How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[K-DOGG]

I dont think you understood K-DOGGs point.

Organised religion is built upon the cultivation of subservience.
And this mindset is exploited by those in power.
Obedience is seen as a virtue.

Also, it depends on what branch of Satanism, but in general Satanists see themselves as animals. No better than other animals. Quite the opposite to Christian thought. Where animals are souless food.

You got me.

[K-DOGG]

I agree mostly.
"Religion" has always been used to control. But obviously not just control. It can be a form of social cohesion.
There are communities that desperately need something to help. And sometimes good people can run a church and actually do a lot of good.
Then there is the manipulative controlling authoritative "religion".
I guess religion is multifaceted.

it certainly can be and that, originally, was it's purpose, or, at least a side-effect. Anything positive, which unites people for a greater cause, is a good thing; but, as you said, it is multifaceted and only as "good" as it's representatives, as a "tool" for social cohesion.

The fact is most of us are followers. We do not want to lead and want others to tell us what to do, which makes us very vulnerable, depending upon our individual independence, so to speak. It's very hard to break away from the herd and think for oneself; and this is largely due to the social pressure to not do so.

Fortunately, I do think we are in the process of a shift, which is largely why there's so much "craziness" going on in the world, at the moment. Call it "social growing pains" or whatever. I think the majority of us feel that there definitely is "something else" beyond this reality; but, with more access to information, more of us are learning how flawed the bedrock for our religions are, which leaves us looking elsewhere for the answers. Of course, this is just my perception of what I think I see happening.

With saying grace, i think cherry pick a lot with religion. I think people can say the good stuff that may open them to deeper thought and pretty much ignore the fire and brimstone stuff.

And that, I think, is the key of our shift. Hell was a bad idea from the start. Someone once said that there are only two reasons you do anything in life: fear or love.

When they introduced "hell" into the construct, that was, obviously, an attempt to scare people into obeying, into being "good Christians."

The thing is "fear" causes an instinctive response, very animalistic. The whole purpose of religions was supposed to be to touch the divine, or to be in touch with the "higher part of oneself", to rise above. Fear, is going to have just the opposite effect, as it causes us to be instinctual.

Religion stresses that Man is a dual being, constantly battling between the spiritual and the animal. Hell or "fear of hell" is only, naturally, going to appeal to the animal side of one's nature.

For a time, that was the meat of most sermons; but over the last several decades, it has been more and more ignored over the positive, which I think is a good thing. However, depending upon the preacher/priest, what is defined as "good" varies; but I do think most get it, although some of the televangelists I've seen are greatly confusing the material world and possessions with "blessings", so to speak.

Still, nothing happens over night; and the evolution of man's spirituality is an ongoing process.

[K-DOGG]

you have some good points here, but i think the point of heaven as "light at the end of the tunnel" is because of the fact that life here is temporary at best and usually filled with a lot of suffering


...what's wrong with having something to hope for if our life is miserable, though?

Hoping for something better, afterwards, could be an illusion, if we do nothing to change it, here, or, at the very least, change ourselves and do a little good. What if the Hindus and the Buddhists are right in that everything is cyclical and based on karma?

Life is hard, probably always will be. If we allow our experiences in this realm to affect our attitude towards others or our actions, who's to say we aren't setting the table to be reincarnated, based upon our actions and attitudes in this life? What if we keep coming back over and over again until we "get it right," so to speak?

I definitely think there's something "beyond this;" but energy is either static or kinetic and life is energy. If we do nothing but hope for something better after death, without affecting any change in life, even on the minutest of ways, will that energy not follow us wherever we go afterwards?

It's just a thought; but I can't help but think about someone who has experienced something bad and keeps dwelling on it until more bad things happen, or, so it seems. Surely, you've known someone upon whom it always seems to rain.

We feel sorry for them and want to help, at first; but, over time and repetition of bad thing after bad thing after bad thing, most of us, instinctively, distance ourselves from these people, if ever so slightly, almost as if the negativity is contagious....which it very much is.

