If there is Heaven, then in Heaven

World War II pretty much ended beliefs in God acting on Earth. Reich Security arrested Jews as well as anyone else. Nazi troops had flame throwers for regular implements. ■Gott mit uns meant, God is with us. The Allies said exactly the same, that God was with them, and Britain asked the US to drop the nuclear bomb. That finally happened with the US losses by kamikaze in the Pacific.

Completely atheist however, the human being would become a “bio-being”. Squirrels or koalas would look relatively witting then, because they do not have the proportion for body and brain as the human species do.

The text here is honestly to present my doubt; no playing up, around, or about. It has all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself, as Thomas Paine wrote.

It is enough to look around to reason, things have beginnings. More or less everything started at some time. It is possible that someone gave a beginning to life on Earth, and the life continues to begin, owing to the original design. Spring comes year after year, and then there is always some time before things turn into winter.

It is enough you introspect and you may observe, the soul is possible because yourself, you are not a body part. The brain does not have an “ego area” you could take out or put in. The organ uses networks of neurons that somehow — and this is the fact of science, somehow, without approximation or units of measurement altogether — remain organized in some harmony, without conscious effort on your part. It might be a property of your psyche or soul, to manage those nets.

By the original design or standard, everyone would have own psyche or soul.

Why planet Earth is not in contact with any afterlife, anything like videocall, I do not really have a clue. Humans are a lot better when aware what there is expected.

All religions claim to be true. In each and every there is something that gives me doubt, strong as not to join. All religions are human products: people devised and propagated them.

Buddhist reincarnation denies identity and memory. You could be this guy today, and that guy in another life, never remembering yourself from today, just as now you couldn’t remember yourself from a previous life.

Worse, I saw a documentary, your soul could become split. Buddhism would recognize some up to three people living at the same time, as reincarnations of one Buddhist. In a monastery or like, kids were taking a test choosing trinkets, to be recognized from such a split, as if the soul might be just some fabric to make garment.

The human being would not be an entity, and this makes Buddhism very unattractive for a philosophy or religion. It looks more of a feudalist attempt to dominate over the individual. It was developed in India, where the caste society had “nobodies” as pariahs, and there was no remedy for the poor. The feudalism would not have a thought as a ■constitutional parity.

Islam demeans women. I can’t imagine working hard, at being a good person as well — to be sent into an eternal harem. How do you even deserve such punishment? Imagine a male having to run about a guy for all eternity.

If you read ancient scripts, it might turn out there is another story, and it is not much religion itself. It is simply afterlife, bright and happy not living on Earth. Have you ever thought Greeks possibly wrote in alphabet some 6 thousand years ago? I did not believe right away and looked everything up.

It might be emotionally and intellectually the worst experience, to get into some Great After, see it is beautiful, wonderful, marvelous and full of fancy garb, and then to learn you can’t stay because you’re lacking an agreeable philosophy. Villains at least expect some hell, whereas for you everything would have gone smoothly, like people say, a wormhole or something similar opened, the soul had a guaranteed safe landing, the Great After felt really great, yet as Emily Dickinson indicated within her poetic license, you’ve been your own enemy. You never thought how to live there.

You have learned how to burn candles or participate in religious events; you have mastered disputes over issues abstract as transcendence — because most earthly churches have the idea; but you do not have this simple philosophy in you for living After; and there is no heavenly nanny.

Your alternative is dense mists where souls wander and lose themselves to shapelessness.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

When I was a fetus, all my world was the womb of my biological mother. I sure did not even imagine the physical world out there before I was born. Now, in this physical world, I would rather think.

Regarding Christianity, I do not believe the Creator would have given up own son for own apple. Apples are known as fruit of season. Also abstract and metaphoric, an apple would have been an abstract and metaphoric fruit of season. More, I have never liked the idea of a nude paradise.

Sometimes, a human being might be prone to “close up on the indefinite” or “stabilize the variable”, to embrace what there is not known into a thing familiar. All religions were formed when people did not know much, but people knew what birthing was.

An animal shed where creatures of the hoof experience food metabolism in all extent — is a likely association with odors unfavorable. As a circumstance to human birthing, it might be described as jeopardy of life and limb. Did ancients do it the way?

They did not. They were fast building temporary accommodation, and Joseph was reportedly a carpenter. To keep warm, easy did those ancients spark a fire.

