The Kingdom of Heaven never really was the name of an actual destination where people went when they died. Luke was one of the last documents written, and by this time the church had developed the idea that Kingdom of Heaven was a metaphor for personal transformation, in other words, it was an element employed in parables, and not a literal place. As the gospel pointed out, the kingdom of heaven referred to a state of mind, and was something within you, not, they went to great pain to stress, an actual place that they should think of as an ultimate destination.
"Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!' or ‘There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." ... And they will say to you, ‘Lo, there!' or ‘Lo, here!' Do not go, do not follow them ..." (Luke Chapter 17 verse 20)
"H proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately." (Luke chapter 19 verse 11)
In the gospel tradition the stress was placed upon an inner ‘heavenly' transformation during this lifetime and in this world, the traditions also described an ultimate destination which could only be reached after death, and indicate that a person would arrive at this unnamed place with physical bodies transformed through physical raising of the dead as modeled in the Christ story, where the literal body was literally raised in a matter of days. In the gospels when you were raised from the dead you were just that, raised from the dead and people could touch you, you could snack on a fish. Later Christian theology developed the novel idea of a type of ghost heaven, where those who got saved by the church went immediately upon death, and if they happened to be saints, could then answer prayers, among other such comforting tasks. Furthermore, the ghosts of the dead relatives of church goers would be always looking down upon them from ghost heaven, thus bringing comfort to all those people who liked to go out for a chat with the listening spirit of some dead friend.
However, as the gospel traditions indicate, the church wasn't always disembodied and in ghost heaven. The idea of the return to Eden once lived in the church, before it was replaced with the theological notions just described above. There are obvious allusions to the Eden traditions which conclude the book of Revelations, and this indicates that as one would expect, there were those in the early church who were influenced by the Eden tradition of exile found in Genesis, and following this logic through to its inevitable outcome, naturally a tradition would develop describing the eventual restoration of Eden. In a clear reversal of the Genesis tradition, the book of Revelations describes the restoration of human access to all important Tree of Eternal Life which had been described as heavily guarded and under solemn prohibition in the Eden parable.
Did Eden once live in the church? There was a time when it once did, but since then Eden has become not a place for a church to return to, but rather some place they got kicked out of long ago, and judging by the way they were removed, and how ugly everything has been since then, they don't expect to be going back. Rather they will have to settle for going to this other place, called (in the most literal sense of the term) ‘the Kingdom of Heaven'. The Kingdom of Heaven is populated by all the disembodied ghosts of dead people This is not a place like Eden. They are eternally separated from their bodies and thus from sexual activity, and instead become ghosts who live in heaven. Ghost Heaven is where your ghost goes when you die, according to churches, and you stay there forever, and according to certain strict churches, only churches go to ghost heaven and every other single living human being on the planet can go to hell (in the most literal interpretation of the meaning of that statement). That's right. Go to hell. Message signed, all those churches on their way to disembodied ghost heaven.
. Ghost heaven is an eternally ‘spiritual' place, because everyone there is a spiritual ghost living on a parallel spiritual realm to this physical world where we live now. Ghost heaven is. a spiritual place and thus you should understand right when you sign on to become a ghost in heaven that there will be no more sex at all. Forever. Forget Eden. Forever.
So according to popular beliefs (habits, superstitions, theological speculations, and so on) you shouldn't be expecting to return to Eden, but you should go as a kind of ghost to heaven instead, mainly because, while being a ghost in heaven, and, according to scriptures singing hymns and practicing religious duties, such as worship and of course lots and lots spiritual praise, all this while it would not be as much fun as being naked in Eden (let's face it) does have that one thing that would actually make such a thing seem like a viable option (if never a desirable option) and that would have to be that it was better than going to hell.