I bring this up to point out that, yes, the world can suck; but how we react to what happens to us defines who we are far more than the events themselves. Wishing and hoping for someone to save us, rather than attempting to help ourselves is usually considered a mistake. How is this different from waiting for "heaven to come", without attempting to create "heaven" here on earth, or, at least making an attempt to make peace with our circumstances?

If spiritual reality is even remotely close to the physical one.....or "as above, so below", so to speak, it could be a grave mistake to simply "wait to be saved?" Would the castaway be seen by the ship, if he didn't build a bond fire? Would he not starve on the island, if he did not hunt or forage before his rescuers came?

Someone once said, "God helps those who help themselves." I don't think it's important to succeed as much as it is important to try.

Just a thought.

we can use anyone or anything we want for "God's purpose", no. the bible has multiple verses which speak against situational ethics. we can't do anything we want and then claim it to be good in God's name, even if this is the common practice in society.

No doubt. The Bible's got plenty of "good instructions" on how to live; but, as you pointed out, common practice has often deviated. Whether or not any of it was actually "divinely inspired" is up for debate; but one can find "truths" in virtually all religions, which we can suppose came from "God".

Unfortunately, there's more than a fair amount of cultural bias embedded which was, undoubtedly, "Man-inspired;" and discerning the difference between the two is tricky business.

I just think we're ready for the next step in our spiritual evolution, as this 2000+ year old writ has about played itself out.

I think God is speaking to us constantly; but so are many other things and influences. Actually hearing what is "divine" and what is not isn't really that complicated; but we think it is....or, we simply would rather listen to the static, because old habits are hard to break. We're all "tapped-in", IMO; but "choice" is the ultimate variable....and we also keep getting in each others' way, rather than realizing we're all connected in this beautiful symphony of life.

Too many of us are out of tune. lol

organized religion is a means of controlling the masses. The Vatican is the harlot church in the book of Revelation which "has two horns like a lamb but speaks like a dragon" and one day will be exposed as such, since the middle ages the popes have been responsible for the slaughter of millions. The pope may act holy, but he is a political leader, nothing more. I think some of the problems you are describing are the result of people claiming to be christians but not actually living by the principles they claim to believe

That's exactly what I'm describing, bro; but what I've found is God is far too big to be bound to a single book.....especially one written by people who lived in the bronze and iron ages.

It was a good start; but was also designed to speak to the audience for whom it was written and underwent many incarnations before it reached it's final form.....

The time has come, IMO, for us to see it for what it is, warts and all. This is not to say there is not something to be learned from it; but there is something to be learned from virtually every religion out there.

All are tools to be used for good or ill....but they are also very old tools originally comprised for peoples we can scarcely relate to, today.

[K-DOGG]

Heaven is a place told to us by Jesus Christ and His Word. He created Heaven, Earth, Hell and the Universe, so I would think that He would know all about Heaven. It's not fantasy, it's reality.

I'm familiar with the story, as I once believed it, before I better educated myself on the whole subject.

Ultimately, this is a matter of faith, based upon Jesus being the son of the one true God and being "God", himself, along with God the Father and the Holy Spirit....ergo, "The Trinity".

The concept of "the trinity" did not exist before 323 A.D. and was decided by some 300 church leaders, out of 1800 which were invited to attend the Council of Nicaea. Those who disagreed with this concept, with this decision by the church's fathers were brutally burned at the stake for their so-called heresy a mere 50 or so years later. And this is to say nothing of the great book burning which occurred first to erase any hint that there was any other thought than Jesus was divine.

Prior to this vote, the definition of "who" Jesus was varies from church to church, from city to city, from region to region.

It is no surprise that the decedents of the gentiles whom Paul preached to were, ultimately, the ones who decided the official dogma to whom all must subscribe or suffer the consequences. After all, the Christians in Jerusalem had been scattered to the four winds in 70 A.D, taking with them any remnant of the original Christian movement.

Virtually every book in the New testament was either written by Paul or a subscriber to his theology; and we have to take his word that Jesus spoke to him after his alleged ascension, making his letters and sermons "gospel".