With the ■Trinity, you accept that the Almighty chose the circumstance for himself and his earthly, biological mother; ■coeternal and ■consubstantial, the Trinity would have had the Almighty crucified too. It was invented in the Middle Ages.

“Is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator?” — asked Thomas Paine in his Age of Reason, ■page 31.

I do not imagine this for my good beginning in the Great After, if I were to claim a belief in God Almighty who died or would have died for me. Crucifixion could never be pleasure.

How many male believers would like to be seen on a cross by their girlfriends, spouses, or mothers? How many would fancy an idea they were begotten straight for the purpose of becoming crucified? God either would have withheld that knowledge from Mary, or she would have been part in the plan.

However, no such earthly woman as to give birth to the Trinity on Earth might have existed. The Almighty and the Universe were before Earth, and I do not believe in Mary. I do not mean offense. After all, Christians do not believe in God as Allah and it is not supposed to offend.

Christianity written resources undeniably do exist. There is yet the prosaic possibility where I seek comfort, that someone wrote a play, as for a public performance, and the ancient story of Christos began and ended as theater.

Condemnation for an apple is trouble enough. There could not be need to add any fault against the Son, if it is true that the Almighty had or has a son, and the method continues to be blame on all people for what happens around, as with the original sin.

The crucifixion would have been on Earth. For a way to receive the Son of God, not welcoming at all.

The first letter by John says, As three there are, to bear witness in Heavens, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit (Wycliffe, 1 John 5.7-8). There would be room for the Son where the Word is in the phrase — and the Gutenberg Bible has the word verbum, and no son there.

Of the Son, it might have been a verbal story. Much wording would cancel, as a virgin and a ■mother of seven, maiden and wife of Joseph, a carpenter with a laboring wife who accommodates her in an animal shed.

No human being could hang in body positions as by ■Hieronim Bosch, or those in many churches today as well — by three nails for six hours, and such is Christian teaching — under earthly gravitation. Falling down, everyone would suffer further injuries.

The only way would there be to “hang in by three ash”. Three tiny “nails” rendered number three in ancient Sumerian cuneiform, whereas Hebrews had the number for a symbol of new life and completeness.

The tiny “nails” can be seen in the picture here. With a matter symbolic, there is no real crucifixion, and this is where so materially I could sigh with relief — just thinking about seeing the Father.

For any physical odds, let us stretch our arms sideways and see how long we are able to keep them up. No metal nails could help us support our shoulders, because any such piercing would be very painful, damaging, and shocking to the muscles. I do not know if there would be anyone able to keep their shoulders stretched for 30 minutes, simply under earthly gravitation.

“Not any two of these writers agree in reciting, exactly in the same words, the written inscription, short as it is, which they tell us was put over Christ when he was crucified; and besides this, Mark says, He was crucified at the third hour (nine in the morning), and John says it was the sixth hour (twelve at noon).
The inscription is thus stated in those books:
Matthew — This is Jesus the king of the Jews.
Mark — The king of the Jews.
Luke — This is the king of the Jews.
John — Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.”

Thomas Paine concluded:
“The disordered state of the history in these four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are productions of some unconnected individuals.”

The men who wrote the story never came together to make it into one version, exactly like with a play by an itinerant theater. Possibly it got taken off the bill. People would have come together for God.

The play would have had a phrase as “the (only) son of God”, a determiner possible to express in Greek, and the name Christos is of Greek origin. All males could be sons of God those times, where each would have been a son individually. However, the phrase, the only son, might have made people cautious about possible offense on afterlife.

Theater or cinema are also today for things never seen in life. Ancient Romans did originally coin the phrase, divide et impera, but the vox populi, vox dei was made hundreds of years after the fall of the empire. Asking the people what to do was not their habit, and Pilatus, a character of no historic evidence, would have left the judgment between Barabbas and Christos to the crowd. Jewish people continue to deny the story of Christos.

“It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the 
story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I will 
prove the truth of what I have told you, by producing the people who say it is false”, observed Thomas Paine in his Age of Reason, on ■page 27.

The vote by the people would be understandable if to take the character of Christos for symbolic, that is, in detachment from human bodily form, and this you might do in theater.

The name can be derived from the Greek ■κεῖρις (keiris or kiris), to mean a fabulous bird of a legendary sunshine festival of goddess Athena, whereas it was optically focused sunbeams that Ancient Egyptians used to melt granite. The famous Jewish arc of covenant reportedly “removed mountains”.

