There is a question as to what heaven shall entail. Will it be all matter being reshaped into the chosen ones who shall receive new bodies and thus is materialistic? For if this is to happen, only those chosen to be reincarnated in matter will materially exist. This does not mean that things cannot be perfect. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so all matter is preserved until the end of time and even then it is just eternally present. Even now all that is to happen is eternally present, it is just future turning to past, energy exchanges, that occur which constitute change. This might mean truth to the Hindu idea of reincarnation in the preservation of mass and energy. It also might mean eternal recurrence in that creation resets itself to the beginning of creation. The conservation of mass and energy seems to create the environment for positive existential feedback so long as it is set in motion by god setting existence in a unstable state that must equalize. It is said that there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. But are these merely new conditions or new existent things? In the face of religion my whole theory might be unbiblical, but whose to say it's wrong just because it does not line up with popular interpretations of the biblical truth? One might argue consensus among those with the holy spirit to guide interpretation is what is truth biblically, but cannot man collectively deceive himself as he does singularly? And what if it's merely that god has yet to fully reveal a truth scratched upon by my interpretation? And who is to say to god that he has not more prophets to speak through? One might argue that this is because the bible claims to be the finisher to scripture, but could it not be that god is waiting to open his mouth again just as he declared it closed? And what are the apostles themselves to think of their contributions to scripture, the word of god. Would Paul call his letters to churches words of god? And how is god not speaking  now physically, but only in our hearts? I know god uses us for unequal purposes, but how are we to interpret our various purposes amongst each other? I feel like religion and doctrine are   

Used as an outlet. This itself is a theoretical doctrine, an outlet for me to personally insert my sense of intrinsic atheistic value into existence by claiming it is the will of god. I hold on to my value by valuing my authority in making this claim. It is near inescapable, the weight god bears in his sovereignty that we try so desperately to bear. It is like a rock does not bear the weight of it's existence if it is to move, a mover must bear that for him, yet a rock in it's movement cannot claim it's weight in existence if it is to move for a rock cannot move it's weight itself and must either bear is weight immobilized or move as its weight is bore by another on no part of the rocks assistance. Again though, my own thought on how we are to interpret our purposes, for we are not static, but dynamic, moving according to them; is by faith. Faith in the one bearing our weight in his movement of us. Faith is not an act of us though, for we must be free of our weight for faith, just as weightlessness is required to walk on water, for in weightlessness, we defy the understood laws of nature as he defines them through us in our very existence, just as “rocks can't float” is redefined to “rocks can float”. This is only done through gods word becoming flesh. Christ was the first fruit of gods harvest, his redefinition, restoration, revelation of the truth hidden within his creation awaiting the moments of fulfillment that come about only in his presense as the rocks cry out his glory, and he is omnipresent, thus so also is his declaration of his glory, for the very creation is his declaration and it is present, though we do not see it fully in our limited finite perspective of his infinite sovereignty that penetrates us even in our most hidden subjective existence, in the presence and lack of presence of faith active upon our hearts.  Yes even in the lack of faith his sovereignty is inescapable, for it is only due to that faith that it is recognized, so in lack of faith one’s recognition still rests under the sovereignty of God.  But again, faith does not justify my judgement, only His, for he judges us based on our faith.  I may empirically observe what appear to be signs of faith in others, but this is an apperance and I cannot make of the real thing only by the indistinguishable counterfiet representation of reality from within my mind.  That said, faith is what God gives us in bearing our weight, he gives us nothingness not non-existence, but nothingness meaning we are light enough to walk on water because Christ bore the weight of creation as he walked on water and made it.  The difference between those who live in faith and those who live in law is that in law they float in the water only by boat.  People craft boats of moral legislation so that they can float, but due to the law of thermodynamics, that things decompose and lose their ability to bear weight by breaking from potiential into kinetic energy, they sink and drown in the ocean because inevitably their ship leaks.  They try patching the leaks, but they sink.  We die by the law, for we are our laws, the foundation of them as we originate them from broken hearts.  We die, but in the ocean we are softened and pulled up by Christ to be refashioned out of clay into men who can walk upon water like Christ, for Christ took upon the weight of us and the water for us.  He holds us up upon the surface of the water, holding it together in tension as he walks with us stride for stride in our sin.  This tension, this relationship, is faith, it is the expression of God’s endless love for us, that Christ bears our weight from under our sin, that our sin of infathomable depth is conquered by Christ in his infathomable strength.  We are so weak, but can only walk upon the water through Christ’s strength extended to us in the gift of faith.  Only in this manner do one’s beliefs float, for only through the foundation of Christ upon which the foundation of our existence rests upon, are we capable of beliefs, for we now float in faith.  The boats of ourselves that were former foundations of our beliefs appear to float, but in the end they giveway to their weight in weakness and sink.  There is no way to hold off the inevitable wrath of God for our sins no matter how long we seem to float and God sees right through our “strength” and “moral integrety” the whole time, for he created us and knows our hearts as they exist temporally and spacially, and spiritually( which might be existence in general).  It might be that spacial-temporal existence, physically/mentally, is the manifestation of spirituality.  Just a thought, I doubt its true though theoretically plausible.  -In vein of everything being spiritual.  It would be monistic spirituallism as opposed to typical dualism and trism.  All different ways of seeing the same coin of existence in that only one idea is true (which might not be around yet ie revealed), but considering there is only truth and a lie is just a perversion of the truth, maybe existential dualism or pluralism gives way to a monism and that is the true state of things.  There must be pluralism of some kind though or else all things in the end are one which is plausible, though does not seem biblical.  I think there are different degrees of states of things that make up the complexity of creation.  So Christ had to die once for the redemption of the monistic category called creation and as redemption plays out in creation, we see it in all the diverse states within creation.  Now whether God must be apart of the category to interact with it is a different story.  He entered creation as Christ in a certain state of man to redeem the entire category that is creation.  In a way it is interesting that man be made the pinicle of creation.  And that man be the stewards of it.  He made man the pinicle so that through Christ he could redeem creation and complete his will unfolding in creation.  Again, Christ is God’s hands and feet.  I think God is separate from creation and is only linked to it under the category of relational existence.  He is self-suficient in relation with the trinity, but through salvation, that communion expresses itself in creation and thus involves it in that communion.  Yet creation is not made an equal to it, it is just used by the trinity to express it’s communion in existential medium.  This is just as I use pen upon paper to express my singular relation to creation within it.  My existence is within the ideas expressed existentially upon paper in ink, but this does not contain me nor does it control me, though it does reflect me as creation does God.  In this way I know concretely Ideas I have abstractly and thus like mud makes bricks, I build a house of Ideas upon the page.  I don’t think like Hegel, that creation was so that God might know his relational or existential essence.  He is quite concious without us, for I feel you must be a concious being to create truth and your selfconciousness does not just generate out of your creation.  This may apply to man because he is conciously incomplete though he maybe existentially complete.  This transition occurs as his future becomes past for him to see his reflection through; but for God, his existence and relation is already complete prior to creation.  We will only know the complete purpose when creation is temporally complete.  Till then, we again only have faith in Christ to stand on, thus we cannot know for certain our best courses of action, we can only act on faith, and faith is the only way we can act.  When we act without faith we truly just drown like dead men.  Now this may open the door for some compatibilism in that an action is free, but by an act that requires faith; I mean a determined action outside of one’s existential volition.  It might work.....But I feel as though sin inhibits action of any kind, so not only are we existentially damned in sin in our identity, our volition and manueverability which are how we come to understand our identity are also damned in sin.  Maybe it is Kantian; we are immobile against our inclinations unless Reason(or in this case God) jumps in and by either revelation showing us in spirit the objective choice(compatibilist morality in that we have free will, but can only do good because of God, yet can still choose good in face of bad because revelation pertains only to conciousness not action.) (It could also be more strict in that when the objective is revealed, we cannot choose otherwise which seems like Kant’s misarticulation of freewill in that Reason is free to will itself and according to itself and only in this is it free; but it is obvious to reason that the rational and thus only thing to do is something one can wish all to do in that moment,) (which is another word for situation as one exists in a moment temporally and spacially and thus in a conditional, making the whole basis of Kant’s unconditional law only feasable by one non-existent rational being, or the moment clause is meaningless.) (Meaning one is only morally bound to the universal possible actions that one’s own actions would justify.  This sounds hypothetical and not intrinsic to me.)  Thus Kant’s categorical imperative still is subjectively based or is abstractly based on a hypothetical thought experiement regarding not existing or universally existing, as a basis from which one can derive morals.  The universal existence being his intended direction is ironic for he inadvertently arrives at the sinful state of man and justifies it’s moral authority.  Imagining one’s self as a lawgiver for all rational beings constitutes the basis for all moral maxims by which the will determines itself?  Yes, I will agree that human reason does determine itself by a subjective thought experiement that attempts to project a hypothetical universal conscience as it’s moral basis for action, but this is the mere ghost of God’s image of reason reflected in us that is appealed to, not God himself.  So either This is all we have and God is either our imagination or agnostically impossible to obtain moral direction from, and therefore this foundation of morality which is mere subjectivism guised under the projection of universalism,

