Towards ssetbob,

Forgive me if I take an opposite viewpoint from my previous posts for the sake of the arguement.

Point I:
In the case of free will, responding to your statement, ssetbob, consider that all actions are not based on choices, as much as they are based on quick, instrinctive risk/benefit analysis that dictates which action you must take. If someone points a gun at someone and tells them to sit, they will sit, simply because of the clear risk/benefit. Any abberation in that behaviour could easily be construed as psychosis.

Personality, as well, is an illusion covering the method of risk/benefit assessment that some has developed in their environment. In the case of the person sitting, normal people would not think twice about it, but a person who had experienced a similar situation and saw that sitting resulted in some unforseen death, would probably react differently. Although this may seem like quite a significant change to consider a change in personality, most other personalities are merely determined by less drastic previous experiences.

Point II:
While I certainly agree with you, ssetbob, that all actions and memories fade into antiquity, this does not render a life meaningless. Consider if you will that in the course of history, each person's life, though unremembered, has built onto previous generations, constructing the momument to human achievement we now call civilization. Afterlife or not, were their lives as farmers, masons, parents, etc. worthless? Hardly, they served to build our speices, the only tangible part of us that lasts. The sum people's mundane lives serve to accomplish one of the foremost goals and purposes of humanity; to defy and supercede nature.

Point III:
I won't even go into evolution because every argument has already been exhausted and I think everyone knows which sides ssetbob and I stand.

To conclude, I hope everyone enjoyed by departure from my usual argument. Fizzy and sset certainly have a way of sparking my adversarial nature. This will probably be my last post for six weeks, but I'll come back strong at the end of November. Take care.

Quote

Originally posted by ssetbob7 (view)
You misunderstood, I was if anything speaking from a point of view IF I did not believe in life after death and what would be the result if there wasn't life after death. I said at the end that I thought it was "sad" to believe "in the idea" that life ends at the grave. I edited some of my last post to correct the confusion.

And this is not really getting off topic in the sense because it involves a possible after-life which would involve a Heaven or Hell.

>>>hmm... now that you mentioned it...

ever since i was a kid, i was always wondering...

"After I die, where will my soul go? Heaven? Hell? Or still in Earth, but as a different kind of being?"

@_@

Quote

Point I:
In the case of free will, responding to your statement, ssetbob, consider that all actions are not based on choices, as much as they are based on quick, instrinctive risk/benefit analysis that dictates which action you must take. If someone points a gun at someone and tells them to sit, they will sit, simply because of the clear risk/benefit. Any abberation in that behaviour could easily be construed as psychosis.

Personality, as well, is an illusion covering the method of risk/benefit assessment that some has developed in their environment. In the case of the person sitting, normal people would not think twice about it, but a person who had experienced a similar situation and saw that sitting resulted in some unforseen death, would probably react differently. Although this may seem like quite a significant change to consider a change in personality, most other personalities are merely determined by less drastic previous experiences.

Those reactions are just common sense, now if someone pointed a gun at me and told me renounce everything that I believe then I would not obey them. If a person has already went through a similar situation with the gun and sitting thing, yes they would think about the situation and decide possibly more cautiously and consciously on their part about what they are going to do. I may not be understanding you correctly, if so tell me. Not all actions of the body are controllable for example like the reflex when your knee, is stuck at by a doctor, it goes up. And you can’t keep yourself from thinking.

To an extent we do drive on benefit. Sin would equal benefit for us, not benefit and glory for God. Now to put aside our selfish benefit and try to give benefit to someone else is not truly benefit for a human. Although there are rewards, some times you just make the choice because you know it is right. I don't usually think of the benefits during quick situations that I should do it for myself to be glorified, but I do it for God and his commands, not because I will be rewarded, I just do it sometimes. It can't be all about benefit because people do stupid stuff for no reason. But without benefit there would be no reason to follow or do things we are commanded or asked to do.

I’m saying that the controllable actions we make are choices that affect us those choices will result in either good or bad results and that is free-will in a simple package. There are obvious things we can't control and that is why we are human.

Quote

Point II:
While I certainly agree with you, ssetbob, that all actions and memories fade into antiquity, this does not render a life meaningless. Consider if you will that in the course of history, each person's life, though unremembered, has built onto previous generations, constructing the momument to human achievement we now call civilization. Afterlife or not, were their lives as farmers, masons, parents, etc. worthless? Hardly, they served to build our speices, the only tangible part of us that lasts. The sum people's mundane lives serve to accomplish one of the foremost goals and purposes of humanity; to defy and supercede nature.

