Going to Heaven

a reply to: FlyersFan

Like you said they all claim to be right... They are either all right, then heaven is a big bigot party, or everyone goes to his own heaven and there are plenty. Sucks if you followed another doctrine than your loved ones and you end up in diffrent heavens.
or somone has to make the call on the "correct" doctrine...

The Vatican?

originally posted by: Terpene
or somone has to make the call on the "correct" doctrine...

The Vatican?

The Catholic church wrote the bible and put it together in 397AD at the Catholic Council of Carthage.
They have interpreted it and are clear on what they think it says.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
That's THE BOOK on Catholicism, what they truly believe, and why they believe it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

.... until you fall from Grace through sin again and need to repent to bring yourself back to God. I already posted the scripture for that showing believers fall from grace through sin and need to be brought back. I'm not reposting it all.

Okay my salvation at best is a game of russian roulette then. Got it.
I wake up saved and lie to my wife when she asks me if her but looks
fat. On my way to go get saved again boom massive heart attack
didn't make it to bad, straight to hell pal.



That doctrine is exactly why Christ had to die for our sins.
What did it say ALLLL. You can't just blow that off because it is
scripture. Once I'm saved in Christ I'm good all the way because
what am I saved from?

Condemnation absolutely

"Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the whole world"

I don't think your religion allows for much understanding of Gods mercy.
But it's his will that none should parish. I happen to think he's hoping
to get as close to a big zero as he can. All thru the scriptures we see
himnever quite giving up on us. Many times he makes exceptions to
his law for us. You make him out to be so rigid and cold and seem to
forget he's God. And can do what he wants.

Whatever your doctrine is, it diminishes Gods plan and what Christ did.
Standing in judgement before God we won't be alone or condemned
because Jesus.

So how about this from one solid believer to another all religion
and doctrine aside. I look forward to us both being there.
Amen?

originally posted by: Saloon
Whatever your doctrine is, it diminishes Gods plan and what Christ did.

Nope. It recognizes that purposely sinning is turning away from God
and that has to be repaired by repentance. It's not a complicated thing.
You sin. You say to God 'sorry' I'll try not to do that again because I love you'.
Then it's all good and you do better next time. It's actually being polite to God
and it's kinda common sense that when you screw up you apologize and try not
to screw up again. That's how you act in life with others and that's how you
should act with God as well.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Nope. It recognizes that purposely sinning is turning away from God
and that has to be repaired by repentance. It's not a complicated thing.
You sin. You say to God 'sorry' I'll try not to do that again because I love you'.

Geez man what a big fiasco we just put on and the above is all you meant?
That pops off in my head full on automatic evreytime I mess up any way.
Shizzle you could've just said that from the get go.

I have nothing against that. In fact I like it.

a reply to: Saloon
Thank you for your concern. I do not hold that individuals who choose to follow the book as precisely as they can are following their chosen path. Your concern for me at least provides me with enough certainty to believe that it is serving you well. peace.

a reply to: Terpene

Who's the authority on the matter?

I think that a very broad experience of yourself in the World, both natural and cultural, keeping in mind the laws of physics and chemistry might just make you the authority. As far as what you expect.

Life should be lived, not speculated about, a little retrospection is good too.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

That is what mind (wisdom) comprehends Itisnowagain. Whilst the love within that consciousness/intelligence witnesses everything as itself. Thus the contraction from ego (something) to the consciousness/intelligence (nothing) is merely a stage that ultimately is born into all. That love witnessing everything as reflections and manifestations of its own being and attributes.

Jesus said in Gospel of Thomas... “I’m the light that’s over all. I am the All. The All has come from me and unfolds toward me. Split a log; I’m there. Lift the stone, and you’ll find me there.”

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: pthena

This could be whatever the "correct" doctrine says?

What's the correct doctrine?

Who's the authority on the matter?

Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?