OR

Kant merely(intentionally or inevitably inadvertently in his quest for moral basis outside of an external foundation “in itself” has come upon the foundation of sinful nature in that by projecting a universal conscience hypothetically to judge our actions, we attempt and try in more ways than just Kant’s categorical methods, to make imperatives for ourselves based in the scewed reason within our hearts that makes us inevitably believe we need no God for morality, for we can rationally derive morality from the universal condition of reason that resides in us all, justifying us all in existing as gods of ourselves.

Kant and everyone falsely assumes we can derive morality from our reason, for our existence is not but an apparition; the world is just an apparition to the subjective reason, so he can merely reshape its appearance as he sees fit.  This merely leaves us all in a state of irrational moral babel as we all subjectively project the universal world hypothetically drawn by our incomplete rationale and from our fragmental expression of God’s image in our subjective existence we create a whole world where we are gods, centering the moral condition of the world upon ourselves, for we have the strength of reason.  And because of this I appeal to faith, for it is from an external source though experienced subjectively.  The two look the same, for Kant’s is a counterfeit, a mother nature, to the reality of God, external of His creation, but expressing His communal existence within it.  Kant, your freewill is a slave to reason or inclination either way and your reason is only as true or tangible as the facts through which you represent it.  Meaning that only until you have all the facts you have not the means to express your reason to yourself accurately.  In essence Kant, I am free, for unlike you I am not bound to my existential weight drowning in the sea of my sin, but I am weightless, floating upon the surface of the water blown by the Breath of God, and like an apparition my “will” directs me as he adjusts my will in accord with his through faith in his love and because of this I have hope, a hope that extends beyond my immediate subjection, a hypothetical projection of the universal as an apparition of my subjective existence; Yes I have a basis for my faith and it is based in Christ, who was sent into the world by God in himself and descended to earth as Christ, then to me subjectively through the Holy Spirit.  This Holy Communion expressed within his creation is the basis of my faith, for without Him I would have no faith, and no way of distinguishing my existence as concrete from mere apparition, for I would be but a subjective perspective out of any grasp of the truth, for it is given to me in graceful love, through faith, so that I might have hope, a hope whose basis transcends my existence and is an authority in and of itself:

GOD