How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[neci]

religion is a tool used to control the masses. with the carrot of everlasting life hanging over your head, what lengths are you willing to go to in order to serve your god and guarantee passageway into the great unknown? how much of your wallet are you willing to part with now, in service of the church? the poor are the blessed, so why should they worry about changing their station? is not the kingdom of heaven theirs? believe like a child, unquestioning faith, in the tooth fairy and santa and jesus's magical powers.

i choose to live my life the way i do, and upon the time of my death, if i am to be judged, so be it. if there is a god who would banish me from the fruits of his kingdom, because i did not go to mass, that is no god i would claim to begin with. i have a feeling the company is better elsewhere.

on a side note, the last time i tried to explain this to my mother, she cried, because she believed i was was going to hell. i asked her where her tears for the rest of the world were, and she just didn't get it. apparently i don't understand the repercussions of my beliefs.

 

[Sean]

The Wall Street Journal begs to differ with the "sean Almighty".

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-did-moses-part-the-red-sea-1417790250

You should try reading your own links, Vetteshorty.

 

[wistfall1]

You spent an awful lot of time refuting an argument I was NOT making. I was merely taking issue with Sean's earlier post where he questioned the presence of eyewitnesses to the teachings and acts of Jesus and then pointlessly linked that assertion to the time lag between those acts and when the Gospels were first written later in the first century and beyond. The TRUTH of the latter has nothing to do with the TRUTH or FALSITY of the former.

In my opinion, the most self-destructive thing evangelical Christians have done to their own evangelism is to insist that the Bible is the literal word-for-word communication from God to man. That is patently not true and all it does is open them up to the scorn and detailed corrections in the historical record such that you have made. Because of that, I would never "pay homage" to the OP or others who insist upon shooting themselves in the foot by embracing such historical distortions.

The greater tragedy, however, MAY BE what such a foolish "theological" position does to the skeptics. It is tempting to assume that one who is wrong about so many things MUST BE wrong about every single thing, including the most over-arching significant thing -- whether there is a God at all.

I submit that none of us can know that until such time as God, if he does exists, reveals himself to us in a most unmistakable way. The default position of the agnostic seems reasonable to me.

But the Bible is most certainly correct about the historical FACT of the existence of the man called Jesus and the 12 disciples/apostles who followed him, as it is most certainly correct about the FACT OF THEIR BELIEF (or at least 11 of them) in him to be divinely resurrected from the dead. Please don't confuse my conviction of the fact of their belief with the wholly different issue of whether the substance of their belief was/is factual. I am not making that representation.

I am simply observing that a handful of eyewitnesses that we know to have lived in history have told a story about their beliefs, the major elements of which (as opposed to every minute detail) can reasonably be believed to have fairly accurately survived 20 centuries of retelling in the same way we reasonably assume we have a similar reliable picture of what Aristotle and Plato taught and believed.

Again, I can only repeat what I closed with earlier: Both ardent critics and evangelical proponents of Christianity do their theological debates a grave disservice by minimizing the impact and context of "the forest" by unduly focusing on the alleged texture of "tree bark."

Simple! I like simple, and look for the simplicity of things. That said, in your original post that I referred to, I must admit to somewhat mentally scratching my head at your florid use of language, your phraseology that makes one wonder at just what you intend to say.

That said, I accept your retraction of a part of what you said, though you probably don't think you were doing any such thing. Here tis:

But the substantive picture of who they were and the fact that they believed it cannot be so easily dismissed. First and foremost, that is the story which the New Testament accurately reports.

Both ardent critics and evangelical proponents of Christianity do their theological debates a grave disservice by minimizing the impact and context of "the forest" by unduly focusing on the alleged texture of "tree bark."

It can't be so easily dismissed, you said? Unfortuneately, that is what must, in our day, actually be dismissed.

First and foremost, that is the story which the New Testament accurately reports.

In this, I saw the simplicity of your post, which I think you did not intend, or maybe you did. For several hundred years, many spoke for what they thought that those disciples meant, and said, however, none--I repeat: none--can truly say what the disciples (sans Paul) said. The only way they could say anything about it all, several hundred years later, was the acceptance of what they called "The Holy Ghost."

There were many ideas of what Jesus said, or meant, or even what the disciples said. A famous, and objectively good arguement was that of Arianism, which, it is reported, Athanasius (then not a bishop) strenuously objected to as heresy, though there was no accepted dogma as yet. Prior to that, there was the marvelous idea (said tongue in cheek) of Tertullian, that of the Trinity, which many of the churches loved, probably for its mystical value to later use to to bamboozle the unsuspecting peasants, and those that weren't peasants.

No, the story is not accurately reported, though it turns out that you may have meant that it was a story (one of many) that were told and written (and redacted). There are no extant originals of anything the disciples might have written (if they even knew how to write, which they probably didn't).

What we have is something that has passed the muster of a dogma that the winning side wished to be believed.

