I just saw someone on tv say something.

[RandomThoughts]

They said hell is not for bad people, but for people that do not accept Jesus Christ.

Your not going to like this, but that is label trap.

And would you want to be in that kind of heaven, where it is not about right or wrong, just about following the name Jesus Christ, without knowing he taught concepts of right and wrong, and although people are flawed, they can think and feel about those teachings.


Most of the teachings are about people being better, and it also speaks about separating the goats and sheep. So that is pick and choose.

But I know that doctrine, it changes the teachings of love your Lord God, and love your neighbor to do what you want if you say a name. It does not say what you will be doing in that heaven.

It also can lead to bad ideas where you can do anything without consequence.

It is the idea of a blank check for sin.

If you believe Jesus is taking your sins from you, and paying for them on the cross, then when you sin aren't you adding to the suffering of Christ? Is that Loving?

If anything it shows the sacrifice of Jesus, not the worth of any person, but would you be honored on the right side of God by thinking you can get grace for anything.

It is about more then a name.

The most revealing part of the whole Bible for me is the first commandment.

God is not proud, he does not need statues or idols of him. He could have said only idols of his heavenly angels or him, he said no heavenly idols either. The idol stuff is from pride things.

It is also part of where the prime directive comes from. No interference in the culture of society.

[liberal N proud]

1. I think that comes from those who believe that if you have been baptized

by full immersion that you are saved regardless.

[RandomThoughts]

2. It is used by some to think that every action is the same as any other.

I am saying many use the name of Jesus Christ, without thinking on the teachings.

Its really easy to see why Paul said some people crucify Christ every day in their hearts.

The burning up of conscious, since every time you sin, with Jesus taking the suffering for you, you add to his crucifixion.

There are some that think different things are sin, and that actually makes sense, and sin can be different for different people. But it is an interpretation to think that the teachings are not part of the name of Jesus Christ. That is a label without the spirit for many people, if they say the name and do not think and feel on the teachings and the concepts Jesus Christ is about.

It is a long topic, basically there are some that think of unloading sin without learning why they probably should not sin, I think they should also think on the crying angels and the suffering of Christ if they think that they can just sin and confess without thinking on what could be better.

I do agree that if you did not know you are doing wrong, you probably are not sinning, or if you do for love, even some action not of love, you probably are not sinning. Willful ignorance or rationalizations around that concept do not fit the concept of learning that I think is part of forgiveness.

And nobody has been able to explain why I should not be paid the beer and travel money due, or why those that do things to avoid that, or that caused the problems around that should not correct that situation. I would be happy to learn why someone should not pay that. I spent years trying to find a reason why someone should not pay that, but the truth is someone should.

[trotsky]

3. ...

[geckosfeet]

4. As Dante asked - what about all those who went before christianity was invented?

You doom them to hell because christ/god/heaven had not been invented/created yet.

That is a cold cold hearted belief.

[RandomThoughts]

9. Your thinking in linear time.

Before or after is irrelevant.


Jesus was before time, it is not a temporal concept. although 'before' is a temporal concept.

To understand such things, you can't think of it in linear time. Taking the sin of the world past and future, all time at once is not about temporal concepts.

[geckosfeet]

13. Jesus was a historical figure. And the philosophy of redemptive belief

was essentially born with him. The entire sphere of good vs. evil is historical in nature. To argue otherwise is to presume good and evil have physical dimensions and have existed for all time throughout the universe.

You yourself are applying a 'linear' concept, sin, in a non-linear manner. I think I will postulate that 'before and after' are certainly relevant concepts, - except when they conflict with your point of view.

[peopleb4money]

15. I see the model of Christ being the relationship between subject, object, and whole.

So there might actually be something to Jesus being born before temporal time, being that I see the trinity as addressing how consciousness relates to space and time. Being anointed in the holy spirit is when subject(the individual) realizes their relationship with the whole. The next evolutionary phase for humanity, if we don't blow our selves up before then, will be achieved through this kind of awareness that shows the individual that we are all part of the same system and that to hate others is to ultimately hate yourself. I believe every major evolutionary step in the formation of the universe was driven by this type of revelation.

