How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[j]

listen man, we think on different levels. we can split religion and philosophy and spiritual thought/being/understanding into seven or eight levels of spiritual thought.

reliance on a personal father figure(god in christianity for your example) is a fairly low one. i am not trying to be disrespectful. this is what makes you feel comfortable. and if it helps you be "sane", i'm all for it. it represents where you are right now.

the criteria for which various beliefs and faiths are catagorized is not only logical, thoughtfull, but makes full sense in dealing with which particular psychological states bring about which specific line of beliefs and philosophies a person uses.

now, you will need to have the feeling that there is a father figure that looks out for you and takes care of you. i do not. to me it is a crutch, and self powering in the very least.

i would say a person like you, if you would happen to be an athlete, would rely on the feeling that god has given you the strength to play. when you win, you thank him. when you lose, you believe it is all part of god's plan. all the answers are there for you without having to think about them or challege them. it's so comfortable and perfect for you.

think of the relationship between a father and his kid. his kid is supposed to obey him at all costs. if not, he gets punished. if he does fairly well, he can get rewarded. in a strict father/son relationship, or the generally traditional one, the kid doesn't challenge, argue, or question father because father is cleary superior as junior hasn't yet grown up and became independant. little junior is not as smart as pops. he hasn't devevloped the capacity yet.

sound familiar?

me, on the other hand, am nearly/roughly at the end of the evolutionary cycle/journey of spiritual understanding here. i take full responsibility for my losses and gains if i feel so. and i do not relay on praying(or talking to myself) to attain closure. i don't need to know or hear what's right or wrong - i can see both gain and loss/fortune and misfortune as the same part of an exchange. i don't need to be directed where to go, i know how the map is made.

oh, and personally, i don't think highly of scholars. they don't "get it"

This is really a silly argument that all but the most extreme scholars would disagree with. In fact, New Testament scholarship on the whole supports the idea that it is more better attested to textually through ancient manuscripts than most works we take for granted today as being presented accurately (writings of Ceasar, Plato, Socrates, Homer).

The result being that by dismissing the New Testament so blithely, you actually at the same time dismiss other great works that we take for granted. So you can't throw away one without throwing away the other.

[Super_Lightweight]

I am speaking only of textual validity here. You can disagree philosophically all you like. In the end it must be acknowledged that New Testament scholars spend way more time on this than you do, decades in fact, and their conclusions hold far more weight...and rightfully so.

Good luck in searching for the truth.

If Christianity is a crutch, I'll take two.

[j]

I am speaking only of textual validity here. You can disagree philosophically all you like. In the end it must be acknowledged that New Testament scholars spend way more time on this than you do, decades in fact, and their conclusions hold far more weight...and rightfully so.

Good luck in searching for the truth.

If Christianity is a crutch, I'll take two.

why thank you, but the search is over. the traveling has just begun though!

and as i said, scholars, don't just don't and can't get it. book smarts equall nothing in what we should be talking about. wrong way of "seeing" things.

personally, i was hoping to hear what you thought of the father/son comparison. pretty accurate, or what?

and of course scholars hold more weight with you. after all, you do seem to like your book smarts. i am not so accademicaly acquainted with biblical works. i'm kinda more a laidback zen guy than a geek. i do read quite ra bit though. mostly for entertainment.


kinda bored right now, so feel free to take any shots at me. i don't mind - or judge.

btw, i wasn't talking bout textual validity. 12 blind men who really loved a guy named jesus could've written the book. i don't care. i was mostly speaking of the mind frames associated with people who pick or feel drawn to christianity and why they do so. i would rather hear comments on that then meaningless convo about how old or well written the book is.

it think my last post may shed some light to other people as to why christians are so. the last post i made may even help the rest of us have a better understanding of why you guys are the way you are.

we realize it may not be your fault. you have a certain level of understanding. many people have a different, or more dynamic understanding.

[squealpiggy]

what does S.O.L mean?

"**** Outta Luck"

This is really a silly argument that all but the most extreme scholars would disagree with. In fact, New Testament scholarship on the whole supports the idea that it is more better attested to textually through ancient manuscripts than most works we take for granted today as being presented accurately (writings of Ceasar, Plato, Socrates, Homer).

The result being that by dismissing the New Testament so blithely, you actually at the same time dismiss other great works that we take for granted. So you can't throw away one without throwing away the other.

The more I research the factual validity or otherwise of the bible the more inclined I am to believe that there is very little evidence for the historicity of either the New or the Old testament. In fact outside of canonical sources the only references are very brief and of dubious origins in the works of Josephus. SOurces found within canonical literature are of course biased.

Your assertion that there is more independent evidence of Jesus than there is of the existence of Julius Caesar is erroneous hyperbole.

[Mozza]

This is really a silly argument that all but the most extreme scholars would disagree with. In fact, New Testament scholarship on the whole supports the idea that it is more better attested to textually through ancient manuscripts than most works we take for granted today as being presented accurately (writings of Ceasar, Plato, Socrates, Homer).

The result being that by dismissing the New Testament so blithely, you actually at the same time dismiss other great works that we take for granted. So you can't throw away one without throwing away the other.

