Heaven and non-heaven are different?

Heaven and non-heaven are the same thing, by this theory. There is no place which is not heaven. It just changes with time what heaven is to you.

I rather agree. I did write a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, in English that is understandable to those for whom English is a second language. I made sections 1 and 2 public, and you may enjoy reading them:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/long-lost-gospel-st-thomas-ernest-meyer/

An infinite string is only guaranteed to contain every finite string within it if it is truly random. If there are any constraints on the infinite string, then it doesn't have to contain everything. If heaven has the constraint of being perfect and blissful etc like it's usually depicted, then even if it is infinite it won't contain periods of terrible suffering the way our lives do.

like it's usually depicted, — Pfhorrest

I think you mean, like naive people think who know nothing about philosophy, or for that matter, that much about religion either.

That means you are already in heaven — Rucan

1. We are suffering....my claim
2. We are [already] in heaven....your claim
3. If we are in heaven then it's not the case that we are suffering...premise
4. we are not in heaven (1, 3 modus tollen)
5. We are [already] in heaven & we are not in heaven (2, 4 conjunction)
6. Either we are not suffering or we are not [already] in heaven (1 to 5 reductio ad absurdum)

So, either you have a view of suffering that's different from the commonly accepted one or we're not in heaven.

:chin:

Well from what I recall from my religious studies classes, there doesn't seem to be much canonical mention of heaven (or for that matter hell) at all in the Bible. It's not that people die and go to some other realm that exists simultaneously with ours, it's that eventually all the good people will be resurrected in some utopian future after the world is made perfect; and all the bad people just stay dead. No heaven or hell, just resurrection or permanent death. Everything about heaven and hell people usually think of is as apocryphal as the Serpent, Satan, and "Lucifer" (a nonexistent character in the Bible, just fan-fiction from Milton) being the same character.

Please cite some passages directly attesting to the existence of heaven (or hell) if I'm wrong about that.

1. We are suffering....my claim
2. We are [already] in heaven....your claim
3. If we are in heaven then it's not the case that we are suffering...premise
4. we are not in heaven (1, 3 modus tollen)
5. We are [already] in heaven & we are not in heaven (2, 4 conjunction)
6. Either we are not suffering or we are not [already] in heaven (1 to 5 reductio ad absurdum)

So, either you have a view of suffering that's different from the commonly accepted one or we're not in heaven.

If something is perceivable you cannot see it as perfect, because it can't be. You yourself have to get inner peace:

• If you are struggling with yourself you will always struggle with any reality you are part of
• For a world to be perfect everything in it must please you and don't conflict you. Therefore no other personality in it could exist that doesn't know what you have in mind for the world to be. So you must not know what the other personalities in that reality know. If you know what the others know, you would get lonely because the world would just contain you yourself or the world would just be for your propose which makes empathy lacking. This is a conflict.
• You are at one point in space in time and can't be at another which can make things imperfect

If you are in inner peace you would not need to live on. There is nothing you want to know more, experience more or anything. You neither want to be dead or alive. This is a conflict too.

My conclusion is, that the best world is any world.

My conclusion is, that the best world is any world — Rucan

This is very important! I'll get back to you when I recall my argument why this is the case.

Heaven is a good experience; there is no one specific heaven.

The possibilities are infinite; as long as there is growth in knowledge, there is potential for new heavens.

There is also Hell, or an evil experience, and these are often well craft states, not only waste states.

Who does what you would call God look up to?

I believe it to be an energy type; 'God' caters to it.

If there was disharmony(i.e. sending good people to suffer), it would discontinue.

1. You think God, exists.
2. HE created the universe.
3. With what tool?
4. Hence, 'energy type'.

I believe, somewhere, everything makes sense, but we struggle to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

All of the evidence is present, but we are not apt enough to decipher it.

God is an entity which, if it exists, is defined differently by any human being. We don't know yet how to know what attributes it has. I have my own definition for him. For me it has no personality. It's more of the ever watching entity, holding everything together and is defined by description. It is the driving force by describing what happens right now for everything. We as conscious beings give answers to questions that we encounter and let god calculate the result which therefore defines reality.
For example:
I make the choice to clean my flat. God lets every object which is in my flat be defined in this reality by it's attributes. Like it let's the things be consistent (the particles stay the particles) and not falling apart. This is because, outside of the universe is nothingness. So no room or anything (in my eyes). So god or the overseeing consciousness lets the universe stick together and not be not defined.

I agree with you that God (I call it spirit) needs to have energy. But if you say God is the every description, it has energy. Because it can describe.

Rucan — Rucan

I can relate quite easily to your issues here.

Let me give you my Gnostic Christian view, that shows why heaven is right here and right now.

The logic trail is incorporated in this old O.P.

----------

Let me speak to the lie of Gnostic Christians hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religions originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

↪Zophie Heaven and non-heaven are the same thing, by this theory. There is no place which is not heaven. It just changes with time what heaven is to you. — Rucan

I agree.

Regards
DL

ernestm — ernestm

Whoever figures out the true meaning of these sayings won't taste death:

“If you seek heaven,” Jesus said, “you shouldn't stop looking for it until you find it. When you find it, at first your spirit will first be disturbed. But later, it'll be full of wonder. When you find heaven, you'll reign there for a while. Then you'll find rest

How do you read/interpret, " won't taste death", and "you'll reign there for a while." ?