“WHAT is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

Churchgoers in 16th-century Europe faced the dilemma of what to believe as truth. Raised to believe in the supremacy of the pope and in other teachings of the church, they were confronted with new ideas spread by the Reformation, which was sweeping through Europe at the time. What should they believe? How would they decide what is truth?

During that period, there were, among many others, three men who were determined to seek out the truth.* How did they go about identifying what was true and what was false? And what did they find? Let us see.

“LET THE BIBLE . . . ALWAYS RULE SUPREME”

Wolfgang Capito was a young man with deep religious convictions. A student of medicine, law, and theology, Capito became a parish priest in 1512 and then chaplain to the archbishop of Mainz.

At first, Capito tried to soften the zeal of Reformers who preached a message contrary to Catholic dogma. Soon, however, Capito himself began to advocate reform. What did he do? When confronted with various teachings, Capito believed that “the best source with which to judge their preaching was the Bible, for only it was certain,” writes historian James M. Kittelson. Capito thus concluded that the church teachings on transubstantiation and the veneration of saints were unscriptural. (See the box “See Whether These Things Were So.”) Abandoning his prominent post with the archbishop in 1523, Capito settled in the city of Strasbourg, a center of religious reform at the time.

The Capito home in Strasbourg became a place where religious dissenters met and no doubt discussed many religious matters and Bible teachings. Though some Reformers still promoted the Trinity doctrine, Capito’s writings, according to the book The Radical Reformation, reflect “reticence on the doctrine of the Trinity.” Why? Capito was impressed by the way that Spanish theologian Michael Servetus appealed to Bible texts to disprove the Trinity.#

Denial of the Trinity could bring fatal consequences, so Capito was cautious about declaring his feelings openly. However, his writings suggest that he had privately questioned the Trinity doctrine even before he met Servetus. A Catholic priest later wrote that Capito and his associates “proceeded to discuss in their private capacity, and without appeal,​—the profoundest mysteries of religion; [and] rejected that of the most Holy Trinity.” A century later, Capito was listed first among prominent anti-Trinitarian writers.

Capito believed that the Bible was the source of truth. “Let the Bible and the law of Christ always rule supreme in theology,” he stated. According to Dr. Kittelson, Capito “insisted that the chief failing of the scholastic theologians lay in their neglect of the Scriptures.”

This earnest desire to learn the truth from God’s Word was shared by Martin Cellarius (also known as Martin Borrhaus), a young man who stayed at the Capito home in 1526.

...

Did you know that it is possible to examine the Bible in such a way that it actually sheds light on itself? The secret is this: If the surrounding verses do not make the meaning of a particular statement clear, compare that statement with others in the Bible that discuss the same subject. In this way, we let the Bible, not personal opinion, guide our thinking.

Consider, for example, the Bible’s teaching on the condition of the dead. Below are six passages taken from different parts of the Bible. Notice how they form a harmonious picture. (The scriptures are taken from the King James Version.)

• “The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.”​—Psalm 115:17.
  
• “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.”​—Psalm 146:3, 4.
  
• “The living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing.”​—Ecclesiastes 9:5.
  
• “The grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee . . . The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day.”​—Isaiah 38:18, 19.
  
• “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”​—Ezekiel 18:4.
  
• Concerning the recent death of his friend Lazarus, Jesus Christ said: “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. . . . Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.”​—John 11:11-14.

Do you see the harmony in these verses? Yes, contrary to popular beliefs, the Bible teaches that the dead are actually dead. They are not alive in heaven or somewhere else but are in a deep sleep, as it were, not conscious of anything. Hence, they cannot praise God or even think. (The Bible teaches that the dead who are in God’s memory will be ‘awakened,’ or resurrected, at God’s appointed time in the future.​—See Job 14:14, 15; John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15.)

