhammad ever shown any true sign of divine providence."

Maybe, but these two appear to have fired up the Muslim radicles enough that they are killing the Christians and everyone else.

Maybe you are right. However, Islam is not the only ideology gone bad in history. Others were more political or philosophical without any allegiance to some deity (e.g. communism), but nevertheless with just as bad or worse carnage inflicted upon the innocents.

But I stand by my earlier post. The gist of this guy’s complaint was how dare this Christian God allow so much suffering upon those who had no cause in it? I will not attempt an answer here, it would not satisfy his kind anyway.

But as for me, once I have been given the empirical evidence I need to know that this Christian god is God, consequently I will not play the angry created being and demand He answer all my questions of injustice. I will humble myself knowing that 1) God is far superior to my mind, and 2) the day I die I will be in His presence, and His judgments will be made known. No room for “righteous indignation.”

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Seems to be yeah.

I cannot really think of a point in time in which an atheist would not be agnostic .

When it's a logical contradiction. I think that supernatural concepts of deities are not logical concepts. I have the same logical beliefs about pink unicorns or Cuthulu.

However, you could say I am agnostic in that, if I saw or experienced divine or supernatural evidence, or if such evidence could be credibly and reliably verified, then I would certainly believe. But not really.

I am already agnostic about the possibility of life under warm water on some of Jupiter's moons. I have never seen them, and their presence has never been verified. However, given what I know about conditions of life on earth, I can reasonably say that it's a possibility. I cannot logically discount that possibility. It makes sense that it could exist, and it has the potential to be verified. We'd be able to definitively prove either position: the position that there is definitely alien life, or there definitely is not alien life in Europa.

As I'm agnostic about alien life, I don't actually believe it exists, but I am not willing to outright discount it because the deficiency of the concept is knowledge, not logic. We can go to Europa, for instance, and search and test every square inch of it. I don't believe anything is there, but there is an definite answer that could be rationally verified. We just don't have the knowledge.

But not logical contradictions. Reports of supernatural events or experiences of divinity can be discounted without seeking evidence. I don't have to seek out the myriad religions in the history of civilization, and investigate every supernatural claim around the globe to discount them. They have to show me direct evidence to convince me the premises of my logic are wrong. I see no reason to seek it out, and I must do nothing to prove my position.

Anyway to sum up, I might say that I can be Agnostic about something with a knowledge deficiency, and I can be Atheistic about something which a logical deficiency.

I think that's the difference.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think a lot of atheists in the west look at it as 'Christian God' or 'Atheism'. They don't consider they can choose neither of the two and explore other ways of looking at existence. Atheists on average are probably of a little higher logical intelligence but I think there is so much of value they close their minds to.

Agreed! I was raised to believe that the jesus was the only possible religion. If it ain't xtinaity than it's demonism!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When it's a logical contradiction. I think that supernatural concepts of deities are not logical concepts. I have the same logical beliefs about pink unicorns or Cuthulu.

However, you could say I am agnostic in that, if I saw or experienced divine or supernatural evidence, or if such evidence could be credibly and reliably verified, then I would certainly believe. But not really.

I am already agnostic about the possibility of life under warm water on some of Jupiter's moons. I have never seen them, and their presence has never been verified. However, given what I know about conditions of life on earth, I can reasonably say that it's a possibility. I cannot logically discount that possibility. It makes sense that it could exist, and it has the potential to be verified. We'd be able to definitively prove either position: the position that there is definitely alien life, or there definitely is not alien life in Europa.

As I'm agnostic about alien life, I don't actually believe it exists, but I am not willing to outright discount it because the deficiency of the concept is knowledge, not logic. We can go to Europa, for instance, and search and test every square inch of it. I don't believe anything is there, but there is an definite answer that could be rationally verified. We just don't have the knowledge.

But not logical contradictions. Reports of supernatural events or experiences of divinity can be discounted without seeking evidence. I don't have to seek out the myriad religions in the history of civilization, and investigate every supernatural claim around the globe to discount them. They have to show me direct evidence to convince me the premises of my logic are wrong. I see no reason to seek it out, and I must do nothing to prove my position.

Anyway to sum up, I might say that I can be Agnostic about something with a knowledge deficiency, and I can be Atheistic about something which a logical deficiency.

I think that's the difference.

I think I get where you are going with this. However I disagree that there really is a difference between atheism and agnostacism in that they are contradictory terms. However I can say that I am 100% certain that specific gods do not exist. I will claim all day long that the Christian god does not exist. The Muslim God does not exist. The Hindu gods do not exist. But I do not discount the possibility of a vague form of god existing.

