Government of the Christian Heaven

Post Reply New Topic

Very well said. And I think this is well supported by the New Testament Pauline writings, especially concerning the relationship between believers and the OT law. Certain laws really are moral dictates, others are essential law-and-order, others are ceremonial purity laws, and still others function merely to establish Hebrew cultural identity (tassles on garments, dietary laws). I have no qualms whatsoever with celebrating Christmas because IF there is a connection with western paganism, what better way to adapt the good news of the birth of Christ to an unbelieving culture! If any day is holy, it is holy because God made it so. Replacing unrighteous observances with righteous ones merely restores the original intent of any day considered holy.

There is no reason why someone cannot come out of the Muslim faith into Christianity and not still follow the wisdom of the Koran and other traditions in order to reflect that as a new creature in Christ he is set apart from unbelievers as holy to the Lord. Certain customs would reflect holiness and a desire to follow Christ in obedience. It would be about taking the good things of the Koran and Islamic tradition and restore them to a proper, Godly context.

Ad while some things are, no doubt, worth keeping, it would weigh heavily on the conscience of the former Muslim to decide carefully what to dismiss. Killing the unbelievers stands in stark contrast to loving one's enemies and praying for them. If it were me, and I'm glad that it isn't, I'd have to abandon the whole thing. I imagine I'd have to spend a considerable amount of time away from ANY religion or religious influence until I could mentally/emotionally sort it all out.

But is it possible? Definitely!

Another note, as there has been at least two wars I have my doubts that Heaven is particularly heavenly.

I've always understood Heaven to be a Kingdom. Hence the full name, Kingdom of Heaven. Except it's lead by the King of Kings, which would imply lower kings below Jesus, technically making Him an Emperor. So more of an Empire of Heaven. Plus, we get to call Jesus God-Emperor.

It's also strongly implied that all the human inhabitants are children of God, and hence are royalty. So I guess Heaven will be filled with Principalities, Duchies, Kingdoms etc.

I suppose it depends on which version of the Christian text you look to as Dawkins points out.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

If you use the Old Testament as a character guide for god, heaven is most likely more akin to the Christian understanding of Hell than the Marxist style paradise the OP envisages.

And I can't disagree with Dawkins more. But I suppose it depends on which side you're looking at it from. If God has plainly and clearly revealed himself to the world and the world adamantly rejects him, it makes sense that God, in the role of the Heavenly Father, would go to all means necessary to bring the world back to himself.

This view also fails to take God's patience into account. It took time, and a lot of it, from the fall of man in Eden to the deluge for God to decide to hit the proverbial reboot button.

It took several generations of kings after the split of the kingdom before God wiped the northern kingdom off the map and dispersed the tribes under their authority. And it took many more than that before he destroyed Judah at the hands of the Babylonians.

This view also fails to take into account God's mercy. When the years of captivity were over, God allowed a remnant faithful to him to return.

A fair and just God punishes evildoers. A gracious God gives them every opportunity to turn back before meeting his wrath. It's not surprising that Dawkins would possess such a biased view. After all, a God who demands moral and upright living won't seem very fair, just, or gracious to those who insist on living beyond His graces.

Are you seriously suggesting that the likes of Dawkins are immoral, Really?

So I presume in your testament of gods grace you do not accepts that he is all knowing, all powerful and ever present. Because a god who was those things would surely not need to resort to cold blooded murder and destruction. But then you will of course throw back that god has given us free will and we willfully push his hand.

This is the problem I have with religion. When a contradiction to the story is highlighted then an addendum is put in place to correct that contradiction

Yep. But, of course, in order for me to be consistent, I'd also have to say that we're all immoral, believers and all. So, yeah...really.


Incorrect. God is all knowing, all powerful, and all present.


No, He would not need to resort to cold blooded murder and destruction. Which is why in his patience he gives us as much time as it takes until we prove ourselves irreparably unrepentant. Only then does God demonstrate the full measure of his wrath on those who have no intention or desire to turn back from evil.

Besides, what is murder? Murder is generally held to refer specifically to unjustified homicide, often (but not necessarily) premeditated. By definition God cannot be said to be a murderer because while an argument for premeditation COULD be made, there remains the question of whether the homicide in question is justified.

The pattern that the Bible establishes is that man is created by God (in part) for obedience to God. The ideal, of course, is that man will WILLINGLY obey God. The Bible does not indicate that God destroys man simply because man is disobedient; rather that God destroys disobedient man when disobedient poses a certain threat to those who prefer obedience to disobedience. In other words, if you want to disobey God and live however/wherever you want, fine, but keep that away from those who love God and desire to do his will.


Of course!


I don't see a contradiction in the first place. It's hard to point out apparent contradictions without cherry picking and taking things out of context. Your supposed "addendum" is a straw man and reflects a poor understanding of religion.

(I speak only for my understanding of Christianity, btw.; I can't speak for religion as a whole, in which case you might have a point.)