WEBLOG   9
WHERE IS HEAVEN AND HOW BIG IS IT?

The burning question that I have is a two part question really – does heaven exist and how big is it, other words I want to know what heaven is like.  I have always pictured heaven as a great beautiful place beyond the skies that good doers will go to on the day of resurrection I.  I have always wanted to become a good Christian for this reason, so I can go meet with my family again, and live forever.
I really did not expect to find the answers to the particular questions I have, but at I’m was still hoping to get closer.  Well the reason I asked my questions was because I had started to think that there is no heaven, because where is the proof of it’s existence.  I must say I don’t know if it’s because I’ve always heard that God and anything to do with God is good and anti-God is bad, why I’ve always gravitated to the Christian way of life and defaulted from non- believers of God and heaven, but I’ve been exposed to the beliefs of Atheist and how they view the idea of heaven and I really agree with their analogy of heaven.
I still want to know more about heaven and it’s existence I need to be convinced, I have not shifted my focus of this search at all.     I’ve not really been surprised about anything during this research on my topic because most of the analogies are traditional and I’ve heard of them, but I did learn of some concepts about heaven from several different religions through the I-search project.
I don’t think I’ll be able to get an answer to my question, I thought about the Buddha, Delai Lama from India and actually got excited because he’s supposedly have been to heaven and has been reincarnated, but I think it’s just another hoax, that’s just too good of a story and lesson for him to have kept his silence and be so humble about it.  So I still want an answer instead of everyone’s assumption of this certainty that no one has any proof of.

WEBLOG 8
What Will be Heaven Like – by Richard Deem

“Although the bible discusses heaven, it is not possible understand the full nature of heaven from a human perspective.   Since heaven is where God lives, it must contain more physical and temporal dimensions than those found in this physical universe that God created.  We cannot imagine, nor can we experience in our current bodies, what these extra dimensions might be like.  Even so, we are given enough information in the Bible to understand many of the things that will be different in heaven compared to our lives today.”  Heaven the new creation-tells us that it will be different from the earth’s likeliness, there will be a lack of gravity.  “The new Jerusalem is described as a 1,500 mile cube, structures of this size would automatically become a sphere in this universe, because of gravity, therefore gravity will either e absent of r significantly reduced in the new creation.  There will be no sun or moon, this makes sense since, the lack of light is not a problem for the new creation, since the Bible tells us that the glory of God himself will provide illumination, the illumination provided by God is probably not the same kind of electromagnetic radiation that we call light but this illumination will certainly involve the wisdom and knowledge that God possesses.
This is definitely not based upon on any traditional or religious beliefs, these are all formed from by one individual’s concept which I respect.

WEBLOG   7
What Dreams May Come -From Wikipedia

Richard Matheson is the author of What Dreams May Come a 1978 novel, this story is about a man (Chris, fictional character) who died from a automobile accident, he then became a ghost and remained that way for awhile thinking that he was stuck in a bad dream, an unidentified man kept on approaching Chris and told him that he needed to let go and focus on what’s beyond, which Chris finally did and he later woke up in a beautiful glade, Chris was surprised to see that he looked and felt alive with a physical body with sensation.  After exploring the place for a while Chris found his cousin Albert who revealed himself as the unidentified man who approached Chris earlier when he was a ghost.  Chris was told by Albert that this place (heaven) was actually a state of mind rather than a physical location, he told Chris that heaven was endless and it took on the form of it’s inhabitants’ wishes and desires, there was no pain or death no hunger or sleeping there and people performed many leisure activities, Chris learned that communication was telepathic, travel instantaneous.
Very interesting story I would love to experience what Chris and Albert has experienced.