When I am presented with the alternatives of ghost heaven or hell, naturally, like any person who bleeds (not to mention burns) naturally I just might choose, unwillingly, and with the greatest amount of dissatisfaction, by the way, I might choose to give my mind, my thoughts, my entire soul and life over to the dogmas and beliefs of those churches. Which goes a long way to explain why churches only present people with two choices, because, let's face it, you really will have to terrorize me into a superstitious stupor of some sort to make me join up with that sexually frigid ghost heaven, and not go back to the Garden of Eden instead, something I would actually like to do, which really makes a big difference here for me.. Now the form of the doctrine (attempts to terrorize me and brutalize me into ‘making a choice') is clearly explained by the function of this particular theological position (overcome my resistance and through terror get me to join a church.)
Ghost heaven is better than going to hell. But just barely. (If at all.) Eden is better than either one of those two options. You see, I am not going to ghost heaven, myself, and if that was the only choice for me after I was dead, I guess that means that I would wind up burning eternally in hell, because from the bottom of my soul I can truly and honestly sincerely say that I have no desire to go ghost heaven with those churches.
Avoid burning in hell. That's about the only reason I can think of that anyone would want to be a ghost in ghost heaven doing those religious duties with the church. I would rather be back in Eden myself. Just think about it. Now give me an honest answer. Who wouldn't rather go to Eden. I mean, given the choice, of course. (Let's see some hands. Just about everyone. That was what I thought.)
Now there is the really honest and most heartfelt and sincere answer you are ever likely to get from a person, don't you think. If you long to worship God in Spirit and in Truth then it is this kind of sincere heart felt honesty in what you feel and what you say that is required. If God also values truly sincere relationships and genuine fond affections, then it would be the case that the deepest feelings of my (God created) heart would be perfectly in synch with the heart of God, and this kind of honest sincerity is the best way to understand the will of God, as far as I can see.
So it is easy to answer the question, ‘do you want to go Eden' by saying ‘yes' and feeling really happy about your decision later, while, to be honest, given the choice between that boring religious ghost heaven and going back to Eden with my resurrection body, well there is no way I can even pretend to pick that desexualized, sterilized, disembodied ghost heaven choice over Eden, and I find it hard to believe that, really, from the deepest part of their hearts, most people would not really just want go to Eden instead. (And from the bottom of our hearts, too. Now that's that's really honest truth that comes from the very deepest part of the Spirit).
Let's face the simple truth here, that ghost heaven hardly even seems like an option, now doesn't it, not when you compare it to the joyous fun of running naked in Eden. Think about it. How could a church ever convince anyone, and even entire societies for long ages to go to that ghost heaven instead truly has to be one of the great mysteries of human history. I find it hard to believe that anyone ever went anywhere with those churches in the most truly joyous and happy state of heart, since they were being dragged away from that naked Eden by that church, by the scruff of the neck as it were, and who could really be truly happy about something as disappointing as that. And those churches were never very good at justifying their dogmas, and for that reason they had to use terror to overcome that part of us that wants to be human and be loved for being human, and that explains the form of church evangelism and church dogmas (since their dogmas are unreasonable they are unjustifiable, and thus terror and force must be used to make people do things that they find offensive and unjust, but will do anyway, if some church can convince them that it is better than going to hell.
Bottom line position for me. If its not Yahweh, and we are not going to Eden, then I am not going anywhere. Bottom line. Listen to people who love people and are genuinely fond of you, and ignore the ones with the problem liking humanity. It makes sense. Think about it. Bottom line. You can recognize them pretty clearly by the cruelty or lack thereof in their dogmas.
Now it seems unlikely to me that those churches could ever successfully talk people out of going back to Eden. But, nevertheless they did, and that is the simple truth. It seems ridiculous, but as attractive as Eden is that church can make that disembodied ghost heaven seem like a better idea. What would I do if I was given the choice of running naked in Eden and burning in hell eternally, or going to ghost heaven with that church ...Well, now suddenly I don't want to go back to Eden anymore, because, well when you consider that eternal burning it is about the only thing that could make a person think twice about running naked through paradise in the Garden of Eden. And it would take fiercely burning flaming eternal fires, you know something that cruelly terrifying for that church to overpower something as potent as natural human sexuality, and so once again the form of the doctrine (terror) is explained by the function (accomplish difficult task of crushing human sexual response in favor of church law and canon)..
