Who Will Go To Heaven?

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
The concept of an afterlife of rewards and punishments is by no means exclusive to Christianity. I know it's very difficult for Christians to think about religion in terms other than their own religion, but it's not impossible. It just takes an open mind and a bit of study of what else is out there.

Gosh sinister, it's so charming to call a whole group of people stupid and closed minded.

Man is only bound to materialism and his baser impulses only insofar as he lacks the will to put them aside. But that is exactly what is required to get at his true character. This was understood better in ages past than it is today. For the vast majority of people today, religion is more of a vicarious experience (like modern culture in general) than a personal experience. We tend to get what we know from books or what other people tell us (science, clergymen, the media, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, etc.) rather than making the tremendous effort to become acquainted with truth firsthand. Again, this is likely due to the numerous diversions available in our culture. As near as I can tell, only one in a million persons ever turns off the noise long enough to listen to that quiet inner voice. As Israel Regardie wrote, "Everything that can die must die before the Eternal can be expressed." The symbol of Christ (the body) dying on the cross (materialism) was intended to convey this meaning to those who have understanding.



At least you're on the right track there, Although I submit that those things of lesser priority are still given far more priority than they're due by most people. Again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man (i.e., someone who clings to worldly things) to get to heaven.

More class warfare and judgement. If only we all could be as zen as you, Sinister.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Gosh sinister, it's so charming to call a whole group of people stupid and closed minded.


More class warfare and judgement. If only we all could be as zen as you, Sinister.

Sinny. I too feel people are too materialistically oriented, but this is a realization that people only come to on their own. SOrry I was a little bit of dikkhed.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Thanks for your... erm... well-thought-out response, RWA. Perhaps you should put your ego aside for just a few seconds and ponder what I said before jumping to conclusions next time. There is nothing judgemental or class-specific about any of it. When I say "rich man," I'm clearly not referring to the modern sociopolitical conception of "upper class." The rich man may be taken to mean anyone whose attachment to worldly things is stronger than their desire to be free of their dependence on them. That doesn't necessarily mean someone who makes a six-figure income; it applies to most of us equally as well. Again, try not to be so literal-minded and instead consider the spirit of what is being said rather than the letter.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Sinny. I too feel people are too materialistically oriented, but this is a realization that people only come to on their own. SOrry I was a little bit of dikkhed.

You've hit the nail on the head right there, RWA. People should come to self-realization on their own instead of accepting everything they hear.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Thanks for your... erm... well-thought-out response, RWA. Perhaps you should put your ego aside for just a few seconds and ponder what I said before jumping to conclusions next time. There is nothing judgemental or class-specific about any of it. When I say "rich man," I'm clearly not referring to the modern sociopolitical conception of "upper class." The rich man may be taken to mean anyone whose attachment to worldly things is stronger than their desire to be free of their dependence on them. That doesn't necessarily mean someone who makes a six-figure income; it applies to most of us equally as well. Again, try not to be so literal-minded and instead consider the spirit of what is being said rather than the letter.

was I as equally offbase in pointing out your rather rude and elitist assessment of christians?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh yes riches have nothing to do with socioeconomic class.:clap1:

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
was I as equally offbase in pointing out your rather rude and elitist assessment of christians?

Please re-read my post, RWA. I said I understood it was difficult to step outside one's habitual worldview, but not impossible. It does take effort though.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Oh yes riches have nothing to do with socioeconomic class.:clap1:

Let me put this way. Everyone reading this forum has a much higher standard of living than the wealthiest person alive in the time of Christ. We can't see it because we don't consider ourselves wealthy according to modern standards.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Please re-read my post, RWA. I said I understood it was difficult to step outside one's habitual worldview, but not impossible. It does take effort though.

But the premise of your statement is a belief that christians don't do this. That is false. What you said was judgemental, insulting, elitist, and assumptive.

You're an elitist and a revisionist. In your world, after you've been busted being a jerk, You make some crap about how calling people closeminded isn't an insult, and riches have nothing to do with socioeconomic status.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
But the premise of your statement is a belief that christians don't do this. That is false. What you said was judgemental, insulting, elitist, and assumptive.

You're an elitist and a revisionist. In your world, after you've been busted being a jerk, You make some crap about how calling people closeminded isn't an insult, and riches have nothing to do with socioeconomic status.

If I've been "busted" for repeating what wise men have been saying for centuries in contexts other than 21st century America, so be it. You have proven my point that it's very difficult for most of us to put our own localized worldviews aside and ponder these questions in a generic context.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
If I've been "busted" for repeating what wise men have been saying for centuries in contexts other than 21st century America, so be it.