The vote over Christos and Barabbas would have been to end those solar uses, or to present crowd injustice. Ancient Hebrews were not fond of democracy. Hierarchy had been their fancy.

Well, what problem could you have with a pharaoh making a stone cup? Pottery was not the only ancient use for solar beams. Beside architecture, there were uses military or mystic, as to affirm on the power of the ruler. Ancient Egyptians would have beamed the Sun, or the cosmos next too, and this might explain the Egyptian plagues. One day, they slipped.

The Sun is in physical feedback with Earth, says ■science. Beaming the star can give this planet instability. Those would have been iron ores in the Nile and gaseous outpourings from under the ground, to kill the first-born and give people skin problems among plenty of frogs. It was the Sun the people worshipped. Saying, God did it, they meant the Sun, the Ra.

An ancient Egyptian “angel” would wear a head dress that might serve setting an optical parameter. The wings are quite geometric. With a surveyor’s cross, we might think about physical convergence. Optics is a branch of physics.

Visibility for Constellation Crux was changing, owing to the axial precession of planet Earth. The people might be losing their settings for beaming, and here the three ash, the “nails” of the cuneiform, were maybe to regard a parameter. Their end of the world came long ago. The Roman Empire fell.

The real end would be as in the video here, if the thing happens.

Would the ancient theater have been some esoteric show for the select? The lenses were most likely publicly visible in their time, especially for architecture. People could simply see them, and most knew what they did. Beaming the Sun was maybe secret.

It is the greatest consolation to think that people are in the same relative condition with the Maker as ever, since the beginning, wrote Thomas Paine.

Well, the original sin as inborn could only come from the Creator. It is yet possible that people do not have an original flaw, that is, the Creator did not make that mistake, and a sin to embrace all humanity would be man beaming the Sun. This would be the global irresponsibility.

Grecian legends look language and features more than persons of gods. The famous contestation for the golden apple gives the rounded shape to Athena as if saying, the Sun belongs with itself. In many languages there is this manner to warn children and grown-ups alike, you may look at the effects of something, but do not touch or do anything to it.

This is not to recommend looking into the Sun straight, as that most certainly would deprive a human being of eyesight, hence the figure of Athena, where the Grecian festival would not beam the Sun: the griffin has no wings. I imagine it for some amazing show of light reflections on the surface of Earth.

It would be absolutely a human paradox, for a church entire to be done into the very same sin. I mean the ■”Miracle of the Sun” in the light of narratives of ancient Egypt. Physically the extraordinary solar activity might have resulted from gravitational lensing in response to a beam, or likewise, in response, with a cosmic ■Fata Morgana. The cosmos may even “smile” at us at times, whereas the Sun sure never really went zig-zag. Earth is staying in place, and it would have been gone off.

I do not know who did what, the beaming or the children who saw “an angel”, but this does not mean the source had to be the Creator or the church. Military intelligence might be suspect, but again, I do not know who. I do know that fear is not faith.

Faith should be in something good. The Portuguese “Miracle of the Sun” was followed directly by World War I and then World War II, where the progress of Nazi ideas was much aided with auroras close to the surface of the German land. Fatima was revealed to the public in the 21st century, but knowledge or rumor of it obviously existed before.

I read in a book, Polish intelligence agencies had the habit or even a tradition of forming human structured contacts for “letting the mole down the hole”, to practice disinformation. The same contacts were capable of forwarding information.

“When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world”.

Fatima does not bring anything really otherworldly, if we compare the Old English ■Beowulf:
Wound up to the welkin that most of death-fires,
Before the howe howled; there molten the heads were. ■Wikisource.

The ■Fatima Storm was geomagnetic and with observable spots on the Sun. If you beam the Sun, does it make a spot? Some people compare the spots and the Sphinx to say the shapes behind the ear match.

What would have been the genre of the theater? Jewish Comedy. ■Christos monarchy was as a mustard shrub where birds might perch. The persica grew in deserts and Nomads used its branches for toothbrushes. Shakespeare’s “kingdom for a horse” looks serious in comparison (Richard III).

Let us mind here, recognition of the living circumstances is not the same as making fun of God. The Name of the Rose shows a monk fearing comedy and eating up a book imbued with poison. In his mind, a human product is the same as God, whereas no God could be a human product.

