Zygotes and heaven?

[vz71]

But does the church not give guidelines to this question?

Yes. We trust in the mercy of God.

Do we need to be baptized?

Generally, yes. But again we trust in the mercy of God.

Must we believe in Jesus and the resurrection?

Generally, yes. But again we trust in the mercy of God.

How about sex before marriage? What about denying the holy spirit?

A human at the stage of developement mentioned in this thread is not going to be guilty of what is mentioned here. You have to be capable of a sin before you can commit it.

There seems to be a set of rules, rules are hardly speculation. Even if the church officially says that line, they make it seem like they know exactly where souls go, and most of the time it’s to eternal damnation.

There are rules established, and there is God’s mercy available freely to all.
Do not ever underestimate the quality of mercy our creator can and has demonstrated.

I as an atheist and one who sins daily in many ways,

How can a professed atheist sin?
Sin requires the acceptance of God against whom a sin is commited. If you deny the existence of God, how exactly can you claim to know sin?
Your claim to sin, and atheism, make no logical sense.

By your claim then that entrance into heaven or hell is just speculation it is entirely possible that anyone can get into heaven. And it is entirely possible that I will (not that I want to live forever).

Not at all. I never said entrance into heaven or hell was speculation.

 

[vz71]

Or we could try it another way. I believe in the Goddess Hel and I want her to let me touch her inappropriately. Does Hel exist? Do you think she is just a mythological story?

“touch her inappropriately??”
It seems apparant that you do not wish to back your claims with anything more then vulgarity at the moment.

I really hate this dirty tactic turning burden of proof around. As one who has hopes of becoming a research scientist it sickens me even more, it’s just so low and disgusting.

You hate it when you are required to back your claims with proof…perhaps you should reassess your desire to be a research scientist.
In either case, no one has made mention of your own ‘mythology’ except yourself.
And your words are in direct conflict with your claimed religion in your profile “Pastafarian”, and also in direct conflict with your own professed atheism.
It appears that your own introduction of said ‘mythology’ has itself brought on more problems.

You cannot escape your own words. The claims were made, the proof must now be provided.

 

[Abbadon]

I
This is no dodge, this is not twist.
This is the burden of proof being placed squarely upon the the shoulders of those that made the claims.
I thought I was dealing with individuals with the honesty to back their own claims.
Am I? Or am I dealing with individuals that scream out accusations and then duck and hide rather then take responsibility for their words.
The board is still wide open…will these individuals respond and provide the proof to back their claims?

Damnit. I said to my self I would leave and I thought I could resist but a quick visit to see where the thread is going makes it that I am mentally unable to do so. But this will be my final word.

You are the one making claims about gods, faeries, virgins and ascensions. All we do is call your bluff. I think you need to go back and understand burden of proof.

May his noodly appendage be with you, the one true god, the flying spaghetti monster.

And I’m out… I hope for good…

 

[vz71]

You are the one making claims about gods, faeries, virgins and ascensions. All we do is call your bluff. I think you need to go back and understand burden of proof.

OK, one last time…
Here are the claims made:

Ahhh of course when the church make things up it naturally instantly becomes fact.

They are made up, especially Mary’s assumption. Mary’s assumption is not contained in the Bible, ( the Bible of course, written and made up my man).

Now where is the proof.
It’s a simple request. Just back your words with some facts.
And at this point, I dare say it is your integrity at stake.

May his noodly appendage be with you, the one true god, the flying spaghetti monster.

So are you atheist or not?
You claimed to be earlier in this thread, and yet you now claim a deity of your own.
Please make up your mind.

And I’m out… I hope for good…

Continuing to come back to a debate you are losing has always been your own choice. I am certain we will all be here should you come back with some words of wisdom that lend backing to your accusations.

 

[jjh930]

After reading the posts from beginning to end…14 pages on this subject, I realize that GOD’s plan of salvation does indeed account for a greater good coming out of evil or evil choices. In reading Phantasm’s string of responses and posts, I can come to several conclusions:

1. Phantasm’s view of GOD is based on placing the constraints of the human mind on the actions of GOD.
2. Phantasm’s view or omniscience is flawed because he continually places the concept of time on GOD who is beyond time, the creator of time and Who knows all things in the “present”, even if the term “present” is the only term we have to describe it.
3. Because of the flawed view of GOD existing in time, Phantasm then ascribes to GOD an intention of “creating evil” in that GOD’s foreknowledge equates to control. The two are not inclusive. (We know that Phantasm will respond to this post…and even with the limitaton of our human mind we can ascertain how he might respond…(foreknowlege), but we dont control his keyboard…he does. Imagine how much more an omniscient GOD knows at the instant of Phantasm’s creation of his choices, interactions and his keyboarding. What Phantasm wants is a puppeteer GOD, which begs the question, if you want GOD to create you as a being without dignity or freedom to love or reject HIM, why should He bother…what is the point?
4. Phantasm uses a “literalist” interpretation of Scripture when he wants and a “literary” interpretation of Scripture when he wants. The two methods are applicable but only in the sense that they are correctly applied. There is only ONE correct interpretation for catholics, that of the church and its teachers. When arguing Catholic dogma, its important to argue what WE say we beleive rather than what someone might think we beleive based on their own methodology. “see proper authority” 1Peter.
5. Finally, in support of the dogma of GOD creating man with the dignity of choice and allowing the existance of evil together with good so that greater good can occur, I can say categorically that I personally have been strenghtened in faith as a result of this string started by Phantasm. I thank him and the other respondants for helping me reaffirm my faith.
   Phantasm, this may be just one of many reasons that you were created!

 

[StAnastasia]

Not to mention there are no “forms” in heaven. It’s purely spiritual and therefore takes up no space.

Do you accept the creed? Including the bit about the resurrection of the body?

 

[Lizziebel]

Do you accept the creed? Including the bit about the resurrection of the body?

We believe Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven, but what about the rest of us? Isn’t it the final Judgment Day that the resurrection of the body takes place, and we are once more reunited with our now glorified bodies?

Now I’m confused, because I thought that was to happen on the final Judgment Day. It’s what I’d always thought growing up Protestant, and was taught in RCIA (we just covered the Life after Life topic). Or am I wrong, and it happens at our own particular judgment when we die?

 

[StAnastasia]

We believe Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven, but what about the rest of us? Isn’t it the final Judgment Day that the resurrection of the body takes place, and we are once more reunited with our now glorified bodies?..Or am I wrong, and it happens at our own particular judgment when we die?

Lizziebel, in Greek perspective, humans are souls temporarily trapped in physical bodies. In Hebraic perspective, humans are embodied souls, or ensouled bodies. Physicality is essential to who we are, as without it there are no senses, no way to hold a baby or love a lover, no way to enjoy someone’s cooking or a beautiful sunset or the smell of your favorite flower or Mahler’s Resurrection symphony. It may be that eschatologically all these experiences are irrelevant, but we have no way of knowing that. I prefer the Hebraic whole-person perspective, in which we are essentially what we now experience ourselves to be, not something different that we cannot imagine. Of course, in the life of the resurrection, we hope that all imperfections will disappear, along with pain and death.

As to timing, there is no evidence that there is some waiting period between death and the eschaton. Eternity is outside of ordinary time (it’s not just eternally prolonged time), so if there is life after death, it would seem to begin at the hour of our death. The tricky thing is how to imagine a whole-person experience outside of time, since experience is in fact our consciousness of successive moments. Imagine the most intense pleasures possible now, and try to imagine them without the dimension of time! I suppose you could experience pure love, as in the beatific vision of God, but as a temporal being I cannot imagine how you could have the experience of love without some sort of time. I continue to ponder these things.

StAnastasia

 

[Lizziebel]

StAnastasia,

Physicality is indeed essential to who we are, and it would be quite difficult to imagine Heaven without having a body united to our soul. The thought of interacting on a purely spiritual level without a body to also interact with everyone and everything there is something I’d vaguely imagined. But in thinking more deeply about it, I’m not sure that we’re meant to miss out on all those experiences we wouldn’t have without a body. And I doubt we’d be meant to miss out of them in Heaven of all places!

The experience of love, or anything else, without time is another thing I can’t imagine either. I suppose we will have to wait until we experience it all for ourselves in order to really understand.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia, Physicality is indeed essential to who we are, and it would be quite difficult to imagine Heaven without having a body united to our soul. The thought of interacting on a purely spiritual level without a body to also interact with everyone and everything there is something I’d vaguely imagined. But in thinking more deeply about it, I’m not sure that we’re meant to miss out on all those experiences we wouldn’t have without a body. And I doubt we’d be meant to miss out of them in Heaven of all places!

Lizziebel, eschatology is perhaps the area of theology where I find myself resorting most to the apophatic! What can one say about on the basis of no knowledge? All we can do is describe by via negativa, or negation. Heaven is a state without tears, or pain, or suffering, or failure, or longing, or privation. I look forward to being reunited with my beloved cat, and once again stroking her soft black fur and hearing her purr on my lap. You may imagine that I have no use for a religion so small that it excludes cats from the life of the resurrection!

