When we learn of God’s tests for us, these are widely accepted as ritual to achieve entry into the believed Kingdom of Heaven. But, why shouldn’t ideas of the testing of humans flag one’s ‘sciency governance’ awareness (instead of a desire to perform for entry into unproven heavens)?
Either way, seems someone is deciding whether or not to ‘let you into’ something down the road, or where to place you in the moment—whether in their mind’s eye or that of another entity.
In the mean time, until any heavens are proven, humans are tested—under the public eye—for disclosure as to their current state of mind regarding such matters, and various others. Such testing is done on personal levels according to the strictures of their various personal contacts, or on ‘higher’ levels of professionalism according to social, business or governmental entity. The purpose of such testing serves the discriminating desires of various sectarian, governmental, and social environments.
The promise of God and Heaven seems mostly to work to imply an inarguable good behind the motivations of such expectations and testing. Perhaps this is the best (most effective) way of preventing humans from rebelling against such tests (essentially an applied psychology).
The truth of the matter is that there is no inherent, infallible good, and humans are often tested in social institutions and communities by one of several religious standards. This has little to do with the existence of a god or gods, but with social acceptance according to the structure of a group.
Unfortunately, the religious standard has done little to protect humans from themselves. Perhaps the closest we’ve come to the widest protections and possibilities for all has been in the progress seen in secular society.
Would you agree or disagree?