Government of the Christian Heaven

Post Reply New Topic

Impose noise restrictions on harp music.
Cover the streets of gold with non-skid paint.
Regulate low-flying angels.
Provide free Internet access.
Enforce strict Immigration policies against citizens of Purgatory.
And just do something about those sulfurous fumes from the Lake of Fire!

regulate the membranes separating layers of heaven.

Fnord you forgot to mention those lowlifes who do not dwell in Gods house but in one of the shady side streets. We need laws to keep them from trying to be upwardly mobile

"Enforce strict Immigration policies against citizens of Purgatory."

No no dear auntie you forget that in heaven there are many houses, well big J describes them as mansions but we all know how real estate agents exaggerate.

I stand corrected then gina cerminara wrote a neat book [about Edgar Cayce] called "many mansions" that I have in my collection but have yet to read. I gotta make time for that someday.

I've always interpreted "mansions" as planets or galaxies or such. Maybe even universes or dimensions.

Christian heaven is Nazi Germany, and hell is the concentration camp where Jews and other "unworthy of life" people are kept. Muslim heaven is the same way, except Christians are in hell and Muslims are in heaven.

I don't think I'd like to be in Nazi Germany, even if the Nazis left me alone. There would be still be the rationing, and the propaganda, and the bombings, and that strange unsettling ash in the air. If that's Heaven, no thanks.

So the Christian God would not enforce Divine law in the afterlife?



When most people use that term they mean besides the three Abrahamistic religions Hinduism and Buddhism. I need read up again on those, but I doubt you can claim that they believe in roughly the same concept.



I ask you to define what you mean with moral freedom. Because as it now stands it seem to imply Libertine attitudes.

I disagree...but whatever...

Heaven/hell as desirable states are relative. In discussions involving theodicy, I've tried to make the point that universalism is unjust to the unbeliever as it is to the believer. Obvious reasons for the believer (I did everything I was supposed to do to get here and this guy never believed in God, was never saved, and didn't live any kind of life worthy of heaven. What was the point in me believing and living this life if it never mattered to begin with?). For the unbeliever, heaven is a prison sentence, an eternity in the presence of a being he never loved and never wanted to know--maybe an eternity in the presence of a being he hated enough to resist at every turn in the living years. To condemn the unbeliever to an eternity in heaven would make heaven just another hell. It is MORE merciful to banish the unbelieving to an eternity away from God's presence.

To summarize: One man's heaven is another man's hell, and vice versa.

The Muslim ideal of paradise, in reality, might be the Christian picture of hell. The reverse would also be true.

There's really not much point in speculating about the government of heaven.

I do think the residents of heaven, however, will experience something nearly identical to the pre-fall existence.

And this is something I've always pondered. Adam and Eve lived in a state of perfect innocence. I've heard it taught before that one is only capable of sin if someone is aware of that sin. That means that Adam and Eve could have committed sins in the garden, but wouldn't be considered sin because they didn't yet know what sin was. However, in principle, the Law states that no one is guiltless only because they are unaware of their sin. Rather, the Law says that all must be made aware of their sin and offer the sacrifices and restitution when called for. A sin committed unknowingly doesn't carry the same punishment as willful sin, but it remains that it is sin.

So Adam and Eve had to have remained sinless prior to the fall and yet be unaware of how God defines right/wrong, good/evil. My guess as to how God accomplished that state through Adam and Eve is that they were both incapable of committing sin. They wouldn't have consciously been aware of right/wrong, but rather choosing good over evil would have been instinctive. Doing what was evil never would have crossed their minds, even if they HAD known the difference. Eating the forbidden fruit was more than simply becoming aware of good vs. evil, but attaining the capacity to choose evil over good if they so desired it.

The inhabitants of heaven will be those who would prefer NOT to assert their free will if it means choosing evil over good and would prefer an eternity of righteousness over the alternative. For those who choose Christ in this lifetime, God will remove the capacity of sin from our human nature. Thus we'll exist in the closest thing we'll ever get to the Edenic state.

And I think in heaven all souls will be equal, desiring only to act in accordance with what is pleasing to God, and thus we'll pretty much be self- or God-governing.

Asking what kind of government is in heaven is like asking if the number 5 is married. Saying "yes" is obviously absurd. However, saying that 5 is a bachelor is also absurd. The question itself is absurd.

Only until after Jesus had been gone for some time. I am sure when Jesus as human, he would have never said The two brothers of Abraham wouldn't both be in heaven. He would have told you to stop thinking things like that, and be nicer to the descendants of Ishmael. Why would they go to hell? Technically you could call your self a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian, and believe what the christian bible says. You'd just be a a Messianic Jewish Muslim. But sadly people, even me, tend to want to stick their bibles where they are safe, and not where they are needed.
If a muslim kept his cultural beliefs but believed the christian bible, he would go to heaven in christian heaven.

I'm not sure a government system would be necessary in Heaven. Consider the following:
- We wouldn't need to eat, sleep, drink, breathe, etc. In other words, we would have no physical needs that need to be met to sustain us, and therefore no competittion for those resources.
- There would be no possessions that need to be built. I would assume we can basically just will anything into existence. So there would be no competition for goods.
- We would be freed from our fears, insecurities, anxiety, etc. Therefore there would be no negative emotions driving our behavior. Theoretically there probably wouldn't really be any hostility between people as a result. I suppose this one could be debatable, though it seems reasonable to say that we at least wouldn't be able to be harmed or killed in Heaven, so I'm not sure what effect hostility would have there even if it did happen.

If the things governments are usually designed to handle, mostly taking care of resource distribution and safety of the people, wouldn't really be applicable in Heaven, then I don't really know what a government would even do there.

there is a hierarchy in the heavens, and in hierarchies there is a government of sorts. as to the exact nature of this, heaven knows.