The story of Christos would not have his followers in afterlife the way of ordinary people. ■John 14.3: And if I go and prepare a place for you. He never was back.

God rains or shines the same, on the good or the bad, the theater would say. The Biblical Hebrew verb to do is עשה, ‘asa. It would be פעל (■pa’al), to describe moral deeds, say the ■Abarim Publications; hence the Jewish Comedy for the genre.

The Christos would recommend loving the enemy, so that “you may be children of your Father in heaven”, ■Matthew 5.44-45. The words may suggest a female Creator. You don’t have to be impossible, that is, love your enemy, to be “children” of a heavenly Mother. It might have been a big laugh with the ancient Jew.

Hunter-gatherers were the earliest on Earth. “The verb קנז (qanaz) isn’t used in the Bible at all, and it’s not even sure that it ever existed in Hebrew”, say ■the Abarim about the Hebrew verb for hunting.
The noun קנץ (qanas) occurs only once, in Job 18:2, and the sense is unclear. Abarim: How long will you qanas for talkings? They compare ■Arabic for hunt. The Hebrew Bible is not as old or original as people would claim

Regarding the adoption of the story for belief, we might say, people were naive in ancient times. In the 20th century still, viewers reportedly “moved away” from a locomotive on the cinema screen. Early Christians in Rome were foreign to Hebrew.

Possibly yet they were seeking death. I am never going to praise slavery in America, but it did not have that Turkish “delight” to play chess using living humans for the figures, where those fallen were terminated. If there was anything the primitive Europe did not do to slaves, it was only not yet invented.

Ancient executions were messy. A hungry predator in the arena was instant death.

Opinions on mental health, if Christos was ■crazy, I place them with speculation on figures of literature. Asking if Hamlet was crazy is short for, would Hamlet have been crazy, had he been real. Theater is neither crazy nor sane. It is a virtual reality.

On the other hand you might say it is plain mad to claim that God died for you to exist. The mere swing of Earth allows to make art. This means intellect, and no wits could have to die for own creation. Works are works. If any is as flawed, the Creator may annul it.

Wrote Thomas Paine:
“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism; a sort of religious denial of God.” — Age of Reason, p. 50.

Confucius remains noted for his discouraging woe over physical death, without any license to kill or murder, of course. As long as the soul impartible leaves this world, the Act of Creation continues, we may reckon. Could Earth become an Unshaped, simply with daily mortality? That would be late to appreciate the swing.

It was all fog, but a fog such as I’ve never seen before or since. For a moment I thought my sight had gone, that, perhaps, in the afterlife everything was vague and misty — wrote Gerald Heard in The Great Fog: And Other Weird Tales, 1944.

It might be a yet another human paradox, to be required on Earth to have faith that does not allow the afterlife — if believing that God died for you to exist would be considered all too crazy.

I do not need the thought anyone died for me, to have a worthwhile day. Absolutely nothing in my activity requires terminating any living functions. I would never crucify anyone, unless they demanded it holding a weapon to my head, which would in some end be kind of impracticable.

Atheism looks difficulty with the grammatical negative, and I do not have that. No atheist ever traveled the cosmos entire, many have never been on the Moon in person, yet the claim is, God sure exists not. As if everyone cared to assist from distant lands, only if he or she existed.

The affirmative is not the same pair of shoes. It may logically state on things, where No berry is better than a bad berry. Non-being has to have being to be — is more advanced.

I have never understood why people should claim on God, affirmative or negative. If you speak with relevance, it comes naturally to say that God maybe is. Nobody can claim God for his or her agency, whereas most people are serious enough to tell where water is really, to tell where water is. Otherwise, it maybe is there, unless we know it is not. About God, there is no reason to be less serious.

It could be that this planet is up to the people who live here, and well, things do not look good at times.

I absolutely agree with the European human charter, there should be freedom to choose a religion, but never an obligation or duty to do so.

The US has had some good experience with freedom of conscience already: Benjamin Franklin did not belong with any church.

Philosophy must be good enough. It only does not presume or claim on God, whereas it might make little sense to insist that God needs such claiming. If there is afterlife, it is likely good neighborly demeanor to matter there much, and some sanity. If there is Heaven, it is in Heaven; Earth is on Earth.

---