You'll have to remind me of which of those works makes outlandish claims which are expected to be taken seriously.

[tyson]

listen man, we think on different levels. we can split religion and philosophy and spiritual thought/being/understanding into seven or eight levels of spiritual thought.

reliance on a personal father figure(god in christianity for your example) is a fairly low one. i am not trying to be disrespectful. this is what makes you feel comfortable. and if it helps you be "sane", i'm all for it. it represents where you are right now.

the criteria for which various beliefs and faiths are catagorized is not only logical, thoughtfull, but makes full sense in dealing with which particular psychological states bring about which specific line of beliefs and philosophies a person uses.

now, you will need to have the feeling that there is a father figure that looks out for you and takes care of you. i do not. to me it is a crutch, and self powering in the very least.

i would say a person like you, if you would happen to be an athlete, would rely on the feeling that god has given you the strength to play. when you win, you thank him. when you lose, you believe it is all part of god's plan. all the answers are there for you without having to think about them or challege them. it's so comfortable and perfect for you.

think of the relationship between a father and his kid. his kid is supposed to obey him at all costs. if not, he gets punished. if he does fairly well, he can get rewarded. in a strict father/son relationship, or the generally traditional one, the kid doesn't challenge, argue, or question father because father is cleary superior as junior hasn't yet grown up and became independant. little junior is not as smart as pops. he hasn't devevloped the capacity yet.

sound familiar?

me, on the other hand, am nearly/roughly at the end of the evolutionary cycle/journey of spiritual understanding here. i take full responsibility for my losses and gains if i feel so. and i do not relay on praying(or talking to myself) to attain closure. i don't need to know or hear what's right or wrong - i can see both gain and loss/fortune and misfortune as the same part of an exchange. i don't need to be directed where to go, i know how the map is made.

oh, and personally, i don't think highly of scholars. they don't "get it"

I'll be impressed if any christians will respond to this post.

This is excellent stuff, and any person with any plain and basic common sense will understand that you are very much right about what you said here.

[Super_Lightweight]

You'll have to remind me of which of those works makes outlandish claims which are expected to be taken seriously.

This is exactly my point. Deep down, the real problem is the reluctance of man (a moral/philosophical dispute) to admit the need or accept guidance of the One.

The arguments that the texts are not well-attested to, frankly, don't hold water. Outlandish claims...? Well are you speaking of the claim that there is only one correct and true One to follow with your time in life?

[Super_Lightweight]

I'll be impressed if any christians will respond to this post.

This is excellent stuff, and any person with any plain and basic common sense will understand that you are very much right about what you said here.

Where does your common sense come from, Tyson? What's the source? What's so 'common' about it?

[tyson]

Where does your common sense come from, Tyson? What's the source? What's so 'common' about it?

The father/son scenario, son.



It took man over a million years to progress from using stones as he found them to the realization that they could be chipped and flaked to better purpose. It then took another 500,000 years before Neanderthal man mastered the concept of stone tools, and a further 50,000 years before crops were cultivated and metallurgy was discovered. Hence, by all scales of evolutionary reckoning, we should still be as far removed from any basic understanding of mathematics, engineering or science - But here we are, only 7,000 years later, landing probes on Mars…So, how did we inherit wisdom, and from whom? - Laurence Gardner



And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness - (Genesis 1:26)

The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven - 1 Corinthians 15:45

Man in made out of the dust of the ground. it is only after eating from the forbidden fruit that god said: "Behold, the man is become as one of us." - John G. Jackson (Pagan Origins of the Bible)



In your limbs lie nations twain, Rival races from their birth; One the mastery shall gain, The younger o’er the elder reign - Old Testament (on “Jacob” and “Esau”)


And the Lord said, Look, the people are united, and they all have one language…Come on, let us go down, and therefore confound their language so that they cannot understand one another’s speech - (Genesis 11)

Let us make him who shall nourish and sustain us. What shall we do to be invoked, to be remembered in earth? We have tried with our first creatures, but we could not make them venerate us. So then, let us try to make obedient, respectful beings, who shall nourish and sustain us - (The Maya Popul Vuh)

I don't know, man, but the sources you say are well-supported looks like they might be tinkered and constructed to suit a purpose, ya dig?

[Gareth Ivanovic]

This is really a bunch of nonsense. By this diatribe it's clear, you really don't get the stories, and your problem is really that you can't submit to God. You refuse to admit your need for Him.

The problem I have with submitting to God is that it can take away reason and logic if you take the bible for literal truth. Im not saying you do or not because I don't know, but since the bible has all the answers than questioning it becomes a problem. As human beings we should be allowed to question things and use our minds to figure out what's right or wrong or the best path to take. To me the bible limits that because anything outside of the bible's teaching is considered wrong by the christian right.

With that submission to God, human beings can take advantage of that and exploit other human beings. Look at some people like the Pat Robertson's, Jerry Falwells, Benny Hinn's and Paul and Jan Crouch's of the world. They exploit people so they can live in luxoury and they think and have convinced people they deserve it becuase they have a personal relationship with God. There are good idea's in Christianity, but when human beings get involved it get's all messed up and the real message is lost.