The main point is this: When we examine the Bible by subject, its basic teachings become clear. A common phrase associated with this method is to ‘let Scripture interpret Scripture’, similar to Capito's “let the Bible . . . always rule supreme in theology.” Of course, this approach calls for effort. (Proverbs 2:1-5) But that is true of most things that are really worthwhile.

*** universalist interjection ***

Does heaven (read as afterlife) really need to have a specific existence?

Sheol, Heaven, Jannah, House of Songs, Valhalla (which opened to all in 1200 CE), reincarnation, rebirth, and natural decomposition can all be simultaneously valid. As "death beliefs" are all too naturally occurring.

Even animals.

I feel we are sort of arrogant. Whales may collectively beach themselves for cetacean heaven's gate reasons. With a complex language they could have some theology and cult predisposition.

While that's mostly a joke, I know African Elephant do. Best example for religious animals. I love to use it.

They (allegedly) have to ritually bathe during full moons and wave branches at it when it's waxing. Could be elephant superstition. To those that studied it said it followed all the trademarks of moon worship. Like the thought the branches make it complete its cycle. The full moon might not happen without the branch waving. They check the box for burial ritual too.

Though there may be confirmation bias there, two weeks of escalating branch waiving with a waxing moon is pretty cool.

Elephant religion.

Wait... fact checking... that was bs...

www.iflscience.com...

Okay.. keeping that up for fail posterity. This one sorta agrees though...

www.quora.com...

ChatGPT is a mixture of both.

Yeah, probably still bs...

Biological life seems to grow in superstition as it grows in intelligence, and then loses it inexplicably, but before then it develops more and more complex rituals. And beliefs surrounding those rituals. (Mostly still valid - only death ritual confirmed)

How do you tell an elephant the moon is a false god and idol, and their recognition and worship of its cycle is not correct? (skip)

But they do have rudimentary religion. (Precursors). It be naive to limit religion to just two species on the planet. (One)

Seems to happen without needing revelation either. That is surprisingly similar to all Paleolithic rituals discerned. First thing given attention to after burial are the things in the sky.

Roundabout point being, religious conceptions follow along a natural course. Death ritual is one of the first. It is almost obligatory, as language evolves, so will the significance of death and explanation of why.

I feel the source is natural, and takes several forms, I feel it loses the beauty of it all when it gets confined to a specific path. It becomes far less amazing to behold in its many variations when its variations are axed.

It all seems encoded in intelligent behavior. The fighting over interpretation comes when they meet, I guess.

a reply to: randomuser

Hi I am Jewish and we do not read the New Testament.

Judaism believes that the Jewish Scriptures, often referred to as the Old Testament,[1] are the inspired word of God. If passages appear to contradict one another, it is our responsibility to delve deeply and uncover a correct understanding.

a reply to: JJproductions

Stand by.
Some one will be along shortly to tell you what you believe.

my bad, someone already has.

a reply to: Degradation33

Death ritual is one of the first. It is almost obligatory, as language evolves, so will the significance of death and explanation of why.

I did observe what bore marks of a memorial service by a large group of house finches about 3 years ago. It was for a finch who once caught a grass hopper and was either offering it to me or just showing off what a good provider he was. He got real close to me.

That last sentence is problematic. No I did not kill him. I think a cat may have. The nest had an egg in it. I put the nest in a tree. Two days later a large flock landed in the tree and set up a very loud raising of voices.

All right, I won't lie. They could have been yelling accusations at me. I didn't know it but the owner of the house had been beating on the beam that the nest was on to chase the finches away, so the house could be painted later.

a reply to: pthena

Thank you for the info!!! Mel Brooks broke the other Commandments! Lol

a reply to: pthena

I jumped the gun on the moon thing it appears. They bury and mourn so it seemed plausible. Sigh, I hate 85% of the internet. Makes you look stupid.

But animals are smart. I've seen enough of those animal empathy videos to line up the most adaptable traits for survival.

I think superstition comes not long after abstract reasoning. Pigeons, dogs, and great apes all showed superstition surrounding food conditioning.

