How will you get yourself into heaven?

How will you get yourself into heaven?

On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

If and when you say yes, you become his.

-----------------------------------

The other option in scriptures, a moral one, is shown here. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Scriptures indicate that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and as God’s will is supreme and cannot be thwarted, this will come to pass.

---------------------------------

It is a special distorted Christian view of love that sees, --- as the greatest act of love possible, --- their God condemning them, and then turning and demanding his son’s deaths and thus corrupting God's perfect justice. A bribe set by God as judge himself for himself. This is of course ridiculous.

Christians have an insane view of love, IMO.

Would you express your love for humanity or those you love by having your own child needlessly murdered?

Or if convinced that a sacrifice was somehow good, would you have the moral fortitude to step up yourself to that cross instead of sending your child?

Your cowardly God did not.

Regards
DL

 

Agreeing with you that sacrificing an innocent life restores innocent life to be a preposterous equation heaven is a perception of the world as god created it, on earth as it is in heaven. Earth in this statement being the perception of the world saddled with the idea of guilt or the world as become by usurping the will of god.

Guilt is a child's or primitive interpretation of somehow being deserving of the apparent overwhelming detrimental forces encountered in life. In a primal form an earthquake that terrifies our dawning self awareness to a whipping for example or a divorce that unsettles the home. Upon assuming guilt everyone and every act-cidental becomes suspicious or liable and it appears there is no divine or safe presence in the world. We labor under our own verdicts against ourselves and each other, our claims of indebtedness, and it is these we repent of. Whereas we have the power to describe the circumstances of our lives and be absolutely convicted in and by our own verdicts or beliefs in our rightness, we are not free to determine what our inheritance, meaning inherent value, is. No one in fact could usurp the will of god being the evidence of it/god. The idea that they could is a childs nightmare and a arrogant vanity as it matures. They know not what they do nor do they recognize their inheritance in each other, far from possessingbad morals.

Heaven and earth shall pass away or cease to be perceived as separate estates as we come to learn the ever functional meaning of the words I desire mercy, debt relief, not sacrifice.

 

Is this our first agreement? I think it might be.

I had better redo the O P.

Just kidding.

Was I accurate on the strange view of love that Christians have?

Did God love the world enough to needlessly cut his son's throat? Figuratively speaking.

Regards
DL

 

So I see now the purpose of the Godhead for one's "thou" religion is to wait for selfless being. It is it's own reward for "sacrifice", and repentance is just another world for sacrifice for the wicked consequences of one's ways.

We sacrifice for the Other either wilfully or being lead by repentance. In heaven only God judges Freedom and who's responsible.

 

I consider heaven,like hell, to be a potential that can be realized on earth, not a place to go to after I die. "The kingdom of the father is spread out everywhere upon the earth, but people do not see it." Thomas, 113. We "get there" by accepting the insights Jesus gave us through his teachings--unconditional love of neighbor and self--and putting them into practice in our lives. I don't believe in the sacrifice-atonemen-original sin model introduced by Paul and Mark, except as possibly a metaphor that a good man had to die needlessly to get His message across.

 

I am generally agreeable.

Some people who identify as christian believe one thing some another and this is true even of official ordination depending on the sect.

I think people in general, not just many christians, are not very accurate in apprehending any state in common thinking themselves always to be separate.

Love, not seeking it's own bearing all things and believing all things asks for nothing including sacrifice but leaps to any invitation. To a person who is convinced that they have been unworthy of a good life, conceiving of someone investing every valued thing to their final breath to convince you otherwise lends the impression that they had cared greatly and the weight of this impression is enough to cause them to reconsider their verdict.

The problem comes when upon consideration the verdict is not relinquished, new wine in old skins. You are sorry for what you did even though the truly convicted for truth proclaimed your innocence. When pilate stands before you and asks you to make a choice between an innocent man and a criminal you would kill the innocent rather than hold yourself harmless. If you are innocent you didn't do it! You do something but you know not what it is you do.

Being mistaken in that way about yourself you are mistaken in all ways about yourself, (reference he who lies in little lies in much.) The situation induced by the impression that someone invested even their life itself for your mistakes produces the same revolving door of recrimination that the passion play would otherwise replace with the gates of heaven. The christian under this spell becomes overtly hypocritical as both the wine and the skin are ruined or the lesson of a wholly/holy invested life missed altogether.

Is this a strange concept of love? I don't think it is a concept of love but a vain interpretation of our own virtue.

 

As a non-literal thinker, I would suggest you look at Gnostic Christianity. It has the teachings that Jesus actually gave and that the churches never will.

Let me give you an old O P that shows some of the differences in thought.


Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

I have been asked to do an O P showing my beliefs and have written a nutshell view to fill that request.

I was a skeptic till the age of 39. I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of the O. T. God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.

This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness or what I call; the Godhead.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. It does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have exaggerated tribal mentalities and poor morals as they have developed a double standard to be able to stomach their God.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to ignore whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar of excellence and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Since then, I have tried to collect information that would help any that believe that apotheosis is possible, generally not Christians, --- as they do not believe in the mythical esoteric Jesus that I believe in and churches do not dare teach it.