And therein lies the danger and damage that has been done through the ages, and is still being done (like Preacher Worley of somewhere in the South saying that all lesbians and gays should be put in an electrified fence and left to die, or of Gipson, a lawyer and baptist preacher, also in the South, saying that death is what should be the way to be rid of the homosexual abomination before god, as was stated in the Law).

No, there has been nothing accurately reported, not even one of the many stories that were extant, else we'd have also had reported the many sects and what they believed. That one sect survived, and later thrived through the circumstances of their times is what we're stuck with, as well as what they foisted on all Christianity that later followed by also believing those "...accurately reported..." stolries.

Simple is better, especially in matters such as this wherein some crazies try to make us believe that dinosuars walked peacefully among us, and are imbuing those lies into their children. Yes, 60 Minutes, a few years ago, showed how a museum had to permit a church group to tell little children these lies as they toured the museum's replicas of dinosaurs).

There is no disservice done by telling the truth of the lies that should have been told centuries ago and saved many from their malarky, not to mention freed up scientific enquiry that really led to something useful.

Peace

w

 

[Bray123]

I have met many, many Christians during my lifetime. Plus some people from other religions. Many of the Christians would spout hatred at me for declining their specific interpretation of a Bronze Age explanation for the world.

They have more similarity to Leviticus than the Bible's actual depiction of Jesus. Plenty of reasons to condemn me to eternal damnation than acceptation of my general belief that it is better to leave this world having done your bit to make it a better place.

Go to Church three times on Sunday, hate your neighbour on Monday. Go to heaven because you have accepted your saviour.

What a load of bollocks.

Jesus spoke in vague riddles - no firm demands on people's lifestyles. Nothing at all about LGBT, all that came years later by others with their own agenda.

Take opportunities to help others, don't spout rubbish about their personal beliefs, don't try to influence them if they haven't asked for it.

Be nice.

 

[Noor]

I will go on record and state categorically that the Red Sea did not part for Moses.

Heretic!

 

[Noor]

I have met many, many Christians during my lifetime. Plus some people from other religions. Many of the Christians would spout hatred at me for declining their specific interpretation of a Bronze Age explanation for the world.

They have more similarity to Leviticus than the Bible's actual depiction of Jesus. Plenty of reasons to condemn me to eternal damnation than acceptation of my general belief that it is better to leave this world having done your bit to make it a better place.

Go to Church three times on Sunday, hate your neighbour on Monday. Go to heaven because you have accepted your saviour.

What a load of bollocks.

Jesus spoke in vague riddles - no firm demands on people's lifestyles. Nothing at all about LGBT, all that came years later by others with their own agenda.

Take opportunities to help others, don't spout rubbish about their personal beliefs, don't try to influence them if they haven't asked for it.

Be nice.

We used to refer to them as Sunday Christians

 

[Noor]

religion is a tool used to control the masses. with the carrot of everlasting life hanging over your head, what lengths are you willing to go to in order to serve your god and guarantee passageway into the great unknown? how much of your wallet are you willing to part with now, in service of the church? the poor are the blessed, so why should they worry about changing their station? is not the kingdom of heaven theirs? believe like a child, unquestioning faith, in the tooth fairy and santa and jesus's magical powers.

i choose to live my life the way i do, and upon the time of my death, if i am to be judged, so be it. if there is a god who would banish me from the fruits of his kingdom, because i did not go to mass, that is no god i would claim to begin with. i have a feeling the company is better elsewhere.

on a side note, the last time i tried to explain this to my mother, she cried, because she believed i was was going to hell. i asked her where her tears for the rest of the world were, and she just didn't get it. apparently i don't understand the repercussions of my beliefs.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"-Karl Marx

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Whoever you are, I'm sorry to say that you sound like a Jehovah's Witness. Why? You are so imbued with ths snippets of BS that are taught in churches that you've become what is called Willfully Blind.

If you read my essays (which you most likely did not), and checked some of the scriptures, you'd have noticed that Jesus is supposed to have said in Matt., 16:23 and 24:34 where he is given to say that "This generation" (his generation), shall not pass before it comes to be as is expected, namely, a second coming. That's also repeated in Mark 9:1. Paul, in 1st Thessalonians, 4:16-17, said the same thing, but the immediacy was fudged in 2nd Thessalonians, 2:2&3. Oops, he didn't come. Did Paul even write the retraction? Maybe not, else why fudge on something so positively supposedly said by Jesus.

Good grief, read my essays and learn the truth of the lies that you're pushing on everyone. It's what others like you keep doing to stir up the masses to hate lesbians, gays, transsexuals, etc., even unto saying to kill them all. Get off your high horse.

I won't say more to you since you're apparently afraid of the truth of the lies all of you are spreading.

You obviously don't the know the Bible as well as you think. "This Generation" is referring to the Generation that see's Israel become a Nation again. That happened in 1948. The meaning is explained in this passage, but it obviously went over your unbelieving head.

