Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

A & E. A natural death or murdered by God?

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 8:58:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A & E. A natural death or murdered by God?

A friend has a child with a peanut allergy. He keeps the life saving medicine in his home.
He commanded his son not to eat peanuts but one day his son did. On noticing the situation, he quickly administered the drug. He recognized that the fright and discomfort to his child was punishment enough in and of itself and did not administer any other consequences. Not to his recovering child nor his siblings who had been with the child.

He mentioned, in jest, that if God would have been of like mind, the world would never have been cursed by God and all of us would not have had death and original sin imposed on us.

Genesis says that the first time that A & E did their own will and not the will of God, God administered, not only the known consequence of death on them, he also added a list of consequences that had yet not been discussed with anyone. In fact, the benefit of the gain of a moral sense, something quite valuable, was also never discussed. A & E had to gain that information from the talking snake.

These facts indicate to me that some who say that Genesis if full of instances of injustice may be right.

If I assume that A & E fell when they gained their moral sense, a strange concept to me as well as the Jews who see Genesis as man‘s elevation, Gen 3 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil----then they truly made a mistake.

Having done something that could make them surely die as God said, it would seem to me as with my friend and his child, God should have given them the medicine that would save them. Something any good parent would do.

Instead, God put the medicine, the tree of life, in his safe, so to speak, and let A & E suffer and die as he watched.

There are two moral questions that pop to mind for me.

1. Is it moral for either God or man to sit and do nothing, or even hold back, life saving measures from a dying child?

Scripture shows God barring the way to the tree of life.

2. Is it Moral, for parents or God, to add on a group of as yet unknown consequences, to some infraction that a child may have done?

Scripture shows God passing on A & E's sin to us via original sin, cursing the earth etc.
All consequences that he arbitrarily added on without any warning at all.

Now I know that some say that we cannot judge God.
I will let the Bible judge him then.

On original sin and death being given to all of us.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

On God's action toward the evil disobedience.
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

A reply to both questions above would be appreciated.

Regards
DL
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 5:22:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 8:58:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
A & E. A natural death or murdered by God?

A friend has a child with a peanut allergy. He keeps the life saving medicine in his home.
He commanded his son not to eat peanuts but one day his son did. On noticing the situation, he quickly administered the drug. He recognized that the fright and discomfort to his child was punishment enough in and of itself and did not administer any other consequences. Not to his recovering child nor his siblings who had been with the child.

He mentioned, in jest, that if God would have been of like mind, the world would never have been cursed by God and all of us would not have had death and original sin imposed on us.

Genesis says that the first time that A & E did their own will and not the will of God, God administered, not only the known consequence of death on them, he also added a list of consequences that had yet not been discussed with anyone. In fact, the benefit of the gain of a moral sense, something quite valuable, was also never discussed. A & E had to gain that information from the talking snake.

These facts indicate to me that some who say that Genesis if full of instances of injustice may be right.

If I assume that A & E fell when they gained their moral sense, a strange concept to me as well as the Jews who see Genesis as man‘s elevation, Gen 3 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil----then they truly made a mistake.

Having done something that could make them surely die as God said, it would seem to me as with my friend and his child, God should have given them the medicine that would save them. Something any good parent would do.

Instead, God put the medicine, the tree of life, in his safe, so to speak, and let A & E suffer and die as he watched.

There are two moral questions that pop to mind for me.

1. Is it moral for either God or man to sit and do nothing, or even hold back, life saving measures from a dying child?

Scripture shows God barring the way to the tree of life.

2. Is it Moral, for parents or God, to add on a group of as yet unknown consequences, to some infraction that a child may have done?

Scripture shows God passing on A & E's sin to us via original sin, cursing the earth etc.
All consequences that he arbitrarily added on without any warning at all.

Now I know that some say that we cannot judge God.
I will let the Bible judge him then.

On original sin and death being given to all of us.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

On God's action toward the evil disobedience.
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

A reply to both questions above would be appreciated.