[Keep in mind that since I believe in after life this view; this is based on and used in philosophical reasoning]
BUT you would not exist to care that anything happens, even if it's good or bad. Now look, if life was perfect on earth or even if it was the alternate that everything was far from perfect the fact is that everyone will eventually die....and that will be it period.(this is based on no life after death view point) True people of the past did established the world we live to day, but would it be any different if they all died right then and there and we would have never existed. (Now I do not truly believe this, I believe that people in that past are important, but if there was not an afterlife this would be reality) Every generation is going to die eventally. All the things you have learned will be gone, all knowledge, your very existance as a human thinking being will disapear. If we were given birth what is the difference if we were not in the first place. "It would effect others in the future"....so what?... the fact is that after death it would be like we never existed to begin with. We are like dust in the wind and/or a flower here today and gone tomorrow.

But from my view point, in my belief in Christ, I do not see that life on earth is actually meaningless. In fact I respect those in the past! And for many that is the high point in their lives.

Quote

Point III:
I won't even go into evolution because every argument has already been exhausted and I think everyone knows which sides ssetbob and I stand.

Just trying to spice things up a bit! As you can probably tell I like debating over life, philosophy, where life came from, and its meaning. During that time I was running out of ideas of what to talk about. So as a side bar event and somewhat relevant to my response on the last post, I was trying to figure out people's values of why they would believe in the alternative that life is by evolution.
--------------------------
I think the hardest things about debatable topics is that it can make sense to someone but not to anyone else. And even if it does makes sense to someone a lot of times they would not like to expect it to be true even if it is truth (It can apply to me in the same way too) because it shows us that that everything that we believed and stood for could have been wrong, and we don't like that most of the time.

[[[really off subject- just something on my mind for people to think about about]]]
There are things in philosophy that ask "what is 'truth'?" The statement makes sense on a level but that means that nothing is definite. I think that the person how came up with this terminology tried to find escape of truth. They say truth is how you see it and interpreted it. Life is hard to understand in of itself why make everything meshed and complicated. I love that we can question the things we believe but that doesn't mean that there are no definite truths. Then we come to the question "what is the true truth?"

It is amazing how our minds work we can think of thousands of things at once to understand meanings. And that makes it hard for us to put some of our thoughts into words.

comments on Point II:


I don't agree with the point that memories fade into antiquity - Memories in a 'normal' persons life are the only thing he or she have left so that particualr person although he hasn't changed the course of history or civilisation one has to admit it's his own personal history which is as important i reckon. His or her personal history is what doesnn't make them worthless and what made the species build up!

Quote

Originally posted by Bdiah (view)
My belief in heaven and hell is thus:

Heaven is not a place, but simply a state of acceptance of God after life.

Hell is also not a place, but simply a rejection of God after life. Since this rejection can never be satisfied (God is everywhere, therefore leaving his presence is impossible), it is an undesirable fate.

This belief follows from the assumption that God exists in a timeless state with spacial boundaries that exceed the physical world's. Also, it depends on the assumption that our souls ascend to this state after death. (I've also kicked around the idea that our physical bodies are simply physical manifestations of the soul which still exists on a higher level, sounds a little buddhist though).

That's the theory that I'm running with right now. Feel free to ask me to exapnd upon it. I love a good theological/philosophical discussion.

As for Hitler, I can only assume that he would not have wanted an association with God, given their moral differences....

How do you get to this conclusion? That it is "a state of acceptance." It sounds like a form of syncretism. So are you getting at that everyone that believes that there is a God will got to heaven...so even people back in the middle ages and Hebrew times for example almost everyone back then had a world view of a God so they would have all gone to heaven? And what do you mean by "God" because there are people that worship ideal gods and Greek gods etc. ? Why would God allow people that worship other gods beside him into his presence?

So if heaven and hell are not places then where do the souls go, and isn't God in a
"supernatural realm" aka:Heaven, isn't that a place? How can you be somewhere and it's not a place?

I know it's old but I never got to ask you this.

Quote

Another issue, though, with heaven being a reward. Wouldn't a God who is the perfection of goodness, mercy, and love forgive all souls and allow everyone into heaven. Wouldn't Satan himself have been forgiven? How could Hell exist?