Barbara Walters traveled overseas and throughout the United States where she interviewed religious leaders, scientists, believers and non-believers so that she could gather a range of perspectives on heaven and the afterlife. Here are some analogies from the article – the Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop of Washington D.C. and chancellor of Catholic University said “I always think of heaven as being a place where we won’t have any troubles anymore..”, he thinks that there will be peace and tranquility in heaven, he further went on to say that Catholics believe heaven is a spiritual place and bodies will be resurrected so he’s looking forward to meet his family.
The Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts, pastor of New York’s famed Abyssinian Baptist Church, said he has had many visions of heaven, he described it as being a fourth dimension where you don’t have to look up to see it but rather look outwards, Rev. Butts said he’s certain of heaven’s existence.
Inam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of The American Society for Muslim Advancement said in his interview that he believes heaven is a physical place, but your behavior in this life will determine the position for the next life, he stated “We are told we will be in comfortable homes, reclining on silk couches and so we’re given the delights of sex, the delights of wine, the delights of food with all of their positive things without their negative aspects.”
Pastor Ted Haggard president of the National Association of Evangelicals claims that if you are not a born again Christian you will not go to heaven, but if you are born again and accepts Christ as your personal savior then heaven is assured.
Dalai Lama who is considered by Buddhist to be a reincarnated Buddha said that the final goal is not just to get to heaven but rather to become Buddha and be reincarnated, but if people do very bad things in this life, like steal or kill, then they can have second lives as animals.   Richard Gere who is also Buddhist said “I don’t thin necessarily heaven and hell happen n some other life.  I think it’s right now.”
Ellen Johnson, president of the American Atheist said that heaven is myth – “heaven doesn’t exist, hell doesn’t exist.  We weren’t alive before we were born and we’re not going to exist after we die.  I’m not happy about the fact that that’s the end of life, but I can accept that and make my life more fulfilling now, because this is the only chance I have.”
I think the most popular belief by several religion is that heaven does exist and it’s a reward for being good in ‘this life’, but once again I do agree with the analogy of the atheist – one life to live.

WEBLOG 5
DIFFERENT RELIGIONS’ CONCEPTS OF HEAVEN-From Wikepedia

These are few different concepts of heaven according to several religions as listed in Wikepedia.  The Baha’i Faith regards closeness to God as the definition of heaven, they describe heaven as a “spiritual condition”.  Baha’i Faith believes that the afterlife soul will retain its consciousness and remember its physical life thus the souls will remember other souls and will be able to communicate.  “The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother, the analogy to the womb in many ways summarizes the Baha’is view of earthly existence: just as the womb constitutes an important place for a person’s initial physical development, the physical world provides for the development of the individual soul-life is a preparatory stage, where one can develop and perfect those qualities which will be needed in the next life.  Atheists reject the existence of heaven and some even view the concept of heaven as an “opiate of the masses”-a means for humans to cope with their lives’ misery, also heaven is viewed by the atheists as a tool by which authorities bribe humans into a certain way of life with a promise of an afterlife reward.  Buddhism religion  believe that the universe is just constantly going through several cycles and beings are spread out over several existential “planes” in which our current human world is only one realm of the life cycle.  Their gods are not immortal and their (gods) positions in heaven are not permanent also there gods were of lower worlds but has graduated into higher worlds by virtue of past deeds and virtuous qualities.
At first glance I thought Buddhism’s belief to be whack, but then I thought about it and it made sense to me that maybe this is one realm of life, and I think this, because of the evolution of mankind.  The Atheist I thought made a good analogy too by suggesting that humans are being bribed by authorities to do earthly things with the assumption that they will be rewarded later.  The Baha’i doctrine of heaven I thought, is kinda far off, I don’t quite agree with them on this.