Regards
DL


Everything comes down to God's goodness: If He IS good then we must take HIS Word 'don't eat or you'll die'

If He is NOT good then we may take satans 'you won't die, your eyes'll be open'.

As we now live in a fallen world where EVERYTHING is dead or dying then we may reasonably conclude that God IS good.
The Cross.. the Cross.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:50:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I choked on you reasonably conclude.

Yep. God is good for cursing the earth. Wearing our dunce cap today are we?

I see in your last that God is good because he makes death.
If you say so.
I would ask those at Sodom or in Noah's day if God was following scripture that says that we are to fight evil with good. Some of the innocent children and babies might not think it so good.

Let me get this straight thought.
You would prefer to go about with your mental eyes closed to any moral sense, than to have them open and do what scriptures tell you to do and that is emulate God.
Do I have that right?

Regards
DL
ritz2004
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:14:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 8/15/2011 8:58:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

1. Is it moral for either God or man to sit and do nothing, or even hold back, life saving measures from a dying child?

It sounds really harsh but if trying to save the child is going to give the parents false hope, cause the child more suffering and have very little chance of success then it is more humane for that treatment to be denied. If however the child will definitely live a long happy life after the treatment then its obviously completely immoral to hold back. I can't begin to imagine how you'd be absolutely sure either way though, I couldn't make those decisions. So I only have respect for the people in the medical profession who have to and do so with great consideration.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 9:44:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 8:58:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
A & E. A natural death or murdered by God?

A friend has a child with a peanut allergy. He keeps the life saving medicine in his home.
He commanded his son not to eat peanuts but one day his son did. On noticing the situation, he quickly administered the drug. He recognized that the fright and discomfort to his child was punishment enough in and of itself and did not administer any other consequences. Not to his recovering child nor his siblings who had been with the child.

He mentioned, in jest, that if God would have been of like mind, the world would never have been cursed by God and all of us would not have had death and original sin imposed on us.

Genesis says that the first time that A & E did their own will and not the will of God, God administered, not only the known consequence of death on them, he also added a list of consequences that had yet not been discussed with anyone. In fact, the benefit of the gain of a moral sense, something quite valuable, was also never discussed. A & E had to gain that information from the talking snake.

These facts indicate to me that some who say that Genesis if full of instances of injustice may be right.

If I assume that A & E fell when they gained their moral sense, a strange concept to me as well as the Jews who see Genesis as man‘s elevation, Gen 3 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil----then they truly made a mistake.

Having done something that could make them surely die as God said, it would seem to me as with my friend and his child, God should have given them the medicine that would save them. Something any good parent would do.

Instead, God put the medicine, the tree of life, in his safe, so to speak, and let A & E suffer and die as he watched.

There are two moral questions that pop to mind for me.

1. Is it moral for either God or man to sit and do nothing, or even hold back, life saving measures from a dying child?

Scripture shows God barring the way to the tree of life.

2. Is it Moral, for parents or God, to add on a group of as yet unknown consequences, to some infraction that a child may have done?

Scripture shows God passing on A & E's sin to us via original sin, cursing the earth etc.
All consequences that he arbitrarily added on without any warning at all.

Now I know that some say that we cannot judge God.
I will let the Bible judge him then.

On original sin and death being given to all of us.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

On God's action toward the evil disobedience.
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

A reply to both questions above would be appreciated.

Regards
DL

Was the fall of Adam and Eve good or bad?
Good.
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Do you find it peculiar that the tree was placed in the "midst" of the garden?...Do parents put cookies in front of their kids and tell them "I don't want you to eat those cookies...nevertheless you may choose for yourself" and then leave the room...? The answer is that "The Fall of Adam and Eve" is part of the plan.

You seem to understand the part of where Adam and Eve were supposed to Fall, but it isn't clear to me that you also understand that as part of the plan, the physical and spiritual death were ALSO already planned for....It was.

It was supposed to happen and the necessary preparations have been made (The Atonement of Jesus Christ) for people to be saved from the Fall 1 Cor. 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It was good because it allows all of us to obtain mortal bodies and to learn about good and evil so we can grow and learn and progress (we are on earth to learn to walk by faith and become like our Heavenly Parents.)