No. If you recall, you were busted for labelling a whole group of people.

You have proven my point that it's very difficult for most of us to put our own localized worldviews aside and ponder these questions in a generic context.

No I haven't. In your world, maybe. But not in actuality.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Budhhism is fundamentally a slave religion. If I were a powermongering emperor, I too would encourage a religion which taught apathy and poverty to my population.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sinister, as an aside. I've talked with people who say that the rich are too attached to stuff. Then I ask if they ever give this advice to the poor people, the ones who really need this advice the most. Apparently that's a suggestion only a monster would make.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
No. If you recall, you were busted for labelling a whole group of people.

My exact words were:

I know it's very difficult for Christians to think about religion in terms other than their own religion, but it's not impossible. It just takes an open mind and a bit of study of what else is out there.

It's unfortunate that you have somehow managed to misconstrue that as "All Christians are narrow-minded." Again, I can only hope that you'll learn to take things as a whole and quit getting hung up on individual words or phrases that you don't happen to like.

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
No I haven't. In your world, maybe. But not in actuality.

Okay, show me where the terms "socioeconomic" or "class warfare" have been used in any ancient religious text. You can't, because they're both concerned with the conception of events and conditions of the last couple of centuries at most.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Budhhism is fundamentally a slave religion. If I were a powermongering emperor, I too would encourage a religion which taught apathy and poverty to my population.

That's funny because that's exactly how peasants were treated in medieval European "Christendom" by both the powermongering clergy and the powermongering royalty.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
My exact words were:

I know it's very difficult for Christians to think about religion in terms other than their own religion, but it's not impossible. It just takes an open mind and a bit of study of what else is out there.

It's unfortunate that you have somehow managed to misconstrue that as "All Christians are narrow-minded." Again, I can only hope that you'll learn to take things as a whole and quit getting hung up on individual words or phrases that you don't happen to like.

Well if you're giving the advice that it "takes an open mind", the obvious implication is that the mind in question is closed. And you were talking about Christians, not anyone else.

I don't get hung up on individual words or phrases. I look at the meaning as a whole. My take on what you wrote remains the same. You should learn to understand what you're actually writing when you write.

Okay, show me where the terms "socioeconomic" or "class warfare" have been used in any ancient religious text. You can't, because they're both concerned with the conception of events and conditions of the last couple of centuries at most.

Riches have to do with socioeconomic status. We don't have to consult the talmud for that.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Sinister, as an aside. I've talked with people who say that the rich are too attached to stuff. Then I ask if they ever give this advice to the poor people, the ones who really need this advice the most. Apparently that's a suggestion only a monster would make.

So my pointing out that the poor in 21st century America are richer than rich people were during the Hellenistic period makes me a monster. I'm sorry if the facts hurt.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
So my pointing out that the poor in 21st century America are richer than rich people were during the Hellenistic period makes me a monster. I'm sorry if the facts hurt.

I'm not referring to anything you've said. I'm saying I've asked people if they give the "don't be so attached to things" advice to the "poor". They think THAT is a monstrous suggestion. R.I.F.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You should learn to understand what you're actually writing when you write.

Now who's being condescending? I know what I mean when I write something. You're the one who's still not getting it although I've rephrased it several times. Please do pull the stick out of your bum and try to be amenable to amplification before you show yourself to be an utter boor.

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Riches have to do with socioeconomic status. We don't have to consult the talmud for that.

By that logic, someone who lives in a ghetto but drives a brand new Cadillac with a Blaupunkt stereo with twelve subwoofers is a member of the upper socioeconomic classes. To me, the salient fact about such a person would be that he's attached to worldly things, not that he's wealthy in a contemporary sense.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Now who's being condescending? I know what I mean when I write something. You're the one who's still not getting it although I've rephrased it several times. Please do pull the stick out of your bum and try to be amenable to amplification before you show yourself to be an utter boor.

Just following your lead. Maybe you know what you mean, but it's not what you wrote. And now come the personal attacks to buttress your clever arguement.

By that logic, someone who lives in a ghetto but drives a brand new Cadillac with a Blaupunkt stereo with twelve subwoofers is a member of the upper socioeconomic classes. To me, the salient fact about such a person would be that he's attached to worldly things, not that he's wealthy in a contemporary sense.

Members of the lower class occasionally stumble across a piece of capitalist booty. That doesn't mean wealth and things are fundamentally dissassociated from socioeconomic status for all time. In fact ,it is still how the majority of us guess at someone's status.