Because of this, I reiterate that Heaven and Hell are simply choices and personal stances of people with relation to God.

Ahh the timeless question of why do people go to hell if God is a loving and merciful God? :) Now look at this God is a Merciful, Loving, and JUST God... He is merciful in the sense that we ALL deserve hell for our sins but has given us a way out. He loves us and yearns for us to follow and seek after Him. One cannot love what is or of the world (such as our bodies) and also love God at the same time, equally. It is one or the other that is favored. We have the choice to follow him or not. Not choosing is the same as choosing.
And a "Just," holy God that can't have the presence of sin in his presence-for sin represents rebelliousness and unholiness against God and sin is against his nature. He is seen as a judge who rules in perfect authority and power. So how can holiness have a relationship with uncleanliness? That is why he gave a sacrifice a "scapegoat" to bridge the to make unclean into clean. I'm telling you the truth he does not want or desire for people to go to hell! One cannot truly love if they are not given the choice to hate(free-will).
Who ARE WE to question him?-he gave us life and he can take it away that is good enough for me...
And since Satan defiled and went against God, Satan was cast out of Heaven. Satan did not like the fact that God was over him and that the angels worshiped God and not him.

Now the discussion goes a lot deeper then that. If you want I could try to.

Reiyuka please read this

Quote

Ano na... Hitler was a man who wanted power - you're giving him WAAAAAAAAAAAY to much credit by calling him the son of Satan. He was a genius - an evil genius, but a genius. There's a thin line between right and wrong, you know.

Also, the bible... well, the bible is the only thing that created "the devil" and "hell". Sure you had underworlds in other religions, but those were pretty much the same as heaven (look at the Greek mythology).

The devil was a creature made by the first popes and stuff, who wanted to force the pagans in western Europe to adapt to Christianity. His entire 'appearance', or at least how he is usually depicted, is taken from the god Cernunnos. So don't think too hard about that.

So you are saying that hell and the devil/Satan are myths developed by the popes?... That makes no sense in terms of history. The Old Testament first talks about Hell and Satan which was here long long before the Popes, Catholics, and Christians came about. The fact that Judaism and the Dead Sea scrolls prove this.

And so don't start making claims like that, that have no proof behind it, so please don't even go there...that is the same as me saying Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Hitler, space(I've never been there how do I know that it exists for all I know the sky is a hard wall that changes color) and Jesus were all made up.

Quote

.

I have one final question...do you think that it is wrong to picture God or supernatural being like an angel or devil, in human forms? Wouldn't that be kind of the same thing as elevating our humanity and image to be as high as gods?

I've just finished watching Chrno Crusade, and some thing in that anime made me realise something.

When you think about it seems natural that God has made evil, cause without darkness and suffering in this world it is no use to believe. People believe in God because it gives them hope that the suffering will end. Doesn't always the good win in the end?

If you are talking about God of the Bible, then NO. He did not create sin. I do see your reasoning as a great question, I bet a lot of people think about this at one time or another. I asked the question before too.

He created two conscience beings (angels and humans) that became aware of God. Now God had rules and authority over them. Satan did not like that He was over looked, being the highest and most powerful angel, and that the angels worship God not him. This developed jealousy, jealousy develops lust for power, lust for power develops greed, greed develops hate of that which hinders one from getting their desires, and hate commits disobedience. Disobedience is sin. (well.... all those are sinful qualities to extents). As a result, he was and is punished. And he saw man being created in His image and became disgusted and despised us because we, to a degree, reminded him of God. And we are special to Him. He wants to take us away from God. And his influence and lies made us doubt God this caused us to disobey and continue to disobey.

Now before there was creation, there was God. He by Himself in communion with Himself. He does not need anything, to need something shows a dependency on something. Having a dependency on something shows weakness not all powerful. But to want something like a relationship with beings that have the choice to love back totally different then a dependency of Him needing us. How can one truly love if he is not given the choice to hate. By our familiar experiences in life we are taught that everything "came from" something else. Whatever exists must have had a cause that was before it and was at least equal to it, since the lesser cannot produce the greater. If it does the greater's abilities are limited to an extent. And God is considered limitless. Then that is where paradoxes comes to play. I don't pretend to understand paradoxes and their solutions, because they are considered impossible hence the name paradox. But He could possibly over come them some how. He probably will not even try because it would not benefit Him. Any person or thing may be at once both caused and the cause of someone or something else; and so, back to the One who is the cause of all but is Himself caused by none. The human mind, being created , has an understandable uneasiness about the Uncreated.