The phrase "Son of God" was used in the Old Testament to describe pious men; and I have no doubt it meant something entirely different to the Jews than it did to the Gentiles, who had many demi-gods before they were converted. So he concept of God fathering a child was not that big of a stretch of faith to them, as it surely would have been to the Jews, which is where Christianity started, after all, as a Jewish sect....but, conveniently, we'll never know. All we have is context.

"Christ" or "Christos", the Greek interpretation of the word "Messiah", or "anointed one" was also used in the Old Testament to describe several men: Saul, David, even Cyrus the Great who commissioned the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem after the fall or, more specifically, his conquest of the Babylonian Empire. Of course there were many interpretations as to "who a messiah" was to be, whether a military leader or a spiritual one; but, either way, Yeshua Ben-Yoseph was not unique in this regard, either.

What we have today is the mythologization of a real man who lived 2000 years ago and the repetition of this mythologization ad-nauseum.....and, IMO, unfortunately so, for the message he shared about how to live and how to treat our fellow man in our day to day lives is far, far more important than this imaginary "sweet by and by."

But...to each his own.

[GGG Gloveking]

I dont think you understood K-DOGGs point.

Organised religion is built upon the cultivation of subservience.
And this mindset is exploited by those in power.
Obedience is seen as a virtue.

Also, it depends on what branch of Satanism, but in general Satanists see themselves as animals. No better than other animals. Quite the opposite to Christian thought. Where animals are souless food.

I understood his point. I acknowledged his point. I addressed his point. I rebutted his point. But, since you think a rephrase of the same point is necessary, I'll make a rephrase of the same rebuttal. Yes, organized religion is based on obedience. So is organized government, so is organized sports, so is anything associated with organization, because obedience, or uniformity, is a key element of being organized. Since governments cultivate subservience, are you an anarchist?

The key is the word power, that you mentioned. It's that power that drives those with it to want subservience. It's that power that was the motivation for the various wars that Kdogg used as examples. That element isn't unique to religion, and shouldn't be used as a criticism.

Like I said, according to Kdogg logic, the atheist Chinese government should be more lenient than the religious American government.

But, that isn't even the initial point Kdogg tried to make. His initial statement was along the lines of Christians don't care about Earth, because they're distracted by heaven. It wasn't until this statement was challenged, that power over people was ever even mentioned.

Lastly, I'm not much of an expert on Satanism. I have read portions of the satanic Bible, and what I read dealt with a lot of self indulgence, self gratification, and little to no concern for the planet or it's other inhabitants.

[K-DOGG]

This is a grossly inaccurate misrepresentation of what Christian Stewardship is. There are literally classes taught and sermons spoken on what being a Christian Steward is, and it involves none of what you are saying. The example of a Steward on a ship is given, and of how the Steward is responsible for the care of both the ship and it's cargo (or passengers). The self indulgence and disregard for the planet you speak of is more in line with the teachings of Satanism than Christianity.

You keep trying to add this point about religion equating to control. Let me just say this; there is no correlation between religion and a government wanting to control people. Every government does. Case in point, the atheist (and controlling) government of China contrasted with the reigious (and uncontrolling) government of US. By your logic, the atheist government should be the more liberal one.

I have no doubt there are classes and seminars taught on stewardship; but these are also recent interpretations, comparatively. "Manifest Destiny" was all about "it's ours to take"; and we're here, now, in the new world, because of it.

It's good that modern theologists are interpreting things in a "shall we say" kinder way; but it does not undo what has been done, nor the seed of thought and perspective which was planted years upon years ago into the human psyche.

As I think I pointed out, "direct correlation" between government and religion is no longer necessary because the mindset. What we see transpiring, now, on the governmental level, is merely a reciprocal effect of an old attitude which was planted there, by Christianity, hundreds of years ago and has finally blossomed into this bitter fruit.

Briefly addressed the "controlling government" of China and the "uncontrolling government" of the United States, all I have to say is...….while the Chinese government is obviously controlling, I strongly disagree with the notion that the U.S. government is not. There are heavy-handed tactics and there is subterfuge and misdirection; but both are controlling. We are merely looking at different styles of control; but this is off-topic.

The political agendas I referred to, concerning oil and other natural resources is greed oriented, no doubt; but my point is this attitude is directly related to the church attitude which led to the edict of "Manifest Destiny", if only on a subconscious level these days.

