Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, that means there is no absolute distinction in the quality of life. Both the new Earth and heaven are paradise, the only difference would be Heaven is infinite and the new Earth is not. So, animals that had died previously would not be on the new Earth.

The Earth will be a new garden of Eden, except humans were banished from that so we're living in heaven?

I suppose that's because if humans were on the Earth, we'd bring death and destruction into it. Our free will means that we can't be what God intended for us in the physical world. We're like little children. God loves us, but at the same time we can't be trusted. God wants to be near us, in heaven, where we are finally asleep in His arms. On Earth, we're destructive. Not because we're bad. But it's like giving toddlers free run of a house made entirely out of very fragile glass. Things are going to get broken, people are going to get hurt.

God knows the best way to teach a child not to do something is to let them do it and have them decide for themselves not to do it again. A toddler in the glass house is playing pirates and crashes into something and they get a nasty cut. God, their parent in this analogy, will give clean the cut and give them a bandaid. And that child will, at least, be more careful when playing pirates.

Children need their freedom, but at the end of the day God wants us back in his arms where we belong.

Haha, I love it when I'm typing something and I suddenly gain insight and go off into a rant.

I didn't mean literally the garden of Eden, I meant it as an analogy. The bible doesn't say the new Earth will be a garden of Eden, but a paradise in which predators lie with prey and there is no 'right' and 'wrong' sounds like the garden of Eden to me.

My username is quite appropriate, especially in this guild. Most of my posts are almost entirely metaphor or analogy.

My beliefs are that there was no literal Adam and Eve and six day creation, but I usually argue my points on the terms of other people in the guild because I'm outnumbered.

The human race in general is not doing a very good job of 'maintaining' the creation. I didn't say we could create it, in fact I'm kind of confused as to what you're talking about here.

I think I may need to brush up on my biblical knowledge. sweatdrop There will be humans on the new Earth? They get paradise and we got cursedville? XD sorry, but that doesn't really make sense to me.

And don't go making any assumptions about animals having no souls. That discussion ain't over. rofl I still do hold that all God's creation has souls.

And I believe that all souls join the infinite unity in heaven.

My beliefs are making more sense every day. I'm glad yours are too. They are reaffirmed constantly.

I know you didn't mean a Garden of Eden in the literal sense. I was simply stating that little is known about what the new Earth will be like from Scripture. It is all well and good trying to imagine what it might be like but it really doesn't apply to what we as Christians need to be doing at the present time. I did, however, acknowledge that your use of 'Garden of Eden' was an analogy by saying "whether an area of the new Earth or the new Earth as a whole". It wouldn't very well be a garden if it was the size of the whole Earth, would it? lol


Your username is rather appropriate, actually. The trouble with theorising is that it often makes good use of the imagination. Sometimes, for fun, I like to daydream for a while wondering what things were like when Jesus walked the Earth, or what things will be like with him in the future. It doesn't get me very far, unless it prods me to get my Bible out and find out what God's and Jesus' promises are. One could theorise until one's blue in the face, but sharing those multiple theories may end up confusing our less-knowledgeable brethren, not to mention get oneself confused. A good phrase I remember from secondary school English literature classes is "PCQA: Point, Context, Quotation, Analysis" -- make one's point and place it in its context, then quote one's source (in this case, the authority ought to be the Bible), then analyse the quotation to reinforce the point one is trying to make. I just got lazy by pointing in the general direction of Scripture as opposed to chapter and verse. It's clear you have some good points but they lack context (as do mine) and quotation at times (same with me), thus why we confuse one another with our analyses. Let's both work on the quality of our own arguments! smile


Perhaps you're right and it wasn't literal. An important thing to do is to question one's own motives for having a certain viewpoint. I could simply state that your faith is weak because you don't believe God is too powerless to do such a thing, but making such a statement against you would be unfounded because I am not you and I don't know what your motives are. I can only test what you have said to get an idea whether it is good.

I myself wouldn't say that such a feat is impossible for God "For nothing is impossible with God." (Luke 1:37 NIV) Yes, I know this refers to Elizabeth being pregnant even though she was thought barren, but the principle is the same. Jesus also said that nothing would be impossible for us either, if we had faith in God as small as a mustard seed (Matthew 17:20 NIV). Also, the idea of a 'day' in God's cosmic time can be thought of in our terms as an 'age' or a thousand years, as it states in Psalm 90:4 (NIV) and 2 Peter 3:8 (NIV). We might even stretch to taking the understanding of man being made of earth or clay as being made up of what science now understands as elements; many of which make an appearance in earth if it is analysed. We already know that bacteria can exist in such a place. Just because we understand the principles behind the miracle of creation doesn't make it any less of a miracle, but it does take away the excitement and mystery surrounding it. whee

The only other alternative is basically saying we're freaks of nature, an accident or even that we shouldn't even exist. I don't want to go into this bit at all so I won't. sad



My point is that all we can do now in terms of our original reason for existing (in terms of the Garden of Eden) is maintain or kill what we have been left after all these years, until the current Earth is destroyed by God and the New Earth is created by God. God put the curses on the world and us (which still remain to this day), and the only way to 'remove the curse' and make it new is for God to destroy it and start afresh His creation.