 

[skl]

Maybe you are right. However, Islam is not the only ideology gone bad in history. Others were more political or philosophical without any allegiance to some deity (e.g. communism), but nevertheless with just as bad or worse carnage inflicted upon the innocents.

But I stand by my earlier post. The gist of this guy’s complaint was how dare this Christian God allow so much suffering upon those who had no cause in it? I will not attempt an answer here, it would not satisfy his kind anyway.

But as for me, once I have been given the empirical evidence I need to know that this Christian god is God, consequently I will not play the angry created being and demand He answer all my questions of injustice. I will humble myself knowing that 1) God is far superior to my mind, and 2) the day I die I will be in His presence, and His judgments will be made known. No room for “righteous indignation.”

Tell me do you believe in miracles? I would like to know how one becomes the beneficiary of one. What Stephen Fry was saying makes a lot of logical sense if you were told for your first time on the planet that a perfect almighty God is your father in heaven because he created you, loves you and everything that happens to you is God’s will.

Take off the belief hat for a second and think about this.

Life on this planet is a fact and like all animals on this planet we fight hard to survive the best we can especially if you have nothing and we strive to protect our most precious possessions that are our own lives and the ones we love because the future beyond this life is not known and is another fact, therefore how can a human of any intelligence simply understand why God does not prevent harm against those he claims to love, it does not make any sense and is counteractive to our natural animal instincts plus we all learn from experience in life that we are primarily masters of our own fate with some percentage of good or bad luck.

The obvious observation that God has no hand in our fate whatsoever is met by passages from the bible by a worshiper or a religious authority claiming to be an expert in the bible through preaching one of many interpretations from an ancient book written thousands of years ago by questionable characters that is supposed to justify and explain Gods non-action in respect of protecting his loved ones and at best this bible can only prove the literal existence of God.

Worship, spiritual and even perceived physical connections to a god has been claimed and a fact of human behaviour by thousands of people well before the Christian God and the other so called gods we have in today’s world, so the feeling “1) God is far superior to my mind, and 2) the day I die I will be in His presence, and His judgments will be made known.” Just does not cut the mustard, you have to come up with something far better than that, and is this not obvious to you that your explanation “ would not satisfy his kind anyway” whatever you meant by that?

 

[thau]

Tell me do you believe in miracles? I would like to know how one becomes the beneficiary of one.

Why is that? Being given the gift of living forever in heaven bliss and peace with all those you were dear to is not good enough? You demand more here and now? FYI, yes, I most certainly not only believe in miracles I know they exist as evidence for God. Fatima is a miracle beyond doubt. So is when 250,000 Egyptians saw the Virgin Mary on 20 different evenings walking, floating and blessing the crowd on top of a Christian Coptic Cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt in 1968. So are the countless statues of Jesus and Mary that weep human tears or tears of blood, including the one in a convent in Akita, Japan that did so on 101 occasions. The Shroud of Turin is without question a miracle and we can thank science for validating that. Lourdes has produced thousands of inexplicable healings to incurables. Miracles. The image of Our Lady of Guadlupe in Mexico from 1531 is totally unexplained by science. It remains a vibrant vivid image on a cactus tilma 500 years later. Padre Pio was a walking miracle in so many senses of the word beyond his bleeding stigmata wounds that persisted for 50 years. And so on! It is not just a matter of faith, as so many on these boards want to insist what Christianity is about, it is evidence that demands a verdict.

Take of the belief of that for a second and think about this. Life on this planet is a fact and like all animals on this planet we fight hard to survive the best we can especially if you have nothing and we strive to protect our most precious possessions that are our own lives and the ones we love because the future beyond this life is not known and is another fact...

Well I have to stop you there because your premise only validates your further angst if it is true. But I do not agree. The future beyond this life can be known. That is a game changer. It makes it far easier to endure when one knows God is caring for them and promising them a greater life, asking so little in return. Ok, continue…

...therefore how can a human of any intelligence simply understand why God does not prevent harm against those he claims to love, it does not make any sense and is counteractive to our natural animal instincts plus we all learn from experience in life that we are primarily masters of our own fate with some percentage of good or bad luck.

Worship, spiritual and even perceived physical connections to a god has been claimed and a fact of human behaviour by thousands of people well before the Christian God and the other so called gods we have in today’s world, so the feeling “1) God is far superior to my mind, and 2) the day I die I will be in His presence, and His judgments will be made known.” Just does not cut the mustard, you have to come up with something far better than that, and is this not obvious to you that your explanation “ would not satisfy his kind anyway” whatever you meant by that?