God called Himself "I AM, That I AM". “That I AM” tells us that nothing created Him. He is that He is. The phrase represents self-existence everlasting before, during, and after time. Now... God created time (I know.. that makes your brain hurt to think about it) But also think about things like this “if you kept going through space it does not end, obviously, if it did then what is there? A brick wall? So then what is beyond that? How can something be endless?” Since He is Omniscient (all knowing) He knows all things even things that will happen, so then he is obviously not hindered by time. So since He is not bound by it, he can go forward and backwards in it if He chooses. This shows that time’s laws cannot be definite to everything, because it cannot make God follow its laws and abilities, so then it had to be a creation of God. To be dependant upon time shows dependency. Everything God is, everything that is God, is set forth in that unqualified declaration of independent being. Yet in God, self is not sin but the quintessence of all possible goodness, holiness and truth. The natural man is a sinner because and he challenges God's selfhood in relation to his own. In all else he may willingly accept the sovereignty of God; but in his own life he rejects it to a degree. For man, God's dominion ends where man's begins. For in man’s self becomes Self, and in this he unconsciously imitates Satan (Lucifer). Satan said "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God...I will be like the Most High."

This is where and how the concept of evolution made strong roots in the soil of our society. If you take God out of the equation then man is the ruler of "himself." If there is a God then man has rules to abide by. Man does not like that. Practically every atheist follows this concept, but it may not be directly. If man is the ultimate product, so far, in evolutionary process then it is natural to consider ourselves like "gods" and rulers of this universe. We have the ability to manipulate matter and use scientific laws to our will to great extents. We could easily destroy this planet if we wanted to, right now. That is how powerful we have become. Can any animal do anything close to that? It is obvious that we can tell right from wrong. But there are some harder areas. How does one know right from wrong, especially if there is no God? If there is no God then nothing is wrong and everything is right to one's own laws. That brings forth Postmodernism. But we do know obvious right and wrong because the law of God is written on our hearts, such as don't lie, steal, etc. People say there are no absolutes, that itself is an absolute.

Now back on subject if God was here before all else, always existent, then it is just Him. Sin is something that is against that "which is" ("which is"- is God). How can something be against itself? Now if He "that is and was" created a thinking conscience being given the ability to think for itself the choice to not follow that "which is"- this creates sin which is against God. Before creating us He “was” by Himself and if he did make things before us then they followed His commands. Sin was not existent before choice.

So in conclusion God being self-existent and uncreated, created free-will beings that eventually created sin. He cannot create sin, sin is that which is against, goes against, and is not of Himself. God did not create sin we created sin. I do not see sin as just a thing, it is a result representing a wrongful action against that which is.

A lot of people see God as a bully on an anthill torching people with a magnifying glass. What people need to realize is that most of our circumstances are of our own faults. We tend to look for someone to blame. The mind set is to make your lives on earth the complete focus. Now God does not think like we do, he knows the out comes of events. His focus is on the soul. Of course He does give people things and takes them away if He so chooses. Once sin came into the world it affected everyone with bourdons and pain. It is harder for a rich man to keep his focus on God then the poor. This same philosophy applies to smart people because they become proud of their wisdom. People say that believing in God hinders you from becoming smart, that is the biggest bunch the crud that I have ever heard. It almost makes me laugh. Yes suffering brings forth searching for help. He uses the evil and sin to bring out goodness. If you think that you could do a better job of being God then think about trying to make people love you without conflicting with their free-will, and not buying them with cheat tricks and buying their love with possessions. That does not bring love that beings people looking for their own needs. I'm sorry that I've used mostly nothing but what I believe…. this is my opinion, and I wish people would find Christ before it maybe too late. I am not here to judge, it is not my place to judge; do not misunderstand me. And I also believe there are moral absolutes. So since I believe in possible absolutes I don't wish for people to not disbelieve. I don't not believe in postmodernism view (It is a Very difficult term to define but I will try to simply it.....definition: truth is only truth to one's own belief -same concept with bad-, and certain circumstances of normal do not apply to the bad)

Bdiah I hope you reply soon!

Alright, I have returned to the thread that was started so long ago by Kei Kusanagi on the event of his 10,000th feather. This reply will be edited over the course of days as I find time to respond to the many remarks I have missed out on. (Believe me, there is plenty of material). If anyone would like to pm me tips on how to quote excerpts from previous entries, it should make this post much more decipherable.