Yes, I believe that there will be resurrected humans on the new Earth. What is the point in having a new Jerusalem if the only person in it is going to be Jesus as King? A city needs administration and whatnot, and a king needs servants. Would you suggest that the angels come down from Heaven, away from serving at God's throne to take care of all that as well? As I said in the previous paragraph, the current Earth and humans have been cursed by God, according to Genesis. The curses of having to toil the land to make food, kill animals to protect ourselves, women having increased labour pains, and having people age were not lifted when Jesus was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended to Heaven. I do believe God has never lifted this curse, unlike the promise He made after Noah's flood wihch was that He wasn't going to continue to curse the ground because of man. The only way for a cursed Earth to be made new is for its destruction and perfect recreation.



Well, knowing that God made man in His image (unlike animals, which are not in God's image) I would beg to differ. Animals have no need for resurrection. Jesus did not die on the cross to save the souls of animals. That is not an assumption. mad


Good luck with your pseudo-Buddhism (I'm in a bit of a rush now to spend a lot of time arguing). Do message me sometime, though. I'd like to discuss this idea further with you! 3nodding


How do your ideas fit with Scripture? They all sound a bit flakey to me, begging your pardon. sweatdrop

I'd just like to interject a comment about the whole "made in God's image" thing.

Let's look at some of the interpretations of that.

Either we were made physically in God's image, meaning Adam and Eve were literal and that about kills evolution. Or we were made spiritually in God's image, and that means one of two things.

Our souls are somehow better or more important than the souls of everything else, because Jesus came for the salvation of men because of our sinful nature. Animals don't sin because they run on instinct and weren't created to have free will the way humans do. Animals make choices based on instinct; they can't reflect or really analyze their decisions like humans can (though humans have their own sort of instinct I suppose). Therefore animals don't need salvation.

But that means animals get the easy way out. Humans have to work to make the conscious decision. Life is ultimately harder for humans than for animals. Sounds to me like God is playing favorites, with his preference being towards the animals because they get granted immediate access to Heaven. I recall Jesus saying no one gets into Heaven except through Him, not "no one can come to the Father except through me- except for animals because they're too stupid to make actual decisions based on logic and reasoning and don't sin anyway; they're special."

The second option is that humans are the only creatures with souls, because we are in need of eternal salvation, whereas animals are not. Why would we need salvation and not animals? Either because they get immediate entry to Heaven or because they don't have souls.

I've said it so many times before: humans were made by God to be like God and to be with God. Cats, dogs, fish, birds, giraffes, zebras, horses, snakes, snails, insects, spiders, fleas, trees, grass, flowers were not. They have no reason to have a soul because God didn't make them to be with Him the way humans were.

The only admonishments to herosexuals in the Bible are ones that admonish being unfaithful to your spouse, and stuff like that. The admonishments to homosexuals rule out homosexuality all together from the "can do" list.

I believe they go to heaven, only time(hopefully pass on of old age) will tell.

Personally, I believe that any living thing, including animals can go to heaven. It just doesn't feel right that the animals just does squat and is some little entity. I've done heavy praying for my dog when my mom had to put her to sleep, and her not going to heaven is not true. If I can, I bet one of the first things I'll see if I do get to go will be the little dog my mom had to put down. I say it's true, because I feel happier that she's in a happier place. It's just one of those feelings when God answers your prayers y'know? That's howcome I believe they DO go to heaven. Wheather it be their choice or not. Infact God decides who gets to go and who doesn't. Who are we to say that animals can not go, because they don't have a "spirit" and does not have "God's breath of life". Animals are HIS creation and I'm sure if you pray to God he'll answer.

Thusly, I believe they do go to heaven, it's infinite, so how can they not? It just doesn't make sense to me when I had a pure and true feeling that's where she is right now. Same goes for all the little pets I had lost, in this earthly world.

My cat must be spiritually impaired then, because she's always the same around me, whether I'm worshipping or playing video games. xd