I think all reality is just different, layered forms of consciousness and that were one of the newer, more complex forms to come out. When eukaryotic cells came into being, I think the prokaryotic organelles they descended from faced similar difficulties as we do. The organelles, being these simple, conscious systems didn't really work in unison to begin with much. They were probably a lot more dysfunctional, and I think each organelle had the same issues of ego that individuals have today. They had conflicts of interests. Since our minds are constructed of chemical transmitters, and there's a conscious nature to it, I think the organelles, that also communicate by chemical transmission, had a more simplified but conscious nature too. Probably a lot of the pre-eukaryotic, symbiotic colonies collapsed, but one or a few took hold, and were its legacy today.

We might collapse, but we might be one of the ones that make it to exploring space. The driving force behind it all is more interesting and novel forms of consciousness. For the organelles it may have been a handful of choices in states of consciousness that entailed chemical detection. Combined into one organism, I think it expanded the range of experiences for the whole that would have been felt separately when divided. A kind of trinity/enlightenment experience descendeded over them where they realized their oneness with their selves and the laws governing them and started functioning in harmony. For us, our novel experience ranges from money, entertainment, iPhones, cell phones, music, religious epiphany, communion, and so many other states of novel experience to choose from nowadays. The internet is kind of this system that's emerging that might, very well, become sentient. Its already a lot like an organism, and were the organelles erecting it and keeping it alive and evolving. The market and human behavior is a kind of natural selection mechanism for its development. If our species and the net stays around, we'll probably grow more and more integrated with it. Were already very dependent on it, and its shaping humanity into a global identity. When we can communicate and share perspectives, its literally consciousness expanding.

Evolution is thought of a process that's completely directed by external causes before one's born, but I also believe free will plays a direct role too. The archeopteryx had to make a free will decision to fly, our ancestors had to make a free will decision to get out of the trees, and we have to make a free will decision to not blow ourselves up. Behavioralists will just say we have no free will and that;s all genetics, but I think that's just a way of ignoring the mystery of consciousness. Where prokaryotic evolution was initially driven by competition pressures, there came a point where there was no other place o advance except collaborate in a very unstable, symbiotic colony that would later become multi-cellular life. We need to do the same as a species and follow the model of Christ, I see as an archetypal pattern woven into the fabric of the universe. I don't think the names really matter as much as the form, which I think, thematically, reoccurs with different names in different belief systems.. Were at a tipping point. Its so volatile right now that we could loose all 4 billion years of evolutionary progress. There's enough nukes to do it.

[toddaa]

5. Your take on the first commandment is an interesting one

Considering the fact that he says he's a jealous god.

Your larger point, however, is about the separation between fundamentalism and modernism in Christianity. Liberal theology doesn't even accept a literal hell, or even a literal heaven.

As humans, we need to stop thinking in terms of good and evil in favor of good and bad. If we spent more time worrying about how we treat each other, rather than how we appease a diety, we'd all be better off. Take this not as a criticism of your religuous beliefs, but perhaps another way of looking at Jesus' teachings.

[RandomThoughts]

10. My beliefs might not be the same as all people of faith.

For instance, I don't think 'getting into heaven' or 'avoiding hell' should be a motivator for action.

That is a selfish action, it is also ends justifies means while it is not possible to be sure of the ends regardless of the choice of means. Or more accurately regardless of the means, in my belief the ends will work out fine.

So from that and faith in my salvation, and knowing if that were not to happen, then that would mean such a thing not to provide salvation would not be worthy of my devotion anyways.

The point being, any thought of 'worshiping' or 'following' for heaven or avoiding hell, does not make any real sense. Instead I think of it as doing the best of what you think and feel is best with the mind and heart God gave you. What more can you do. And knowing that when you fail, there is grace with learning to help you be more of who you want to be.

I see many of the religious problems are about people that follow anything spiritual because it shows power, not because it also matches heart and reason, and if you just do what you are told, you are not part of the spiritual you follow anyways, since you did not think and feel on if what something spiritual says to do.

And there are some things in the Bible I disagree with, or some interpretations, and that should be true for everyone since there are contradictions in many interpretations.

For instance I don't think God is Jealous of someone love for something else, in the thoughts of how Jealousy is usually thought of, but for love of people, since loving what is not of God above love for God, or against God, can create hardship for society and many people. But that is just my view on it.

