How to get to heaven when you die

neologist Wrote



Quite to the contrary. You will find that your view of organized religion is shared by quite a few on this forum. I would refer to it as an insidious infection for which we have yet to find the cure.

Subject: A nice bit of philosophy for the religious and the non religious


>I grew up in the 50s/60s with practical parents. A mother, God love her,who
>washed aluminum foil after she cooked in it, then reused it. She was the
>original recycle queen, before they had a Name for it... A father who was
>happier getting old shoes fixed than buying new ones. Their marriage was
>good, their dreams focused. Their best friends lived barely a wave away.
>I
>can see them now, Dad in trousers, tee shirt and a hat and Mom in a house
>dress, lawn mower in one hand, and dish-towel in the other. It was the
>time
>for fixing things. A curtain rod, the kitchen radio, screen door, the oven
>door, the hem in a dress Things we keep. It was a way of life, and
>sometimes it made me crazy. All that re-fixing, eating, renewing, I wanted
>just once to be wasteful. Waste meant affluence. Throwing things away
>meant
>you knew there'd always be more.
>
>But then my mother died, and on that clear summer's night, in the warmth
>of
>the hospital room, I was struck with the pain of learning that sometimes
>there isn't any more. Sometimes, what we care about most gets all used up
>and goes away, never to return. So while we have it it's best we love it
>and care for it and fix it when it's broken and heal it when it's sick.
>This is true. for marriage,and old cars,and children with bad report
>cards,and dogs with bad hips,and aging parents, and grandparents. We keep
>them because they are worth it, because we are worth it. Some things we
>keep. Like a best friend that moved away or a classmate we grew up with.
>There are just some things that make life important, like people we know
>who are special,and so we keep them close!
>
>I received this from someone who thinks I am a 'keeper', so I've sent it
>to
>the people I think of in the same way.. Now it's your turn to send this to
>those people that are "keepers" in your life... Good friends are like
>stars.... You don't always see them, but you know they are always there.
>Keep them close!
>
>TEN THINGS A DEITY WON'T ASK ON THAT DAY.1. A deity won't ask what kind of
>car you drove. He'll ask how many people you drove who didn't have
>transportation. 2... A deity won't ask the square footage of your house,
>He'll ask how many people you welcomed into your home. 3. A deity won't
>ask
>about the clothes you had in your closet, He'll ask how many you helped
>to
>clothe. 4. A deity won't ask what your highest salary was. He'll ask if
>you
>compromised your character to obtain it. 5. A deity won't ask what your
>job
>title was. He'll ask if you performed your job to the best of your
>ability.
>6. A deity won't ask how many friends you had. He'll ask how many people
>to
>whom you were a friend. 7. A deity won't ask in what neighborhood you
>lived, He'll ask how you treated your neighbors. 8. A deity won't ask
>about
>the color of your skin, He'll ask about the content of your character. 9.
>A
>deity won't ask why it took you so long to seek Salvation. He'll lovingly
>take you to your mansion in heaven, and not to the gates of Hell. 10. A
>deity won't have to ask how many people you forwarded this to, He already
>knows whether or not you are ashamed to share this information with your
>friends.

I could have sworn I gave a reply to this last night. Perhaps I pressed the "Email to Jupiter" button on my computer. I do that a lot lately.

I take it as axiomatic that if God is omnipotent and loves us, (and, I realize that is an if) then two things must follow: 1] He is not subject to the same rules of causality as are we; and 2] He would not let us remain ignorant as to why He allows war and crime and sickness and death. He would also let us in on what He intends to do about the human condition.

That being said, there would necessarily be some direction of research we could pursue whereby even the most unsophisticated among us might find the truth. Solomon tells us this is possible: ". . . if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God." (Proverbs 2:4,5) I've read extensively on the subjects of history and religion, but I could never have found the truth without relying on the publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I understand that, as a group, their views are not popular (especially among the clergy). So, I'm not going to tell you to sign on the dotted line. What I should point out, however, is that here is a group that owes nothing to any political or commercial interest, that takes no collections, expects no tithes, and freely admits when their conclusions are shown to be incorrect. I definitely recommend keeping in mind the advice of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 as you peruse their publications. "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine."