I really do not care if some ancient Greeks or Romans or Chinese or Norse or Druids claim to have the “real God” on their side. It does not line up with the truth or with the facts, unless they want to produce some very compelling supernatural evidence? Evidence like what Christianity can produce. But once we have established who God is, then who cares what the others claim? If the Judeo-Christian G-d can be demonstrated to be quite true, then game over, the others cannot exist. The only other spiritual beings that are not with our God are demons. I am not saying that is what is behind those other claims, I am saying they cannot be God.

Two answers to “that would not satisfy his kind” ----

Suffering is the result of sin. War is because of sin and so may be natural disasters. The innocents die along with the guilty, but the innocents are justified and heaven awaits. But suffering is not without its virtue. It just is not instantly returned for our pain. But a deeper reflection on the teachings and the revelations of saints and so on would reveal it. I will leave you with another commentary on why God allows suffering and puts us through trials.

A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness. Which of these two would give you the greater joy? Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to? He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him. As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will. Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.

Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end. There is no honor if it requires no effort and no faith on our part. If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings. God allows suffering and evil to bring out a greater good in us. Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.

Sirach 2:1-6 My son, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials. Be sincere of heart and steadfast, undisturbed in time of adversity. Cling to him, forsake Him not, thus your future will be great. Accept whatever befalls you, in crushing misfortune be patient; For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Well this is the way things go when the masses eat living flesh cross contamination of micro organisms that develop into all kinds of nasty diseases

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Really it comes down to knowing God as an internal reality and not everyone has that experience.

So what is that experience like?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Why is that? Being given the gift of living forever in heaven bliss and peace with all those you were dear to is not good enough?

Theology is one thing, but where did heaven come from? Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that not only heaven is real, but that everyone you liked is there?

Because you met someone and liked them for 30 years on earth, you have to spend billions of years with them in heaven?

Do you get to meet new people? If it's bliss, what do you talk about - forever? What do you do? Is it choir practice forever? How do you improve when it's already perfect?

How do you even serve God when he's made everything perfect and there's nothing to do?

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

 

[LuisDantas]

Agreed! I was raised to believe that the jesus was the only possible religion. If it ain't xtinaity than it's demonism!

It is sad that many people do end up teaching pretty much that. It makes Christianity no favors. Or anyone, for that matter.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because you met someone and liked them for 30 years on earth, you have to spend billions of years with them in heaven?

What a horrible thought! And as Sartre said: "Hell is other people".

 

[skl]

thau said: "Why is that? Being given the gift of living forever in heaven bliss and peace with all those you were dear to is not good enough? You demand more here and now? FYI, yes, I most certainly not only believe in miracles I know they exist as evidence for God. Fatima is a miracle beyond doubt. So is when 250,000 Egyptians saw the Virgin Mary on 20 different evenings walking, floating and blessing the crowd on top of a Christian Coptic Cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt in 1968. So are the countless statues of Jesus and Mary that weep human tears or tears of blood, including the one in a convent in Akita, Japan that did so on 101 occasions. The Shroud of Turin is without question a miracle and we can thank science for validating that. Lourdes has produced thousands of inexplicable healings to incurables. Miracles. The image of Our Lady of Guadlupe in Mexico from 1531 is totally unexplained by science. It remains a vibrant vivid image on a cactus tilma 500 years later. Padre Pio was a walking miracle in so many senses of the word beyond his bleeding stigmata wounds that persisted for 50 years. And so on! It is not just a matter of faith, as so many on these boards want to insist what Christianity is about, it is evidence that demands a verdict"

You have blind belief my friend. The Shroud of Turin is not proven to be scientifically authentic and there are so many criminals cashing in on bogus religious artefacts this will be just another one. As far as the Virgin Mary walking and floating they should be categorised as UFO’s. In fact there is more evidence for aliens than for the evidence of God even though many of the UFO sightings were bogus I expect the same rules apply with these and the other so called miracles. The dozens of bleeding and moving statues and the one that opens the eyes are obviously faked only to extort funds from the idiots who believe it. There are people who are actually claiming religious images within the Hubble Telescope pictures from space going to prove if you are indoctrinated enough and may I say stupid enough to actually believe these events are proving the existence of God you may as well believe in flying angels and talking snakes.

thau said:"I really do not care if some ancient Greeks or Romans or Chinese or Norse or Druids claim to have the “real God” on their side. It does not line up with the truth or with the facts, unless they want to produce some very compelling supernatural evidence? Evidence like what Christianity can produce. If the Judeo-Christian G-d can be demonstrated to be quite true, then game over, the others cannot exist."