Although loving what is against God, to share the love of God, would be loving your enemy, and sharing of what I think of as better thoughts of love and kindness that is of God. But for love of God also.

[toddaa]

12. There is value in your belief that transcends rellgion

I'm an atheist with an affinity for Daoism and the occult. In Daoism, water is the metaphor. Water is soft and yielding, yet it can wear away the hardest substance. Rigidity is weakness. Water follows the easiest path, not necessarily the straightest. Daoism emphasizes letting nature be what it is and not try to bend it to our will. From my occult studies, the will does try bend nature, but it also emphasizes that the practioner find the true will. What's on the surface, may not be our true self. We often define ourselves based on what others wish us to be, without being true to ourself.

During a discussion at a small ministries UU meeting on what theology means for those of us godless heathens, I posited that God is the ideal self that we wish to be. It is the true will. Your Jesus is your ideal. If you take a page from Daoism, just follow the path that is laid before you, accepting change, and follow the course whereever it leads. Zhuangzi calls this carefree wandering.

Hopefully, I am not misinterpreting your beliefs. Don't mean to pry, but what denomination, if any, are you?

By the way, I do love your picture of the librarian. One of my favorite TZ episodes.

[Goblinmonger]

6. John 10:9

Romans 3:21-26
Luke 18:17

Plenty of biblical support for the concept you argue against.

[RandomThoughts]

11. You can find Biblical support for almost anything.

That does not mean that is all it says, and that it is not also about interpretation.

What do you say I argue against.


And I could post many scriptures that support a concept. It is more then just scripture, as said in scripture.

[Iggo]

7. First Chick Tract I ever saw was about that very subject. (n/t)

[Evoman]

8. Meh, I don't worry about it because it's all fake.

Seriously, who gives a shit if christians think hell is for bad people or for people who don't know Jesus...it doesn't matter because hell doesn't exist. Let em believe their bullshit. As long as they don't try convincing me, it's no skin off my back. If they bug me too much, though, I'll make sure I show em first hand.

[peopleb4money]

14. I think they have a stupid interpretation of hell

I think hell is something that happens to egotistical people when their ego dies along with their body. They're so wrapped up in their sense of self superiority, their wealth, etc that when all that goes away they're left with nothing but fear. If you have no love and haven't cultivated your sense of connection to others, death is going to suck.

I have some complex views about the holy trinity. I see God as being the common ground to all conscious life and the universe, the son as being the physical body, and the holy spirit as being a bridge between man and the universal consciousness. When you don't make an effort to access that bridge in life to burn away the ego and humble yourself by trying to see things from other people's perspective, you remain an asshole and make the world a suckier place to live in. They focus on the name of Jesus. I know there's a passage in Acts that says the name is important, but the Bible was ultimately put together by the Roman political structure that killed Jesus in the first place. I also think its stupid to think words have any magical meaning. They're just labels we humans use to model reality. Besides, in the original Aramaic, the name wouldn't have been "Jesus". It would have just been Yeshua, like Joshua. I think all you have to do is accept the model of Christ, the model of being anointed in an expanded awareness of things that sees reality outside of your closed bubble. Connect with the common ground we all share as individuals stuck in our seemingly separate realities and learn to love each other. I think that's all Jesus actually meant.

[dmallind]

16. When it all goes away you are left with nothing

not nothing but fear, just nothing. Your concept assumes consciousness after biochemistry and electrical impulses in the brain - the only even vaguely established sources of consciousness - have ceased to function. The only way that is possible is by aome supernatural intervention, which we can assume requires an agency that is giving us this transcendent source of consciousness for a reason (otherwise why do it? I suppose we may be useful as an experiment or as entertainment for a hypothetical superior being while we are alive and immanent, but what value can be gained from an ephemeral id disconnected from any physical manifestation. What, to put it bluntly, is in it for "Him"?), so it's far more likely that if life after death does exist (an incredibly minuscule probability), it does so as either punishment or reward from the POV of the(se) superior being(s). Otherwise why the 70-odd year fleshy dress rehearsal for the trillion-aeon incorporeal main act?