The following article was derived from Wikepedia. There are several various conceptions of heaven, and each individual is a believer in their particular sect.  The word heaven is derived from the word heven-meaning “place where God dwells” and in earlier times “sky”.  Some religions formed a conceptualization that heaven is some type of peaceful life after death where the soul will be immortal.  In some early religions heaven was actually thought of as a physical place way above the earth in a dark part of space beyond the Universe and dead souls would literally travel along a hazardous journey which would make it difficult for the souls to get to heaven.  “Many of today’s biblical scholars, such as N.T. Wright, in tracing the concept of heaven back to its Jewish roots, see earth and heaven as overlapping or interlocking.  Heaven is known as God’s space, his dimension, and is not a place that can be reached by human technology.  This belief states that heaven is where God lives and reigns whilst being active and working alongside people on earth.  One day when God restores all things, heaven and earth will be forever combined into the ‘New Heavens’ and ‘New Earth’.”  There are different religious teachings about how one gets to heaven which is usually an afterlife event.           In most religions the entrance to heaven is contingent upon having lived a good spiritual life, a notable exception to this is that of the Protestant sects-which teaches that individuals do not have to live a good spiritual life, but the individual must accept Christ as savior and then Christ will assume the individual’s sins no matter what good or bad they have done and all sins will be forgiven.
I heard that heaven is far above the earth and according to the Christian religion, that believers have to live a “good life” in the spiritual form and then their souls will go to heaven and enjoy immortality.    I never heard of the hazardous pathway to heaven nor of the Protestants way where all sins were forgiven just by accepting Christ, even with continuance of doing bad things.

“Killing your baby” is how Professor Steven Pinker started his article - why they kill their newborns.  The gruesome act of committing neonaticide by hundreds of women each year was mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, the writer also informed us that most neonaticides remain undiscovered.  Professor Pinker provided excerpts from actual cases about two incidents of neonaticides that were carried out by teenagers in which the were each put on trial for murder in both cases.  “How could they do it?” This was
the question the author asked, Pinker went on to list – the whole point of our existence is to nurture our offsprings that carries our genes as stated by biologists, many people thing that neonaticide could only be a product of pathology, uncovered childhood trauma as stated by psychiatrists, temporary psychosis – as argued by defense lawyers, rock lyrics and permissive sex education as proclaimed by the pundits.  Professor Pinker commented that “it’s hard to maintain that neonaticide is an illness when we learn that it has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history.”  In his comments he also stated that women who partake in neonaticidal acts don’t usually show signs of psycho pathology.    “Killing a baby is a immoral act,” was further conveyed by Pinker and he also stated “we can try to understand what would lead a mother to kill her newborn”, remembering that to understand is not necessarily to forgive.” So he then went on to make references from psychologists, anthropologists, biologists and philosophers in the latter part of his article the reasons mothers commit neonaticide and why there’s a difference in the penalties that’s dished out to mothers who kill older children as oppose to the killing of newborns; mention was made of societies where neonaticide was an acceptable decision particularly if the prospects of that baby’s survival was a slim chance of making it to adulthood; mothers who chose to carry out neonaticide was most likely victims of circumstances who felt like this was there only choice; also the fact that they commit these acts do not mean that they are not compassionate, religious and capable of providing love and devotion; finally, it was mentioned that a legal boundary should be decided upon so society will know when neonaticide is acceptable or unacceptable.

Bruce Chapman is the writer responsible for the article – should we change our minds about infanticide? Chapman started out by stating how facts and findings can be changed around and used to shift people’s opinions without people even realizing.   The author alleged that this type of misconstruction was also being used to weaken civilization’s taboo against the killing of newborns.  Bruce Chapman claimed that even though infanticide is big news people forget about it pretty fast and move onto the next shocking news; defense attorneys’ main task in infanticide cases is to stall justice, while the memory of the dead babies disappear and pity grows for the offenders.  Chapman criticized Steven Pinker’s article claiming that Pinker told readers that the killing of one’s new offspring should be regarded less harshly and that this was not such an immoral act, but young moms were actually following an evolutionary instinct such as their hunter-gatherer ancestry, but these young moms can be loving mothers when they once again give birth under better conditions and the chance for newborn survival rate will be greater.   Throughout the remainder of the article Chapman continued to make quotes and analogies from Pinker’s article, criticizing as he went along.   In the penultimate paragraph Chapman sarcastically mentioned that it was his “instinct-driven desire to punch Professor Pinker in the nose” and that we should not blame him but instead blame it on his hunter-gatherer ancestors.