All in all, I don't see religious views as necessarily unnatural, maybe some absolute interpretations are, but I think the proto traits that evolve into superstition and ritual start at a much more primitive level.

Can't even rule out a priori command code is behind survival of the fittest, a quirk of organic construction.

Why do animals get superstitious?

I would answer because they want something and want to thrive. When things are uncontrollable, and not thriving, life may use repetitive behavior until such time life thrives again.

Like a built in psychodrama survival mechanism. Including an attested belief that positive psychodrama leads to better unconscious decision making, actually leading to better luck. Along Norman Vincent Peale lines, not The Secret/sweat lodge guru.

a reply to: Degradation33

I don't know what to call it; primal pull or drive. Much deeper than the rational.

When I was grieving for my Cat K, I had a strong urge to go back to the place where I first saw her, that feral cat watching me from the bushes. It was so strong that I warned my daughter that if I disappeared and couldn't be found, that I might be at those bushes waiting for Cat K. to appear again.

I've felt urges like that before, once even acting on it, to no avail. Just because something was there before doesn't mean it will be there again.

a reply to: Degradation33

Why do animals get superstitious?

I think alot of mental constructs can be explained with the ever present struggle between order and chaos.

We tend to order our chaotic environment to be more efficient, yet it's only chaos that gives us the energy to thrive for new methods that give order to chaos.
I would say Order from chaos is the main motor that drives mental evolution.

a reply to: Terpene

You would think I would have got that angle.

I agree. That's way better than "general selfish want to thrive" hands down. That also fits with everything in nature. I think there is a unique impulse and recognition of chaos (indifference), if it's better put that way, that is the prototype template for later gnostic belief.

I think we vastly underestimate the abstract intelligence of the smarter animals, including even a dog striving for superstitious order in chaos.

Thank God I am Greek and have the unruined Bible in its original language which is a totally different book than that filth the Mason of masons king James, a devout Luciferian and his coauthor John Dee puked up, with totally different meanings.

I’d write a few corrections here but I know never to argue with a Jehovah’s Witness because anyone who buys into that abusive disgusting crap which is against everything Jesus stood for, I won’t waste my breath trying to change a brainwashed mind.

I'm a simple person in a very complex and confusing world.

My understanding of Gnosticism was to have a direct relationship with God, and there was no one singular and defined path or ritual, but rather following what God led you to know and experience directly.

It's complex and confusing, because I don't know how to define my path.

I experience mystical phenomena when reading the bible, some passages are bold, others have a yellow tint, but there is always the illuminated text that stand out and speaks to me in a soft blue glow, the passages of God's love and mercy, the glory of his Creation, and the testament of Christ in regards to charity and caring for the sick and needy.

Maybe that's just my path, my illumination, my experience, but I think it's terrible so many are more concerned with whether or not they get into Heaven that caring for those who are sick or downtrodden and performing works of charity and service in Jesus's name.

For me, asking Jesus to come into your heart is accepting a covenant to act on His behalf, as an emmissary and to follow in His footsteps for the lost and weak in this world.

It seems so selfish to me, to care only for the rewards of Heaven and I care not if I cease to exist after this lifetime if that is His judgement of my fate.

I only care about taking care of Creation and the Created and making God happy with how I live my life in His Name.

I simply cannot comprehend people who just "accept Jesus" as a quick ticket to paradise, and who fail to do good works and acts of charity and service in His Name.

That seems completely counterintuitive to the majority of Christ's teachings about our purpose.

I also read extensively from a variety of other religious works, and I see God's Hand in all of them.

Kindness, empathy, compassion, caring for and protecting the weaker members of the Greater Community.

All the inspired works have these in common, even in oral traidtions from tribal societies.

It's almost a Universal concept, God speaking to different peoples in different ways but with the same message.

Be kind, be beautiful, take care of Creation and don't take it for granted.

It's so simple, even though it's so complex.