What is heaven?

[Brian37]

And why should anyone care to go?

The things that would make me happy in heaven are considered 'sins' here on earth. Is there sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll in heaven? Are these 'sins' OK in heaven? If not, why would anyone want to go?

Hell has none of that, and breakfast is not served there either.

Neither have that because neither are real. Niether god or satan are real anymore than Horis and Set are real.

[Polaris]

heav·en
   [hev-uhn]

noun
1. the abode of God, the angels, and the spirits of the righteous after death; the place or state of existence of the blessed after the mortal life.

2. ( initial capital letter ) Often, Heavens. the celestial powers; God.

3. a metonym for God (used in expressions of emphasis, surprise, etc.): For heaven's sake!

4. heavens,
a. (used interjectionally to express emphasis, surprise, etc.): Heavens, what a cold room!

b. ( used with a singular verb ) a wooden roof or canopy over the outer stage of an Elizabethan theater.

5. Usually, heavens. the sky, firmament, or expanse of space surrounding the earth.

And this answers...nothing. There is never a specific definition given in the bible. Why not? Is it because some people might decide they don't like it?

Revelations 21

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

Revelations 22

"Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever."

There are many theologians who believe that there really is no concept of heaven at the present and that all believers are waiting for the Day of Judgement for all things to pass.

[Darkstar]

There are many theologians who believe that there really is no concept of heaven at the present and that all believers are waiting for the Day of Judgement for all things to pass.

Point taken. The thing is, it is not all theologians who think this. People disagree on what the bible means, and yet many of them subjectively define the meaning of certain passages and claim that they 'know' their interpretation is correct.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

You are asserting this when all the evidence points to it not being true.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16...brain.html

Well, that article asserts an idea that "seems" to be true when all Vedic authority points to it not being true, and in fact explicitly states it isn't true. That article said absolutely nothing to refute the idea that the brain conducts consciousness and is not the source of it. Scientists can't understand the soul - their knowledge will always be incomplete

The "life comes from matter" theory is a bluff. It is not knowledge, nor has anyone come close to proving it. If you choose to believe an unfounded idea like that because dishonest scientists are ready to say that's what they think, ok fine. But without some serious evidence, it's not something I'm ready to take on faith.

Why not be honest and admit science knows extremely little about the origin of life? Why is it "science" to assert something with very little evidence?

---

As far as I know, heaven isn't very well defined. It is basically whatever you want it to be, just like how you can cherry-pick which parts of the bible are true. Do they never realize that their desires do not change reality? (Or do they assume heaven will conform to their desires). In all honesty, especially given god's character, it would probably be endlessly worshipping him and being bathed in his 'glory'.

In the Bhagavatam heaven and hell are very clearly defined.

http://vedabase.net/sb/en1

You can take a look at this chapter, for example:

http://vedabase.net/sb/5/24/en1

[Darkstar]

In the Bhagavatam heaven and hell are very clearly defined.

Oh, I was only thinking about the bible. Naturally, these always lead to the question of how can you know your book is better than the other guy's? You don't need to answer that here if you don't want to, it was a semi-rhetorical question.

[Polaris]

There are many theologians who believe that there really is no concept of heaven at the present and that all believers are waiting for the Day of Judgement for all things to pass.

Point taken. The thing is, it is not all theologians who think this. People disagree on what the bible means, and yet many of them subjectively define the meaning of certain passages and claim that they 'know' their interpretation is correct.

People disagree on everything. People look at the 1st Amendment completely differently, some even admittedly add meaning to it they know is not there to justify their position....like say "freedom from religion." Likewise, there are those who have done the same to holy books.

[pocaracas]

The "life comes from matter" theory is a bluff. It is not knowledge, nor has anyone come close to proving it. If you choose to believe an unfounded idea like that because dishonest scientists are ready to say that's what they think, ok fine. But without some serious evidence, it's not something I'm ready to take on faith.

Then you shouldn't take the opposite on faith either?

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Oh, I was only thinking about the bible. Naturally, these always lead to the question of how can you know your book is better than the other guy's? You don't need to answer that here if you don't want to, it was a semi-rhetorical question.

How do I know my book is better than the other guys? Well, one way to get an idea is to read them. In this case, I think that's really all it takes.

---

The "life comes from matter" theory is a bluff. It is not knowledge, nor has anyone come close to proving it. If you choose to believe an unfounded idea like that because dishonest scientists are ready to say that's what they think, ok fine. But without some serious evidence, it's not something I'm ready to take on faith.

Then you shouldn't take the opposite on faith either?

Faith is unavoidable. It's a precondition for knowledge. We can opt for the type of faith that strikes us as most rational.

What irks me is the common, casual dismissal of ideas which don't fit the completely materialistic paradigm, when science simply can't explain the origin of life.

[pocaracas]

Then you shouldn't take the opposite on faith either?

Faith is unavoidable. It's a precondition for knowledge. We can opt for the type of faith that strikes us as most rational.

What irks me is the common, casual dismissal of ideas which don't fit the completely materialistic paradigm, when science simply can't explain the origin of life.

Science can't explain the origin of life? I'd say "hasn't yet managed to" explain the origin of life.
You can't (shouldn't) keep your faith based solely on a god-of-the-gaps.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that article asserts an idea that "seems" to be true when all Vedic authority points to it not being true, and in fact explicitly states it isn't true. That article said absolutely nothing to refute the idea that the brain conducts consciousness and is not the source of it. Scientists can't understand the soul - their knowledge will always be incomplete

The what now? Soul eh? Never seen one.

The "life comes from matter" theory is a bluff. It is not knowledge, nor has anyone come close to proving it. If you choose to believe an unfounded idea like that because dishonest scientists are ready to say that's what they think, ok fine. But without some serious evidence, it's not something I'm ready to take on faith.

Well, the evidence would be that once there was no life, and then there was. That once life was exceedingly simple, and now it is very complicated. It "came from" something, and all of our options happen to be matter. That's not really an issue of faith amigo.

Why not be honest and admit science knows extremely little about the origin of life? Why is it "science" to assert something with very little evidence?

Because they don't know "very little".....they don't know "enough". It isn't "science" to assert something without evidence, but since they aren't in the position you wish for them to be I can't find any real merit to your question.

In the Bhagavatam heaven and hell are very clearly defined.

http://vedabase.net/sb/en1

You can take a look at this chapter, for example:

http://vedabase.net/sb/5/24/en1

And?