In my opinion Bruce Chapman clearly has a personal vendetta against Professor Steven Pinker or infanticide is a very sensitive topic for him, because I read the same article a few times and I don’t think that Pinker was in anyway trying to convey to his readers that young mothers had any good reason or excuses to commit neonaticide.  When I read “we can try to understand what would lead a mother to kill her newborn, remembering that to understand is not necessarily to forgive” , I saw this as a heeding statement to investigate and try to see things through the eyes of these young mothers as to why and what would trigger them to carry out these gruesome acts, BUT lets not forget that they have still done an unjust act – thus the mention of “not necessarily to forgive.”   I totally agree with the argument of Pinker throughout his entire article and disagree with Chapman’s essay.

WHAT DO I WANT TO KNOW?

▸    Why are people jealous of other peoples’ achievements?
▸    Why do people care what other people think of them?
▸    Is everyone who is good going to heaven?
▸    Where is heaven and how big is this place?
▸    Is there a hell with burning fire for all the bad people in the world?
▸    Can there be two political parties in power at the same time running the country?
▸    Can we have a non-political President?
▸    Where does ambition and drive come from?
▸    Were things better in the old days?
▸    Does it seems like we thrive for more but end up with less?
▸    Why are there so many different nationalities and race ethnicity?
▸    Does our spirit leave our body when we sleep?

Part II
Is everyone who is good going to end up in heaven?  I have always heard that if people are good and obey the laws of the Lord then they will all end up in heaven.  “If you give your life to the Lord then we shall enter through the pearly gates of heaven and will see each other again on the day   of resurrection”, I’ve heard this many times.  Now I do think that all good people can go to heaven and there is a heaven.  If spirits leave the body after death and float or whatever then yes I guess they can go to heaven no matter where it is.  If however, it is like it’s been often said that loved ones will see each other again on that special day, then my question now is where is heaven and how will all these people who will be back from the dead fit in heaven?

Part III
I find questioning the existence of heaven very interesting because I would like to end up in heaven if it exists but does it exist?  Now I may encounter some information that will deter my prospects but never the less I’m very curious and hungry to find out more.  I hope that there is a heaven and it’s as good as it’s been made out to be, mmm I would really like to know.

Ø I believe that society causes a feeling of stressful urgency.

Ø I believe that government is an essential part of our society.

Ø I believe that justice is biased from time to time.

Ø I believe that knowledge is the key to unlock all doors.

Ø I believe that science is a fascinating and essential part of all living  forms.

Ø I believe that reality is like an alarm clock that constantly alerts us of what’s happening.

Ø I believe that life is what you make of it – it’s all about choices.

Ø I believe that happiness is never around for long – it’s like quicksilver hard to hold on to.

Ø I believe that goodness can leave a lasting impression on anyone.

Ø I believe that death cheats and it poses the biggest “WHY?” at times.

Ø I believe that God is taught about and exists according to each individual’s belief.

Ø I believe that people are very complex even when they say “I am a very simple person”.

 
I BELIEVE THAT GOD IS TAUGHT ABOUT 

 I  counted sixty five different religions and faiths that currently exist. Children all over the world are taught about different religions and faiths and they all believe in a God that does great things for them and when they get older may just very well switch from worshiping one God to the next or maybe no God at all.  Now I am pretty sure if from the time a child was born to the time when they graduated from college and they were never told anything about any God – as unlikely as this is to ever happen, then that person would be very ignorant to the beliefs of any superbeing that would take credit for all great things that happened, it would all just be a matter of good or bad luck.  

I have reviews from three people that vary, the first two people told me that they believe in God but if they were not taught about it during their childhood years then they would just based their experiences on luck.  The third person stated “if I was not taught about God I would still be a believer because of the three car accidents and six surgeries that I’ve had and I have heard other people spoke of God and the bible and I would have listened to Christians and read the bible and associated my experiences with the existence of God.  I would have liked to get the opinion of an atheist but perhaps later.