StAnastasia

 

[Lizziebel]

Cats, and dogs, and any other furry or feathered friend! Surely our beloved pets will be reunited with us in Heaven. I cannot imagine that anything good created by God would not have the chance to be in Heaven.

 

[vz71]

Cats, and dogs, and any other furry or feathered friend! Surely our beloved pets will be reunited with us in Heaven. I cannot imagine that anything good created by God would not have the chance to be in Heaven.

Animals do not have the immortal soul such as we have.
Their’s dies when their body dies.

Thus I have doubts of an afterlife awaiting Fido.

That being said…as a wise parent once told me, if when you reach heaven you require your dog in order to be happy, I am sure God will see to the proper arrangements.

 

[Lizziebel]

Of course! He gave them to us here on Earth, so why not in Heaven, where all is perfect?

 

[vz71]

Of course! He gave them to us here on Earth, so why not in Heaven, where all is perfect?

Animals are necessary here.
But in heaven all needs are met…perhaps with animals, perhaps without.

But it is bad catechism to teach someone that their pet goes to heaven when it dies.
It’s soul is not capable of an afterlife.
Assuming God places animals there for our benefit, we still have no witness testimony to the existence of animals in heaven.

Nice theory, but let’s not call it fact yet.
If/when we meet in heaven, if you have a dog with you, I’ll concede the point.

 

[Lizziebel]

Not saying that a pet would go to Heaven when it dies. But I agree with you that God in his infinite generosity could certainly provide us with our beloved pets in Heaven. After all, He can do all things.

As with all things with the afterlife that we cannot yet know, we shall hopefully see. And if/when we meet in Heaven, hopefully we will have our pets with us as well!

 

[StAnastasia]

But it is bad catechism to teach someone that their pet goes to heaven when it dies. It’s soul is not capable of an afterlife. Assuming God places animals there for our benefit, we still have no witness testimony to the existence of animals in heaven.

It’s not bad catechism at all. I have no use for a religious view that excludes non-humans from the heavenly kingdom, and I would certainly never teach my children or students such. After all, when humans die they are as dead as Fido. No one has seen grandpa after death any more than Fido. We hope and pray that the life of the resurrection is bigger than our paltry, human-centered imaginations!

 

[StAnastasia]

Cats, and dogs, and any other furry or feathered friend! Surely our beloved pets will be reunited with us in Heaven. I cannot imagine that anything good created by God would not have the chance to be in Heaven.

True, particularly as all life has evolved from a common ancestor. What right do we have, as one species, to declare than none of the rest of our relatives on the bush of life merit eternal life? Is it just because we write the books of theology?

 

[vz71]

It’s not bad catechism at all. I have no use for a religious view that excludes non-humans from the heavenly kingdom, and I would certainly never teach my children or students such.

Without an immortal soul, how would such enjoy the benefits of anything after death?

After all, when humans die they are as dead as Fido.

Except that Fido’s soul dies as well, and ours continues through eternity.

No one has seen grandpa after death any more than Fido. We hope and pray that the life of the resurrection is bigger than our paltry, human-centered imaginations!

We have the testimony of our God and creator the reality of heaven and our place therein. We have no such evidence for creatures with no immortal souls in heaven.

 

[vz71]

What right do we have, as one species, to declare than none of the rest of our relatives on the bush of life merit eternal life?

We do not have that right. God does…and it is he that has seperated us out from all of the other animals.

Is it just because we write the books of theology?

Your profile says you are Catholic. As such, I would think you would know better then this.
Our Church is far more then some words on a page.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s not bad catechism at all. I have no use for a religious view that excludes non-humans from the heavenly kingdom, and I would certainly never teach my children or students such. After all, when humans die they are as dead as Fido. No one has seen grandpa after death any more than Fido. We hope and pray that the life of the resurrection is bigger than our paltry, human-centered imaginations!

The Book of Genesis tells us that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, but animals are not. Therefore, animals do not have immortal souls.

True, particularly as all life has evolved from a common ancestor.

See this?

People always ask me, “How can it harm our theology, to believe in the theory of evolution?”

Here is exactly the reason - this is the harm - that people then come to believe that Adam, our first ancestor in the flesh, was a common ancestor to every animal, and not only to human beings.

What right do we have, as one species, to declare than none of the rest of our relatives on the bush of life merit eternal life? Is it just because we write the books of theology?

It is because God created Adam and Eve, one man and one woman - our first parents, from whom we are all descended as children in one family - male and female created He them, in His own likeness, they were created.