Does "going to heaven" really solve anything?

[advancedatheist]

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything[/i]

I've noticed that leftists do this a lot. Just off the top of my head:

1. We can't hold individuals accountable for their actions, because they behave the way they do in response to social and political circumstances. But we have to put, say, Augusto Pinochet on trial as an individual for his crimes against Chilean leftists.

2. Recreational drug use liberates the individual from the constraints of bourgeois morality. But a secret government conspiracy brought crack cocaine into the black underclass to oppress them.

3. We have to do something to raise the living standards of all the people on the planet who live off of the equivalent of a dollar a day. But we should celebrate and follow their example for living lightly upon the earth.

I suppose a conservative equivalent would sound like the following: My gas-guzzling SUV can't possibly hurt the environment -- but your stash of pot threatens the very fabric of society.

[iplaw]

I think you missed the point.

[skeptic griggsy]

This  poses the problem of Heaven: if we have free will but can do no wrong in Heaven, why not here without rationalizations and special pleading? If God would still kick one out because of rebelion, the difference is immortality.Why not here without all the pointless suffering? John Hick feels there could be heavenly analogues to free will in Heaven, so why not here?
 And show there is a soul in the   first place!

[skeptic griggsy]

Now I see why others and, now myself, find Chesterton such a shallow thinker!  He makes such a straw man about skepticism.
     Now Barton F.Porter notes in "Philosophy...," ...[W]e may need partly overcast days to appreciate  brilliantly sunny ones, but we do not require  lightining storms  or torrential rains  that  precipitate floods. More precisely, contrasts can occur between good, better , and best; there is no necessity for crossing the line into  gradations of bad. The natural evils that occur, therefore, are hardly needed to accomplish the end of appreciation and are , in fact superfluous and unjustified."
    He also notes that theists claim we need good and evil to make choices in order to use free will, but that is "somethig of a straw  man....Not only are natural evils compounded beyond  what is required to ensure the existence of options, but in most cases natural evils do not permit any choices to be made." And he further notes that the soul- making argument is null ,because "most find that it undermines their character... A final consideration is that many great men in history seem to have developed outstanding characters without having endured great suffering, which implies that experiencing  natural evil is not a necessary condition for building character."