All part of the plan…It wasn't like "…"Houston…we have a problem…."
In contrast, after the Fall. The "tree of Life" was guarded by Cheribum and a flaming sword, and they were removed from the presence of the tree of life– Because God was serious about protecting them from that! – Because we must repent before eating that!!…that is what this mortal/ temporal life is for…to repent.

if Adam had partaken of the Tree of Life right away (these scriptures explains it well):

Alma 42:5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

Alma 42:9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

Now to more directly answer your specific ?s:

1. Is it moral for either God or man to sit and do nothing, or even hold back, life saving measures from a dying child?
---Usually no, but if there is a better result by doing that then yes it could be.
---If God let them partake of the Tree of Life while they were in their sins, it would have been a BAD thing, not a good thing.
---One thing a lot of humans have a hard time comprehending is that there is a lot MORE to our lives than this small time we have on earth...our mortal probation.
Therefore if an action that God (or even a man) takes that is worse for them in this life BUT is better for them ETERNALLY, then obviously it is better to have the better situation eternally, even if in the short run it seems bad.
---God has provided a way to be saved from death (both temporal and spiritual)...even though there was no promise of that to Adam and Eve when they chose to partake....God told them not to or they would die...but we see God's mercy and wisdom interevening even though Adam and Eve have no just claim on mercy...the stated punishment was "death".

2. Is it Moral, for parents or God, to add on a group of as yet unknown consequences, to some infraction that a child may have done?
---You seem to be assuming that "orginal sin" is doctrinally correct. I don't believe that any person will be responsible for the sins of another...that isn't just. We will however, get plenty of sins of our own...

Article of Faith 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

well there are some ideas, there's a lot more that could be expounded on i'm sure.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 12:22:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:14:59 PM, ritz2004 wrote:
: At 8/15/2011 8:58:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

1. Is it moral for either God or man to sit and do nothing, or even hold back, life saving measures from a dying child?

It sounds really harsh but if trying to save the child is going to give the parents false hope, cause the child more suffering and have very little chance of success then it is more humane for that treatment to be denied. If however the child will definitely live a long happy life after the treatment then its obviously completely immoral to hold back. I can't begin to imagine how you'd be absolutely sure either way though, I couldn't make those decisions. So I only have respect for the people in the medical profession who have to and do so with great consideration.

I am pleased that we agree that God acted in an immoral way in holding back a guaranteed cure.

Regards
DL
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 12:27:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 12:22:15 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 8/23/2011 7:14:59 PM, ritz2004 wrote:
: At 8/15/2011 8:58:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

1. Is it moral for either God or man to sit and do nothing, or even hold back, life saving measures from a dying child?

It sounds really harsh but if trying to save the child is going to give the parents false hope, cause the child more suffering and have very little chance of success then it is more humane for that treatment to be denied. If however the child will definitely live a long happy life after the treatment then its obviously completely immoral to hold back. I can't begin to imagine how you'd be absolutely sure either way though, I couldn't make those decisions. So I only have respect for the people in the medical profession who have to and do so with great consideration.

I am pleased that we agree that God acted in an immoral way in holding back a guaranteed cure.

Regards
DL

This is very interesting. You claim that in order for us to have the same moral code as the Biblical God, we must not only withhold medicine from our children that eat peanuts, but also put their eyes out and cut off the tongue.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 1:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 9:44:21 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
even though there was no promise of that to Adam and Eve when they chose to partake....God told them not to or they would die...but we see God's mercy and wisdom interevening even though Adam and Eve have no just claim on mercy...the stated punishment was "death".

2. Is it Moral, for parents or God, to add on a group of as yet unknown consequences, to some infraction that a child may have done?
---You seem to be assuming that "orginal sin" is doctrinally correct. I don't believe that any person will be responsible for the sins of another...that isn't just. We will however, get plenty of sins of our own...

Article of Faith 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


well there are some ideas, there's a lot more that could be expounded on i'm sure.

Thanks for this.