Once an idea is embedded, the source is often forgotten.

[K-DOGG]

I understood his point. I acknowledged his point. I addressed his point. I rebutted his point. But, since you think a rephrase of the same point is necessary, I'll make a rephrase of the same rebuttal. Yes, organized religion is based on obedience. So is organized government, so is organized sports, so is anything associated with organization, because obedience, or uniformity, is a key element of being organized. Since governments cultivate subservience, are you an anarchist?

The key is the word power, that you mentioned. It's that power that drives those with it to want subservience. It's that power that was the motivation for the various wars that Kdogg used as examples. That element isn't unique to religion, and shouldn't be used as a criticism.

Like I said, according to Kdogg logic, the atheist Chinese government should be more lenient than the religious American government.

But, that isn't even the initial point Kdogg tried to make. His initial statement was along the lines of Christians don't care about Earth, because they're distracted by heaven. It wasn't until this statement was challenged, that power over people was ever even mentioned.

Lastly, I'm not much of an expert on Satanism. I have read portions of the satanic Bible, and what I read dealt with a lot of self indulgence, self gratification, and little to no concern for the planet or it's other inhabitants.

I'm not going to generalize and say no Christians care about the Earth; but am simply trying to point out that to Christians, the Earth is secondary to the coming of "the New Earth", which, ultimately, is going to have a psychological deficit concerning priorities.

Taking care of "this planet" is not nearly as important as preparing for the next.

Just to be clear, this is essentially, my point, not that Christians are out to destroy the planet....and I'm not saying that's what you said. I am merely clarifying my position.

If "this planet" is secondary.....then any actions taken to reap the benefits of fossil fuel or any agenda in the Middle East to control the flow of fossil fuel, regardless of the human cost or whatever political spin is put on the subject is not going to take a priority.

Even though Christians are told to turn other cheek, I see no mass protests for any war.

This is because of faith in our leadership....which goes back to what I was saying about "God's Will".

Our leaders are our leaders because God wills it....and, therefore, we pray that their actions are in accordance to God's will....and have faith that they are.

This is the mindset in example. We do not question, we do not protest, we simply have "faith".

….and that is the flaw. We re inert and ineffective and inactive in preventing anything of the sort from taking place. If we are not pro-action....we are inaction, even if we are not practicing Christians, because the mindset was die cast years upon years ago.

[GGG Gloveking]

I'm not going to generalize and say no Christians care about the Earth; but am simply trying to point out that to Christians, the Earth is secondary to the coming of "the New Earth", which, ultimately, is going to have a psychological deficit concerning priorities.

Taking care of "this planet" is not nearly as important as preparing for the next.

Let me stop you right here. I want you to provide some, or any examples, of actual Christians basically saying, "Screw this world, we have heaven to look forward to." Because what I'm seeing here is pure conjecture.

[K-DOGG]

Let me stop you right here. I want you to provide some, or any examples, of actual Christians basically saying, "Screw this world, we have heaven to look forward to." Because what I'm seeing here is pure conjecture.

LOL!! You're taking it personal. Don't.

I'm not condemning Christianity as a planet-hating people.

But, you are correct, in that it is conjecture, based upon observation and experience. I'm not saying anything is done maliciously. I'm saying concerns of this realm are secondary. Period.

[GGG Gloveking]

LOL!! You're taking it personal. Don't.

I'm not condemning Christianity as a planet-hating people.

But, you are correct, in that it is conjecture, based upon observation and experience. I'm not saying anything is done maliciously. I'm saying concerns of this realm are secondary. Period.

I don't take things personally until you start insulting and calling names. So we're good.

You say your point is based on experience. I'm asking you relay some of that experience to us. Show us what ways Christians have neglected the earth, with the reasoning being that there's heaven. The example of Manifest Destiny isn't a Christian one. It's a government precept. And furthermore, it isn't a salient point. The underlying precept of Manifest Destiny isn't about reckless abandon of the earth.

And lastly, the evidentiary standard I'm asking you to demonstrate is merely that of negligence, and not that of malice.