With what truth and facts are you talking about and what very compelling evidence can Christianity produce? I don’t mean the bleeding statues or an old scripture either. The Judeo-Christian God cannot be “demonstrated to be quite true” and you should know this because then everybody would believe in God and there would be no argument and only then would it truly be “game over”

thau said:"Suffering is the result of sin. War is because of sin and so may be natural disasters. The innocents die along with the guilty, but the innocents are justified and heaven awaits. But suffering is not without its virtue. It just is not instantly returned for our pain. But a deeper reflection on the teachings and the revelations of saints and so on would reveal it. I will leave you with another commentary on why God allows suffering and puts us through trials."

OK am I reading this right, you believe everyone suffers sickness, injury and death through wars and natural disasters that are purposely created by God because God is putting us through trials? A child or even a wild animal dies slowly in agony during these trials so what normal person would be able to justify that?

thau said:"A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness. Which of these two would give you the greater joy? Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to? He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him. As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will. Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God."

No normal person would be happy in these relationships because we should be married as equals. The second one you describe is a one sided relationship, and in fact it is in this type of dominating relationship that often ends in physical and mental abuse. If you think this subservient relationship is acceptable because it is modelled after God’s image you should have a re-check of your morals.

thau said:"He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him. As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will. Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God"

Well said you have described a sadistic personality. I get the message that the more pain a person suffers and keeps the faith of God the more he likes it and the Catholics seemed to support this self-abusive love through pain fetish in earlier times. A king demands his peasants bow before him to emphasise his power and importance and their subservience to him. Today a subject may bow to the queen as a mark of respect but not because she will have his head removed and take his lands. God has a very old and outdated system of controlling the masses by utilising the element of the unknown that is fear beyond death to demand love and respect and it is exactly what the writers of the bible knew to be the way of those times.

The conclusion is that we should not allow ourselves to enjoy life on earth because God may just decide to cut you down at any time. This life should not be taken seriously and it really should not be seen as important by yourself or family because God may randomly decide you die at 1 or 150 years of age. If you live long enough and decide to choose to worship God and pass his test you will go to heaven and enjoy whatever it is they do up there, however a dead child does not grow to become an adult and could be assumed they are the lucky ones because they are not tested by God or tempted by Satan so become automatic residents of heaven even though they are also born sinners.

How do we know this after-life in heaven is real? This is backed up by fantasy stories from a book penned by mortals many years ago and there is simply far more evidence that exists to indicate God and heaven are not real. I cherish my life on this planet obviously so much more than you could because my religiously unbound, clear and free mind can weigh up logical realistic events and practical scientific theories that account for my existence on this planet and I expect an eventual demise that I hope will be painless at an older age and I am humble enough to not expect the miracle of an afterlife.

 

[thau]

Theology is one thing, but where did heaven come from? Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that not only heaven is real, but that everyone you liked is there?

Once you are certain who God is, it is not a stretch to them put faith in His words of Scripture, but beyond that many saints who have performed works of wonders to validate their special connection with the divine, they revealed many truths not contained just in the Bible. That is partially how the Church has grown in wisdom and serving the needy who know so little about it all. The revelations of heaven are only a small part of it, yet indispensable, and make sense.

“Everyone is there” was a figure of speech. I do not know who is there but thanks to purgatory, far, far more may be there thanks to the mercy of God. The fact God says we will know our loved ones in heaven should only cause one to be even more grateful for the promise.

Because you met someone and liked them for 30 years on earth, you have to spend billions of years with them in heaven? Do you get to meet new people? If it's bliss, what do you talk about - forever? What do you do? Is it choir practice forever? How do you improve when it's already perfect?

Don’t worry about it. Worry about getting there. God said we cannot even imagine what heaven holds for those who love Him. Being bored? Quite an insult.

How do you even serve God when he's made everything perfect and there's nothing to do?

I am almost totally certain we will be able to be in numerous places at the same time in far different settings. But leaving that aside allow a dumbed down example. Consider what might comprise a perfect life of 70 years here on earth? I might suggest one born into a loving family with many siblings, brought up in pleasant surroundings with joy and laughter and no injuries or sorrows. You move on to be married with the dream of your desires, or you have multiple loves or your life. You do not work, you enjoy food, music, tranquility and marvel at all of God’s creation. When you are 70 you bid adieu to your loved ones although everyone knows you will meet again. Why do they know that? Because after you are taken away you are born again as an infant and have a very similar cycle of life, except, you have no memory of the previous one so it is all brand new wonders for you and it is filled with peace and joy. That could repeat ad infinitum and you would never experience boredom. What would be so bad about that?