JUDITH RICE
ENGLISH 111
ESSAY 2 – ROUGH DRAFT
MRS. JOLEMORE
Monday, July 28, 2008

“Devoid of Content” is the title of an article that was written in the New York Times by Professor StanleyFish  (dean emeritus) at the University of Illinois.  In the article the Professor implied that millions of graduates from high school and colleges will be unable to complete english sentences that make sense and the reason for this he claimed is that students are not being taught in classes what sentences are.  Fish also degraded composition instructors by conveying that they made their students discussed everyday topics in their so-called writing courses as a foundation to improve their skills for writing, but Dr. Fish said that it was a waste of time to do these discussions in class because it taught nothing that could not have been learned from colleagues and even strangers and also he went on to say that with this structure students will not be able to tell how language works and so they will not be able to break down the English language or any other language for that matter.   He demised that the content that’s included in the everyday topics is the major part of what’s wrong with the way writing is taught.

Fish stated that emphasis should be placed on form rather than content when teaching students how to create proper sentences he even went further to state that he would like to see content discontinued from the classroom and only use form. The Professor said that he had his students started on their first day of class and that fourteen weeks later they would be able to create their own language which was not even remotely related  to the English language but it was a “structure of logical relationship.”  Stanley Fish  contrived this new language that he said had to entail all the appropriate signals but it didn’t matter in which order as long as the students knew how to do that then they were right on point. Is there no other way to gain fame and recognition for a newly created language that the Professor invented than to condemn the century long styles and methods of teachings by Composition and English teachers in high school and colleges all over the United States?  The admirable dedication that has earned these teachers respect, merits, awards, scholarships and distinctions are just some of the facts that makes them so proud of what they do and then for Fish to pass remarks of  about English writing not being taught properly is a slap in the face to these professionals.   One has to wonder if Dr. Fish wrote this essay just to spark conflicts and arguments among readers across the nation, as he relayed to us that over the years students (this must have included him)  could have learned more about composition and language just sitting  around sipping coffee and having social conversation about topics of interest rather than writing about these topics persuasively in a class.   See that’s the thing the Professor does not provide any evidence why content is poisonous in writing and why form stands alone, why indeed his students were all perfect in construing the new language at the end of fourteen weeks.  Perhaps a bit of fabrication here no one dropped the class, no one failed, were they all intimidated, brain washed or were just simple geniuses?  In reality we know that all courses have failures and students who struggle to grasp concepts and style, especially if its’ new and different from what they have taught these students were not grade schoolers but were freshmans so they were already taught how to use content and form to construct sentences.   Dr. Fish has no proof that graduates all over America are unable to form English sentences that are both coherent and clear and that this was the fault of teachers, where are the stats?  Sounds like an individual’s selfish opinion who wanted to put his work on a pedastal at teachers’ expense so readers would say, wow, this new language of Fish using only form is really great, it supercedes the English language sentences which combines both form and content.

I am all about making changes, the teachings of new strategies and even the teaching of the creating  newlanguages, but I think Professor Stanley Fish was just a tad bit unfair to his colleagues and educators allover, to make such general accusations in this essay, but does this means that he also accused the past,present and future teachers of his students in the classroom. I really think the Fish was sitting back with arms folded and laughing out loud when this essay was published and all the reviews and rebuttals came out he then snickered and said here they come mission accomplished. Rather than just critisising content why did he not talk about both form and content and then give the reasons why content was such a no no and give English teachers the credit that’s due to them.   Form is the main frame of the sentence, of course with the main frame you can mold and form it which ever way we choose but I think it’s bare without the mechanical effects (content) to give it character and life, you can use the main frame (form) of a car to give it whatever shape you desire small and compact like the VW bug or wider and bigger like the minivan, but without the mechanical parts (content) these cars are not cars they are simple creation of stylish shapes.

Fish, Stanley.  “Devoid of Content.”  New York Times 31 May. 2005

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/opinion/31fish.html?>