Quote

So in conclusion God being self-existent and uncreated, created free-will beings that eventually created sin. He cannot create sin, sin is that which is against, goes against, and is not of Himself. God did not create sin we created sin.

I present you with these two options:

1. God intentionally created Lucifer (who, through Pride, became Satan) as a counterweight to his own authority. (And through this, the advocation of 'Free will' as an opportunity to allow people to choose him over a heretofore unknown possibility). Which would conclude that he did indeed create sin.

2. God did not intentionally create Lucifer with the flaw of Pride. This is contradictory to the popular theorem of Omnipotence, i.e. All-knowing and All-powerful, seeing as how God doesn't create mistakes.

Quote

I present you with these two options:

1. God intentionally created Lucifer (who, through Pride, became Satan) as a counterweight to his own authority. (And through this, the advocation of 'Free will' as an opportunity to allow people to choose him over a heretofore unknown possibility). Which would conclude that he did indeed create sin.

2. God did not intentionally create Lucifer with the flaw of Pride. This is contradictory to the popular theorem of Omnipotence, i.e. All-knowing and All-powerful, seeing as how God doesn't create mistakes.

"First let me establish another way of answering Why or Did God create sin? At first it might seem that if God created all things then evil must have been created by God. However, there is an assumption here that needs to be cleared up. Evil is not a "thing" - like a rock or electricity. You can't have a jar of evil! Rather, evil is something that occurs, like running. Evil has no existence of its own - it is really a lack in a good thing. For example, holes are real but they only exist in something else. We call the absence of dirt a hole - but it cannot be separated from the dirt. So when God created, it is true that all that existed was good. One of the good things that God made was creatures who had the freedom to choose good. In order to have a real choice, God had to allow there to be something besides good to choose. So God allowed these free angels and humans to choose good or non-good (evil). When a bad relationship exists between two good things we call that evil, but it does not become a "thing" that required God to create it.

Perhaps a further illustration will help. If I were to ask the average person "does cold exist?" - his/her answer would likely be yes. However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. Similarly, evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good.

Look at the example of Job in Job chapters 1-2. Satan wanted to destroy Job, and God allowed Satan to do everything but kill Job. God allowed this to happen to prove to Satan that Job was righteous because he loved God, not because God had blessed him so richly. God is sovereign and ultimately in control of everything that happens. Satan cannot do anything unless he has God's "permission." God did not create evil, but He allows evil. If God had not allowed for the possibility of evil, both mankind and angels would be serving God out of obligation, not choice. He did not want “robots” that simply did what He wanted them to do because of their "programming." God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a free-will and choose whether we wanted to serve Him or not.

Ultimately, there is not an answer to these questions that we can fully comprehend. We, as finite human beings, can never fully understand an infinite God (Romans 11:33-34). Sometimes we think we understand why God is doing something, only to find out later that it was for a different purpose than we originally thought. God looks at things from an eternal perspective. We look at things from an earthly perspective. Why did God put man on earth knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore bring evil, death, and suffering on all mankind? Why didn’t He just create us all and leave us in Heaven where we would be perfect and without suffering? The best answer I can come up with is this: God didn’t want a race of robots who did not have a free-will. God had to allow the possibility of evil for us to have a true choice of whether to worship God or not. If we never had to suffer and experience evil, would we truly know how wonderful heaven is? God did not create evil, but He allowed it. If He hadn’t allowed evil, we would be worshipping Him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own free-will."

Now God Did intentionally create Lucifer(was once a very high or highest angel). He Did know that he would eventually sin/prideful against Him. But think also this…. it could have been another angel besides Lucifer if God choose not to create Him pacifically. Without the existence of evil entering in by free-will, then their would be no REAL existence of free-will. If He just created those that would and did not sin then would it really be free-will?? It would be more as the "robot" scenario. But you must understand our minds can only go so far as to the 100% true reasons. Like why does He desire for us at all? My conclusion is that He wanted relationships with created beings that had the choice to love or hate Him without him forcing their decisions to love only.