This first clip gives the theological and philosophical interpretation of what Jesus taught and the second clip show what I think is a close representation of the method that helped me push my apotheosis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why?

Regards
DL

 

You did not actually answer my question. You are back to your usual of talking to someone other than me or the issue at hand. But thanks for this.

Someone might get something from it.

Regards
DL

 

a stairway

 

"Consider" or believe? Believing in heaven or hell is the primary after-life question, and thus we can turn to the more considerate Koran model of the uncertainty of Being a believer or not. But my point is to hope on earth to become a believer as all, both wicked and righteous.

"To Allah do belong the unseen secrets of the heavens and the earth, and to him go back every affaire (for decision)... put your trust in Him. And your Lord is not mindful of anything that you do." conclusion of the Hud: Surah 11.

 

On the other hand, I don't believe in the seventh day of the book of Genesis. That being the end for the new beginning, the CHristian way. "Be fruitful and multiply." is the Christian bullshit.:willy_nilly:

Of course, "...this one at last is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called 'woman'..." is alright: just the leaving of the couple to supreme optimism just to an unaware threat which had little to do with Time making consciounable sense just made it out that the external reality was to as understood as lying is persistently without essential meaning in any good development. Is time for good or are mutual looks at consistent human beings such?

 

You are welcome and not meaning to debate the point but sincerely inquire of you...
I have actually answered your question and the answer you yourself quoted as being possibly helpful to someone else but not to you. If it might be substantial to some, why not to you and why not to this issue? What is it you substantially judge against? I answered your questions on the subjects asked not with your selection of a or b answers built into your questions but with my own answers. You don't recognize it is an answer to your question because it doesn't come in the form you expect or seem to demand. Why do you want to limit the mind we share? Perhaps you don't care to know the answer because your answer to your questions you have already locked in the vault of your mind and the key to opening it is to answer either/or to which you can then respond yes you have good morals or no you have bad morals. Leading questions designed in an attempt to assail some one else's thought processes? Do me the honor please of speaking your own mind straight out. If it can't be true on the face of it then why question it's verity? What is not true is not so or real and therefor you can disregard it.

 

You don't recognize it is an answer to your question because it doesn't come in the form you expect or seem to demand.

IOW, you give a riddle and don't care if I catch it which is what I said of you talking to someone other than me.

Nice that you recognize your idiocy. It is others you wish to chat with. Not me and I don't mind because of this type of B S.

Regards
DL

 

If my answer is a riddle to you it is not because I don't care to answer your question. That you don't care to comprehend my answer indicates to me that you don't care for any unadulterated answer.

in answer to your direct question,

I first point out that "christians" are a group that believes many different specific things other than the christ is the anointed authority. As okiefreak pointed out,

And by his christian witness has demonstrated that he does not share in what you call a strange view of love. So no, you are not accurate in attributing a strange view of love to christians at large. Further what you call a strange view of love is not restricted to any christian but people at large the world over have strange views of love, strange being a relative term specific to the perceiver of lovely views.

Further I point out that the theoretical view put forth in your scenario is not a view of love at all, strange or otherwise, but is rather a vain interpretation of our own virtue. No one need pay for our sins when it is in us to forgive them.

So no, you haven't been accurate but you haven't been wrong in a vague sense.

If a man sues for your shirt give him your coat also. I cannot tell you you are inaccurate without also lending accuracy.

If I wished to talk specifically to others then I would address them specifically.

 

A modern Gnostic sees Jesus as you and I do. A man. Not a God.

It is likely impossible for us to know what Jesus actually taught directly or indeed if he really existed at all. People like Joseph Campbell class him as just another of the Heroes of 1,000 faces. Rome's involvement might have screwed everything up as far as identifying a real, non-miracle working Jesus.

The good thing I find in Gnosticism is that unlike Christians who idol worship a stagnant set of edicts, our God can evolve and is not stuck in the ancient past. He is here today and evolving along with us.

Regards
DL

 

It is nice for you that you have found a specific kind of christianity you can be a part of. I mean that because I wish I could some times.

But why then diss the other ones? It is arguable no gnostic christian is immoral and also that traditional christians can be moral despite worshipping a god (if this morality is actually the reason you feel the need to do so)? Is it because they put down gnostics in the past? Please tell, because to me it doesn't seem morality is more or less apparent in the different kinds of religious people I know.

 

This is what I found too. When someone says he's gnostic I don't know much about him with certainty yet. It all lies in the details.

I wonder if OP shares this view? I think so because it could explain certain things he said.

I can relate a lot to your beliefs.

 

.



Gnosis, (esoteric or intuitive knowledge,) being ongoing has no particular prejudice. The presence of a man is tasting and knowing. A man knowing himself knows he is inherently endowed with an impulse toward good which he is not the author of but is certainly devoted to.