These hostile notions and weirdly absurd judgments about the morality of certain harmless actions are impossible to explain (being so weird and hostile to what it means to be human) until you understand first that the church was stubbornly dogmatic, and then understand that at the very time the church was developing those dogmatic dogmas they inherited a severe sexual paranoia from surrounding cultural influences. The churches inherited the philosophy of the Greeks (Stoicism and its weird hostility to sexual pleasure ) and they also inherited ghostly ideas as being better than the body from certain Gnostics, although they claim to have nothing to do with such things to this very day. To summarize official Christian dogma throughout history, the body is evil, sex is evil, and being a ghost is good.
Now, as powerful as such an argument against the Garden of Eden might be, I find that even some gruesome threats like those heard in evangelization is not enough to make me sing psalms about ghost heaven. If I am being honest, sincerely, from the very bottom of my heart, I have to say that I still don/'t want to go ghost heaven with those churches. So since Eden is still my most joyous and honest heart felt desire, and the only thing I could ever honestly choose, I guess that means I am going to Eden, and that church can play it safe, and go to ghost heaven instead.
Those faithless fearful cringing churches can play it safe. God is in no way the father or mother or even the friend of those churches, in spite of all they say, because dogma requires to them to say it, and they really, really don't want to burn in hell. The god created by Christian theologians is that mean, miserably sadistic, over bearing tyrant that gave orders for plunder and genocide in the Bible. That God really is their God and that explains the paranoia and the witch hunts and a lot of things they still do today. After all it is their immortal souls on the line and the situation is very dangerous what with God being some sort of weird maniacal sadist, an advocate of genocide, and in the manner and ways of salvation proves to be a strict doctrinaire dogmatic. Yes, those churches have a case of the burn in hell paranoias that makes it very unlikely that you will ever see a church go exploring, or really, it is very unlikely that you will ever hear a word of truth from a church, because, truth be told at the bottom of their very hearts, even churches hate that religious crap that churches have to do to escape the flames of hell.
Yes, those churches will be afraid of that god they made for themselves, and it serves them right. They should have listened to prophets warnings instead, but they didn't, nor do they ever plan to do so. So they can cringe before that horrible god they made for themselves. The punishment certainly fits the crime in that case, and they are getting what they deserve. They don't listen to the warnings of prophets in those churches (not even Jeremiah, and certainly not me). Those churches stubbornly go off into those parts of the Bible that are brutally evil and they warp their own minds pretty bad believing in that wickedly evil God, while, at the same committing outrageous blasphemy against Yahweh. No one wants to be described as a fiendish Atilla the Hun or Ghengis Khan. Why don't those churches try talking about their governor or premier like that? That church policy of blending into their theology every genocidal and rotten bible verse is not one for me, shouldn't be for you either, and is the source of much filthy uncleanness in those churches, and they deserve it, too, for smearing the name of God.
There could be nothing worse, in the minds of those churches I would suppose, than some risk taking trail blazer who could very well be heading off to burn forever in hell, and take who knows how many people into the blazing flames with him, because, let's face it, there could be a lot of people heading back to Eden, or maybe even just a few people who listen to someone like me, change their minds and renew their hearts and start heading back to Eden, happily in the dimwitted sort of way, as they follow some pied piper into the eternal flames of hell. And let's face it, even one more person burning forever in hell is one to many, so you can understand the great alarm and concern in certain churches as some rejoicing fool joins the March into Hell on that forbidden road to Eden. Well, forbidden to churches anyway, but it was their own fault once again the punishment fits the crimes of those churches so well - fits like a glove). Now its their problem and its their punishment, and while they like to evangelize in those churches, and so spread the punishments around, I think they should just suffer their own punishments for their own doctrines, and as for me, I am just heading right straight back to Eden instead.