Mt 24:32 ¶ Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: Mt 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Israel is the fig tree. This parable explains that when you see Israel coming together again (The Jews going back to Israel from the ends of the earth), then it is Near, even at the doors. (Christ's Second Coming).

Jesus very often hid the meaning of His words from people just like you who won't believe no matter what, so that you can find an excuse to continue disbelieving. I am not pushing lies, but you obviously are. Your essays are likely full of the same liberal, unbelieving, ignorant theology.

Here you go again with your lies and showing the fact that you don't get it. Christians don't stir up the masses to get them to hate gays. Show me where I or any other major Christian leader ever said that. The truth is that people like you try to get others to hate Christians. Please stop the hate against Christians.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

That's why I asked the question. Pretty much exposes the depth of looneyness. Metaphors, parables, myths, ways to live, esoteric shit, I can handle and appreciate. But dinosaurs living with men! I hope they were at least of different sex.

Ok then. I told you it was easily provable. Here is a video with overwhelming evidence that Dinosaurs lived with men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XitbLp8L6Bk

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

I'm not interested in any god that is so @#$ up that she created us with a default position of being a sinner and then punishes us for it. The @#$ should send herself to hell for being such a @#$!

God didn't create us sinners. He gave us the choice to become sinners. Eve chose to believe satan over God and ate the fruit and Adam ate the fruit because Eve ate it. It was a choice that man made. God sent us His Son to redeem us so that we won't have to go to hell. He is a good God.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

I don't think there is any question as to heaven or hell. If you led your life, lifting people up, showing love and care...

or, did you spend your life tearing down people. end/thread

There is only one way to heaven and it's spelled out in this first post. To try and get there any other way than what God said will lead to hell.

Pr 16:25 ¶ There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

What are your feelings on the Ben-Hur remake? This that joint will be on fleek, yo?

I'm not sure yet. I haven't seen it yet, but I hope to.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

What eye witnesses? The earliest of the gospels is Mark, written at least eighty years after Jesus supposedly lived. Matthew and Luke are just cheap rip offs of Mark. John's gospel is at least two hundred years later. None of them are contemporary with Jesus.

You have some bad history. They were all written by the eyewitnesses. It was a requirement to be included in the Biblical Canon.

THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

That's because Jesus was given the opportunity to perform a miracle in front of them, and failed. He did this several times in the Gospels.

Moses did miracles in front of the Pharaoh. Moses had the power of Jehovah backing him. What did Jesus have?

He never failed to perform any miracle that He wanted to perform. You will have to provide scriptures to back these statements. Jesus performed very many miracles, much greater than Moses. Jesus is the one who spoke with Moses out of the Burning Bush on Mt. Sinai thousands of years before His physical birth.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ones with advanced theological degrees from major accredited institutions.
How you seen the latest released translations on the dead sea scrolls?

I own a copy of the Translated Dead Sea Scrolls. What is your point?

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

I will go on record and state categorically that the Red Sea did not part for Moses.

Who did it part for?

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[LIVINRFANTASIES]

Getting back to Erotica, sex, and sin.

This may not be Heaven but it sure ain't Hell!

http://i.imgur.com/LQ7Xk69.jpg

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

It's forty minutes long and tbh, I don't really care this much . Could you just tell me if they got any footage of men farming herbivorous dinasaurs or something like this?

You should care because it disproves a lo of lies that are pushed in this day and age to keep you believing what they want you to believe.

 

[Emerson40]

Ok then. I told you it was easily provable. Here is a video with overwhelming evidence that Dinosaurs lived with men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XitbLp8L6Bk

Hovind? That is not proof.

But it helps explain your username.

 

[Noor]

He never failed to perform any miracle that He wanted to perform. You will have to provide scriptures to back these statements. Jesus performed very many miracles, much greater than Moses. Jesus is the one who spoke with Moses out of the Burning Bush on Mt. Sinai thousands of years before His physical birth.

Wow, what evidence do you have for Jesus speaking to Moses, not G-d?

 

[thør]

Wow, what evidence do you have for Jesus speaking to Moses, not G-d?

Haven't you heard his Voki?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Wow, what evidence do you have for Jesus speaking to Moses, not G-d?

There is a theological argument that Jesus is God. I think it is tied up with other interpretations of the Holy Trinity. The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost as a description of one entity. The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost said as three separate entities. I think!?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Here is a nasty bit of heretical revisionism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lspjLG9nHXk
as found in Ministry's Psalm 69: The Way To Succeed & The Way To Suck Eggs

It specifically states Jerry Lee Lewis is the devil. And Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet.

Yet!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCh9OhDiCI
the video version states "Jesus is the devil'.

Revisionist heretics serving Mammon!

 

[neci]

I own a copy of the Translated Dead Sea Scrolls. What is your point?

who did the translations? most of the original biblical word has been lost in translation.