I agree on being personally responsible for our own sins. This shelves that ridiculous blood sacrifice idea of Jesus dying for us.

"Adam and Eve have no just claim on mercy...the stated punishment was "death".

Perhaps if they were guilty of sin. They were not.

As above so below.
Would you as parent impose such a punishment?
Remember that God himself set the conditions. That is pre meditated murder.

You seem to have missed this. "2. Is it Moral, for parents or God, to add on a group of as yet unknown consequences, to some infraction that a child may have done?"

Care to have a go. Without the bobbing and weaving.

BTW. Your first shows how innocent A & E were. Too dumb in fact to know that the first tree you eat from is the tree of life. That is the more important tree. Speaking as a parent of course.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:01:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 12:27:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

This is very interesting. You claim that in order for us to have the same moral code as the Biblical God, we must not only withhold medicine from our children that eat peanuts, but also put their eyes out and cut off the tongue.

I am saying that that is basically what God does and his followers are to follow his example.
Christians are supposed to have the same moral code as God. Of course. That is a given for all religions.

My view is that if they do, they are quite a bit shy of being moral.

Regards
DL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:51:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:14:59 PM, ritz2004 wrote:
: At 8/15/2011 8:58:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

1. Is it moral for either God or man to sit and do nothing, or even hold back, life saving measures from a dying child?

It sounds really harsh but if trying to save the child is going to give the parents false hope, cause the child more suffering and have very little chance of success then it is more humane for that treatment to be denied. If however the child will definitely live a long happy life after the treatment then its obviously completely immoral to hold back. I can't begin to imagine how you'd be absolutely sure either way though, I couldn't make those decisions. So I only have respect for the people in the medical profession who have to and do so with great consideration.

Oh, I agree. The wants of the many should always outweigh the needs of the one. Even when it's two v one, if it causes someone a bit of sadness if it fails, we should deny treatment. Oh, by the way, cancer has been known to make people's relatives as well as the patient depressed, therefore we should remove the word cancer from the medical journals. Replace it with "happy clot" or something.

Just because it makes people upset, that shouldn't mean we should let someone die. We shouldn't fight wars, not because it causes deaths, but because the other side would get in pain.

@ theheartofthematter, I agree. God's "punishment" wasn't really a punishment at all. On a sidenote, I'd choose free will over doing what God wants. Oh wait. I couldn't choose free will unless either a) God told me explicitly to do so (but He said explicitly not to) or b) had free will in the first place.

Anyway, you brought up how "that is worse for them in this life BUT is better for them ETERNALLY, then obviously it is better to have the better situation eternally, even if in the short run it seems bad.".

What is heaven? It is being with God and worshipping Him. What was the Garden of Eden? Being with God and worshipping Him. Therefore, eating the apple prolonged seperation from God, and caused punishment for everyone after them.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:57:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 1:53:11 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

Thanks for this.

I agree on being personally responsible for our own sins. This shelves that ridiculous blood sacrifice idea of Jesus dying for us.

-->You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying there ---> What I was meaning when I said we are responsible for our OWN sins is that we will not be held responsible for Adam's sins! However we do still committ our OWN sins! and we must either pay the penalty for our own sins or else we need a Savior to pay the price of those sins for us! Jesus Christ was indeed crucified for the sins of the world!...and those who qualify can get forgiveness of their sins through Him.
Doctrine and Covenants 19
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

"Adam and Eve have no just claim on mercy...the stated punishment was "death".

Perhaps if they were guilty of sin. They were not.

Here you actually do have a point, I was speaking in general terms and didn't use the proper terminology. They were guilty of "Transgression". Because technically when they partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they didn't yet know about good and evil. And if a person doesn't know about good and evil then technically they cannot "sin". However they DID commit a transgression. They knew God's will - He told them plainly...and thus consequences followed. Albeit the consequences were actually not as bad as we consider a consequence of "death" to be if someone threatened us with it today!...I mean Adam did actually die...yes.. BUT he was 1,000 years old!
Also they did die spiritually as well...although there was a plan in place to redeem them from that as well. Also even though Adam died (he still lives as a spirit) and he will eventually be resurrected and live again.