So, I am going to Eden, and that is a hell fire offense to so many churches. What it comes down to is this. Go to Eden and burn in hell, or go to disembodied ghost heaven with the church, and be forever purified and cleansed of filthy sexuality. Now this is a tough choice, is it not? Unfortunately, you see, I believe in the very deepest of heart felt sincerity in relationships, and for this very reason I must spend eternity in hell, according to those churches.. What this means is that I can't go to ghost heaven with the church, because I really cannot honestly say that I would want to, I mean, well, not after having been told about Eden. Let's be honest. That Eden sounds like the place where I could really, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, say to Yahweh that yes, I would like to go, so sign me up. When do we leave? Now as for that load of people they are trying to get together to go to ghost heaven, to sing hymns with the angels, and so on, well, my honest response would have to be that I just don't want to go. Period. No. Bottom line. If its not Yahweh and we are not going to Eden then I am not going. For me the matter is settled.
No. No to ghost heaven. Yes to Eden. That really, and honestly, is how I feel from the deepest part of my heart and being. That is a sincere answer in keeping with a truly honest and heart felt sincerity in a relationship. It therefore is the correct answer for me to give Yahweh, because that truly is how I feel. Phony answers are disgusting things and there really isn't much point in giving phony answers to God. Yes to Eden.
Those churches will of course keep reminding you of how you are going to burn and burn in smoking hell if you don't believe what churches believe and live like churches live and think like churches think and do those things those churches ordered you to do. You should expect it. The form of a doctrine is explained by its function, and I think the function of that particular collection of church dogmas is pretty clear, and I am pretty clear myself in that no, I am not going to ghost heaven, nor do I intend to make myself spiritually unclean with those dirty Bible verses I hate so much.
Now I am being blunt and honest here. I am going back to Eden. When I get back there, I plan to celebrate by first ditching the clothes and having one great naked pool party. You can't have naked pool parties in church ghost heaven. You can only do that in Eden..
Scenario number one. Aunt Marge was a saintly Christian spinster. Aunt marge died and she is now lovingly looking down from ghost heaven. Those churches were right. Scenario number two. Marge rose from the dead and found herself in Eden The horror, the horror, because you know how prudish she was all her life. She had that hard, hard severe look of a good Christian saint who lived the cold spinsters life so as to avoid the flaming pits of hell and go to ghost heaven instead. She was a true Christian soldier, particularly in her later years, when she became an activist and one of her prime targets was anything and everything that even so much as hinted as being like Eden. That angered her and was the sort of thing that always angered church ladies who had been saved and filled with the Holy Ghost. I think myself that if there is not a ghost heaven yet, there should be one, so that prudish, sexually frigid Christians like Aunt Marge, who found Eden abhorrent all their lives, won't be subjected to the terrible shock of rising from the dead, only to find that some prophet actually got away with holding a big thousand year long naked pool party over at his heavenly mansion. Well, who knows what she was thinking, right. If they had ghost heaven, then she could go there and not subject herself to the endless immorality of human nakedness and horrible sins of Eden, something she just wouldn't like.
Who knows what we will find when we get back to Eden. Sexuality was a lot of fun here, which was nice, because this place could be so bleak, not surprising considering all those bleak policies human societies constantly adopt. Well I can easily imagine Eden being better, and an awful lot of fun, while heaven sounds dull from the word go. Personally I would much rather be raised from the dead, in my body (I want to able to feel those ‘nail holes' if I have any) and then, with that accomplished, and with my new glorified body more suitable for living in Eden, I plan to head right back to that garden paradise, ASAP.