So why did he desire a relationship that would possibly bring about evil? Better yet this question- Why does he want a relationship? But think of it this way- Why do WE desire to have children? To try to answer complex questions like those I will give a demonstration.
You see if you desire to have a child, why is that?.....Is it because you want to have a relationship with an offspring...logically that is the only true reason because you will have to go through the hardships of parenthood like the pain with putting up with crying, trouble, sleepless nights taking care of them, worrying all the time about their safety, and financial burdens, etc. Love and a relationship with the children is the basic reason for pro-creating. Where I'm going at, is that God created us just to have a relationship with Him. A creation not forced to love him. He does not need us but He desired us just as a family might desire a child. Now he doesn't want us to be like robots and be made to love him. So He gave of the ultimate ability He gave us the choice to follow or disobey.

So by connecting the dots it would seem at First glance, without truly thinking it through, that God INDRECTLY created evil- by establishing the freewill choice. But not truly so he ALLOWED for the possible creation of evil by free-will. He created us and angels to have a relationship through choice for Him. Creation is made for His glory only. It did not contradict Omnipotence. Of course you might say by creating free-will then that created evil so He would be responsible, but He is not, we are responsible because we failed to follow. That is why He gives us the gift of life through faith in Christ to save us from our failure, but not to condemn us. Because we have been are already condemned by ourselves by our choices.

Do you know why I choose to believe in what the Bible says? I have been thinking of this ever since I can remember. I have looked at many religions, beliefs, and atheism. The conclusion I have always come to is if the is no God there are no consequences, but if there is a God how has rules and a way of salvation and yet did not choose to believe then I would be truly wrong!! I really do not want to take that chance. The thousands of scholars and researches that study the Bible have seen who amazing it is and so have I. No other book has ever ever had as much written about it either it be criticism towards it or glorifying its truth. It is followed by the most influential man ever to walk of earth. The more I study the more amazingly it fits together. You can call me closed minded by not thinking of being an atheist, but I tell you the truth I do NOT see ANY real good reason for me to take that chance and risk the possibility of eternal separation from God. I do not care how long anyone lives they are going to be dead A LOT Longer................

Quote

Originally posted by Kei_kusanagi (view)
Not sure if theres this thread already but for my 10,000 feathers I thought I should make it a thread....Anyone know the requirements to get to "HEAVEN"?

I heard anyone can get into HEAVEN if they change their ways and believe in GOD...and then their sins on earth shall be remove and can enter the kingdom of heaven...

so what about HITLER?

Quite simple actually...you could get to heaven not only by just simply believing...but by welcoming Him in your heart. Him as your true personal Lord and Savior. Your top priority. The "big cheese" of your life. Because believing is not enough...also accepting is required. Many people believe that "Kenny G" is a famous and great jazz-saxophonist...but not everyone has the capacity to accept it. Many people will try to take the top and leave him at the bottom. Many people believe in God as Eternity...meaning to say no beginning and no end...but many still cannot accept the fact that God created them. And other people think that it's absurd to have no beginning and no end. That's why acceptance is a big help...if we truly mastered our acceptance, then comes submission. To submit to God's will no matter what is what one genuine Christian must do. To fulfill our purpose according to His will.

But yes, we could simply go to heaven by just simply believing. But why just limit our minds to believing when we can accept, serve, submit, and LOVE Him right? Thinking about using three fingers to make a chord on a piano...but since you have 5 fingers on each hand, why not use 4 fingers to create more complex but nicely sounding chords?

Well anyway, about Hitler...the time when he was captured...he couldn't accept his execution so he committed suicide. He ran away from reality...and refused to accept his mistake. It's one of those complex cases about a double negative. An anthill, so to speak. The more you dig...the more tunnels appear. But each tunnel will have one thing in common, they all have a dead end. In Hitler's lifetime he committed grave sins in monopolizing the world under Germany, thus triggering a full-scale war. He had killed millions of lives...innocent lives were taken away. At this point, it wasn't even imperative to him to even bother about his salvation...so from this point you could guarantee that he has no passage in heaven for the time being. However when he was captured, he couldn't accept defeat, thus ending his life from there. He lived a life of mistake...then blew another chance of taking everything away. He could have went to heaven if he had accepted defeat...and TRULY submitting to God. But instead he took away his own life. The irony, he went all those trouble to take away millions...thinking about a very complicated devious plan to monopiolize the world...but then it took when seriously reckless action to take away his own life. There one we can guarantee that his soul is nowhere in paradise. In the first place...God is the only one who has the authority to take lives because He created them. The same mistake Saddam Hussein had committed. Failing to recognize his errors...then leaving them behind.