Regards
DL

Well thank you for looking. As I understand it, that's for each person to figure out for themselves. For me, heaven starts here. It may go on in the afterlife, or not, but its largely irrelevant, lol. To me. I am graced with having a good life. Other people have suffered alot and look to the afterlife with hope. I dont believe its right to deny them that hope in any way.

As I understand it, that's for each person to figure out for themselves. — ernestm

True, but if you are to quote something, you should opine on it and give your conclusions.

Gnostic Christianity is all about speaking of what we know. You are speaking of what you do not yet know.

Try this. That refers to the maturity of your thinking where your ideas will never be defeated in debate or arguments. I have not tasted that death for a while and I miss it. I hate to think that when my apotheosis put me higher up Jacobs ladder, that I reached the last rung.

The journey, so to speak, is the fun of the trip. Getting to the destination/reward is not nearly as enjoyable.

"Reign for a while" likely means undefeated arguments till your death.

Regards
DL

I dont believe its right to deny them that hope in any way. — ernestm

I think that truth is the best and that to let one live in a fantasy that might make one give up an earthly pleasure for some imaginary pleasure later, is cruel.

If we are talking of someone near death, that is one time where the truth would just cause pain and no pleasure and a white lie is good.

To give a white lie to someone not near death and able to seek all enjoyments would be cruel.

Regards
DL

I think that truth is the best and that to let one live in a fantasy that might make one give up an earthly pleasure for some imaginary pleasure later, is cruel. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

But maybe it isnt a fantasy, lol. There is no way for us to know absolutely. You can arge thre's no afterlife until you're blue in the face, but ultimately, ACCORDING TO SCIENCE, there's no way to prove it empirically until after a person dies. That's the nature of empirical skepticism.

For me, heaven always starts right now. It's kind of an existentialist thing. How are you , but the way? I just made love with my girlfriend. She's adorable )

For me, heaven always starts right now. It's kind of an existentialist thing. How are you , but the way? I just made love with my girlfriend. She's adorable ) — ernestm

I agree, but think she is starting to get fat. ;-)

But maybe it isnt a fantasy, — ernestm

If you are thinking of being a Gnostic Christian, remember that we hold no supernatural belief and "maybe it isn't fantasy", is not something we would say. IDK is the more intelligent reply.

Regards
DL

I already am a gnostic christian. Im not particularly concerned with what others say I should believe. I spent several decades figuring out my current theological position. I know its unique, and I am not particularly concerned if other people disagree with it. Part of my position is that other people are entitled to their own beliefs. I may state corrections on fact. But I dont really have anything to say about your position, except I will not respond to mandates on doctrine at all.

Actually she fell off her bicycle while bicycling and hurt her knee. She exercises every day and has a body that doesnt quit, lol, but I am old and fat and ugly. Sometimes I think I am the luckiest man in the world. So saying, I do have some other things to do for a while. I hope you have a nice day )

Part of my position is that other people are entitled to their own beliefs. — ernestm

I see Gnostic Christianity as having two mandates. The one is to show our better ideology and the other is described by this adage. For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.

You would want to be correct in any poor thinking you were doing and I think all people would so I applu the Golden Rule on this.

Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule.

Please get back to me with your conclusion.

Martin Niemöller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Regards
DL

Part of my position is that other people are entitled to their own beliefs.
— ernestm

I see Gnostic Christianity as having two mandates. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

But I wrote in exactly the next sentence, lol, I dont accept mandates on doctrine from other people.

What exactly do you think you are doing? Had it occurred to you, that level of TOTAL oblivion to what other people are saying is not going to help you, after you made other people want to bash their heads against a wall? I told you this before. You are not doing Gnosticism any kind of favor with the way you are talking. You told me to bite you, I did, and now you are doing exactly the same thing again. I guess next I will have to get the Monty Python 4-ton iron weight to drop on your head or something.

If heaven exists, we are already in it. From the start and forever. We never really die. Just tansit to different type of energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed, only form into other types.

That's beautiful )

What exactly do you think you are doing? — ernestm

Exchanging and comparing POVs and showing why mine is superior.

Mine lives by the Golden Rule while yours does not. Mine is moral while yours is not.

Regards
DL

If heaven exists, we are already in it. From the start and forever. We never really die. Just tansit to different type of energy. En — ttjordy

I agree on matter and energy, but if you are your consciousness, unless you think it can persist after the brain death, it would disperse and you would die. No?

Regards
DL

That's beautiful ) — ernestm

Not to me and not as stated as you can see by my question to our friend, as it ignores that consciousness is already made up of sub-atomic particles that, as energy, would revert into matter and kill the consciousness that is the entity.

Regards
DL

If you haven't explained how consciousness relates to time, you haven't explained consciousness.

If you haven't explained how consciousness relates to time, you haven't explained consciousness. — neonspectraltoast

??

Both terms are well define in dictionaries and if your definition does not stray too far from those, I am sure I would agree with your explanation or definition.

Consciousness, of course, needs space time to exist in.

Regards
DL

So you're going to act like time is a well-understood phenomena? It's been posited by no less than Albert Einstein that it's a fourth dimension, and that we live in some kind of mysterious block universe.

You're right, consciousness exists in spacetime. That's kind of my whole point. If time isn't strictly linear, and consciousness cannot exist independently of it, then you have to explain what that means for consciousness.