I think you will find that the bible canon was established by the Christian elders before the end of the first century. (I realize this statement is offered without proof. If you need a reference, I will provide one.)
One way that was used to determine the canon was by selecting books quoted by Jesus. This accounts for all the OT books (except Esther, I think). You are right about pagan teachings permeating nominal christianity. The have also influenced spurious teachings about the bible.

I know I have given only an incomplete answer to your question. However, it is a big question, requiring a big post. Can we break it down?

I see the Thought Police are out in force tonight. How are you, Lieutenant?

The idea that your attitude could be the cure for anything is a hoot. Physician, heal thyself.

A reference would be greatly appreciated. Who are these Christian elders whom you speak of? Their was clearly a great division in Christianity after the death of Christ between the literalist (the Christianity that survived until today) and the gnostic Christians. At the end of the first century their was no such thing as the bible and none of the books were canonized. This did not officially happen until 325CE at the Council of Nicaea.



I don't quite understand this statement. Do you mean that the books of the old testament were chosen by the works quoted by Jesus? Or were the text from the new testament chosen by selecting books quoted by Jesus? Jesus did not and could not have quoted the books of the New Testament. None of the four canonized gospel writers even had a first hand relationship with Jesus. So how then were they decided upon? Their were many many more gospels (perhaps in the hundreds) that were written in the first few centuries of Christianity. Why is it that only four of these, with anonymous writers, were chosen?

Clearly, if canonized text were chosen by their proximity to Jesus why were the gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene not included? These are clearly gnostic texts which put very little emphasis on institutionalism and thus did not reinforce the control of the church. They had a deeper esoteric meaning that did not serve the political powers of the day.



Surely, I understand it is a rather indepth question. Perhaps we can begin this way. Why is it that you take inspiration solely from the bible and deny the other Christian texts of the day? Also, why is it you put a negative connotation on pagan and pagan ideology when clearly the entire story of the Jesus mythology mirrors that of the pagan godmen exactly. Their is absolutely nothing original about the story of Christ. The only difference between Jesus and that of the many other pagan gods of the day is that Christian's believe the story of Jesus to be literal fact while all other religions that preceded it simply viewed the story as myth.

Please do not take this as a personal attack on you. You seem to be well versed and educated in scripture and history of the period. I would just like to understand your views better as to me it seems as though we agree on much yet we differ in many areas as well. It is my hope that through this debate I can learn from you and perhaps you can learn a little from me.

Your're asking me to work, eh SN?. OK; I'll get back to you.

I respectfully disagree. During the age of Christ, it was not uncommon to keep a detailed history of one's life and pass it from generation to generation. Since Christ touched so many people, his words carried on farther than we can know; the gospels we are familiar with do not tell Christ's complete story. While composing the New Testament, Constantine and the Council of Nicaea sorted through hundreds of individual gospels and chose from them the books of the New Testament that we can recognize: Luke, Matthew, John, Mark, et cetera. Even these books are not entirely accurate; after the vote had been cast regarding Christ's immortality, any evidence of his human life had to have been omitted. Constantine and his Council rewrote each of these gospels so that they coincided with the picture he was trying to paint. The years from Christ's infancy to his adulthood were completely taken out, as they showed his human characteristics and would have spoiled Constantine's plan. The canonical gospels were chosen because they put strong emphasis on the divinity of Jesus. It was a politically motivated agenda (One emperor, One God). They were chosen not because they were divinely inspired and the others were not, they were chosen because they fit in with the motivations of a powerful roman emperor.

Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible.

I also disagree with the statement all NT writers were either with Jesus or were accepted by the other NT writers as having inspiration. None of the synoptic gospel writers knew Jesus. In fact, we do not even know who specifically they were themselves. They are anonymous. John it can be argued seems to have firsthand knowledge of Jesus. The majority of scholars, however, have the gospel of John as the last of the four gospels written somewhere around 70+ years after the death of Jesus.

In the era we live in now, where so much information is readily available to us I feel it is a sin to limit ourselves to the bible. You must understand for much of Christianity's history, laymen were not even allowed to read the scripture. They were ignorant because that's the way the church wanted to keep them. We don't have that excuse today. Why not take a look at the dead sea scrolls or the nag hammadi gospels? Wouldn't the gospel of Mary Magdalene be the perfect example of a work from someone with firsthand knowledge of Jesus? Yet we dismiss it because it wasn't collated into a book formed by a murderous roman emperor?