As above so below.
Would you as parent impose such a punishment?
Remember that God himself set the conditions.

I agree that God did set the conditions...but if you see life as just a punishment you are missing the bigger picture! This is a temporary part of our lives...a trial. This life is a part of the plan of salvation...for us to obtain a body and learn more about good and evil so we can grow and become more like God. And also to strive to earn "Eternal Life".

Abraham 3
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

That is pre meditated murder.

As far as pre-meditated murder ---> So in your classification system are ALL deaths that people suffer "pre-meditated murder"...because EVERYONE dies!...Was the person who lives to be 100 and dies of natural causes "murdered" in your opinion?

Somethings to consider:
God gave life...He lends us breath to live moment by moment, all things belong to Him. So...if God gives, then takes, then gives again...is that really murder? --->Because every person who ever lived and has a body will be Resurrected and live forever! That part is the free gift of "immortality" because of Jesus Christ overcoming death. (Eternal life must be earned however ---that means overcoming "spiritual death).and that is what actually hangs in the balance for all of us! One other thing is that when person "dies" they really aren't "dead"...their physical body is dead, yes...but they live on as a spirit in the spirit world until the resurrection...when their spirit will reunite with their body...never to be divided again!

You seem to have missed this. "2. Is it Moral, for parents or God, to add on a group of as yet unknown consequences, to some infraction that a child may have done?"

What are you referring to here? childbirth pains and work/ sweat of brow required? or something else?

Care to have a go. Without the bobbing and weaving.

Well I posted some ideas for you to consider, so there you are!

BTW. Your first shows how innocent A & E were. Too dumb in fact to know that the first tree you eat from is the tree of life. That is the more important tree. Speaking as a parent of course.

"dumb" would not describe them, they probably know a lot, esp. since they were in the presence of God until the Fall, I imagine they understood a LOT. There is nothing to say that while they were in the Garden BEFORE they partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil...that they couldn't partake of the Tree of Life...they probably did in fact...because they were allowed to eat of ANY other tree except G&E. HOWEVER, once they had partaken of the forbidden fruit things changed...they were instantly subject to spiritual death as well (separation from God) and so to eat of the tree of life while in that condition would "lock them in" while they were in a bad state...a state of not having overcome spiritual death....that is why it wasn't allowed at that time (after they partook) it's all about the timing on that one...and later after they (and others) are clean spiritually...perhaps THEN will the time when we are ready to partake of the tree of life and then have immortality (overcoming physical death) AND ALSO overcome spiritual death as well.

Regards
DL

to you also!
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:12:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:51:58 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Anyway, you brought up how "that is worse for them in this life BUT is better for them ETERNALLY, then obviously it is better to have the better situation eternally, even if in the short run it seems bad.".

What is heaven? It is being with God and worshipping Him. What was the Garden of Eden? Being with God and worshipping Him. Therefore, eating the apple prolonged seperation from God, and caused punishment for everyone after them.

The Garden of Eden was the Earth in its Terrestrial State. It is now in a lower state (known as its Telestial state).
We were not in heaven with God. It was great and all being with God, and we learned and grew all we could with Him while we were there. Where we were is known as the Pre-mortal spirit world. In order to progress further it was necessary that we come to Earth and gain a body and learn more about good and evil. Some spirits accepted the Plan of Salvation, some did not. There is still much more to come before "Heaven"! We all will die...when a person dies their spirit and body separate and the spirit goes into the Post-Mortal Spirit World...this is STILL not heaven...then there will be a resurrection (after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ)...there are different times for people to be resurrected...Jesus will reign personally on the Earth for about 1,000 years (known as the Millennium).

Isaiah 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: FOR OUT OF ZION SHALL GO FORTH THE LAW, AND THE WORD OF THE LORD FROM JERUSALEM.

that still isn't heaven. After that there will be another great war (known as the Battle of Gog and Magog)(also known as the Battle of the Great God). After that is over then people will be assigned to a kingdom of glory (if they qualify for a kingdom of glory)...THAT is heaven.