Now if after listening to all this, some church somewhere hasn't already damned me to the flames of hell a few times already, I would be very surprised. You see the influence of certain types of gnosticism (hostile to the body and otherwordly and ‘spiritual' instead) and the Greek philosophy of Stoicism (same as the above, as well as being hostile to sexual pleasure), both of these ancient ideologies were in vogue during the time of the formation of the churches, and became bound up with Christian theology, and influenced its views on morality and ethics. Because these cultural influences were so hostile to sexuality the church never developed theologies of the return to Eden, but rather adopted a suspicious and hostile attitude towards human sexuality, and have always condemned with eternal damnation human sexual acts and orgasms and other such things, not what one would normally call harmful or hurtful (stabbing or shooting, now that would be harmful, but an orgasm, hardly the worst thing to do to another human being.) Nevertheless according to the ethics of the church, an orgasm can be something deserving all the punishment of eternally burning hell fires. Its no wonder that so many church people are such cold fish, and often so notoriously prim and prudish, and far, far away from Eden. They wouldn't be caught dead in Eden in those churches, because they really just do not want to burn forever in hell. You see, in church law and church canon and church judgments, the penalties for simply being human are brutally and ruthlessly severe, in the worst case scenario producing ruthless, brutal people.
Now consider the conclusion that you should burn in eternal fires those who either gave or received orgasms (this would be the legal charge against them that the church would be prosecuting). This is truly one of the most peculiar and difficult to justify of all Christian doctrines. It is, on the face of it, ludicrously stupid, onerously cruel, and disappointing, too, if you are a nice person who likes to be nice to people and just plain likes people, I mean. The fact that such onerous punishments were dealt out for things that were not in themselves crimes, or harmful, really is an indication of a deep suspicion and hostility towards sexuality that is unreasonable.
Now can an orgasm be a death penalty offense, worthy of eternal damnation?
I understand that Ted Bundy liked to have orgasms while killing girls and yes, even after he had killed them. His powerful orgasm was worth another human beings life. Alright. Let's be reasonable. Maybe an orgasm can be a death penalty offense.
Let us imagine an orgasm combined with the warmest of friendly affections and fondness. We will describe it no further. It really is very hard to prosecute such a crime, and only churches are famous for prosecuting such things, since being human is something for which no mercy is shown by churches, since to be human is to be damned to hell, according to church theologies and church practices. Churches will get creative and make up some charge to make that eternal damnation condemnation stick, you know, to convince a watching jury that the sentence of extreme burnings and so on forever and ever and ever really was the correct punishment for that crime of friendly affectionate orgasm that time, you know, just like that time with Ted Bundy. Myself, I would be on the defense team for that case, if I was involved at all, and couldn't be bothered wasting my time thinking up apologetic theological arguments whose one function is to prop up some ancient dogmas, and not the search for genuine natural justice, and certainly not the conduct of those who genuinely like people, and continue to be fond of them despite all their weaknesses and failings. Many church people don't like other people, and that is why they are so tough and cruel, and that is also why they are always ready and willing to prosecute such foolish human things as orgasms.
It is impossible to justify something so worthlessly brutal and senselessly stupid as a good for nothing judgment like that one. It is obviously worthless to propose doing something so pointless, so merciless, so inhumane and hostile. Sexuality permeates nature, and only in the Christian theological tradition could something so pervasive become the object of so much hatred and disgust. Human sexual response is powerful because sex has not been created unattractive but instead potently desirable and in fact is something encouraged through nature by means of truly joyous physical pleasure. That an affectionate act of truly joyous pleasure receive a judgment of eternal (yes, eternal) burning is the church dogma that must defended by the apologists who apologize for every doctrine, including every worthless good for nothing doctrine, that church has ever dragged along behind it for ages past.
Their dogmatic judgments against acts of human sexuality, and all the terrorizing paranoia preachers labor to inspire contributes nothing to justice, or to simple human dignity, but is simply the work of the church stubbornly maintaining the ancient anti-materialistic philosophy of Greek Stoics, and certain Gnostic sects the church would claim they disowned. In actual fact the church became every bit as hostile to sex and in the end to other human beings as those people ever were, so they really didn't leave behind very much at the end of it all.