Will you make it to Heaven? Cont.

[VincitVeritas1]

Feel free to join me in a discussion about Heaven according to the Holy Bible/ Christianity in general.

@pointythings

Mine is much shorter:

1) Do no harm

Very noble but not so simple to achieve! (Reminds me of my poor old Mum, if you remember, upthread) Which is why I turn to Christ...

I’m not sure why you think it’s impossible to be Christ, can you please expand.

@Kdtym10, maybe it would help to reframe the question. How is it possible to be as/like Christ without following Him and recognising His authority?

Do no harm is indeed difficult. It requires thought and consideration of everything you do. That's why I like it. It's so much more useful than blindly following a set of rules.

On the issue of consuming blood, I would say that this rule came into being for health reasons, but should be reviewed. When you kill an animal for food, you owe it to the life you have taken to use all of it. Hence black pudding. I don't care for it myself but I applaud it as an example of respect for the animal. Wastefulness is not a virtue.

As for death metal: not my kind of music, though I love some gentler forms of metal music. Linkin Park saved my sanity when my marriage was falling apart around me. Listening to angry music on the way home let me get those feelings out and be my best caring self at home. Some people use prayer, others have other methods. And just as there are death metal lovers who are the kindest, gentlest people (they do tend to be sweethearts), so there are Mozart lovers who are raving hateful awful people. Judging people by music, clothes, tattoos etc is shallow.

@pointythings

Judging people by music, clothes, tattoos etc is shallow.

Agreed, but the op did say it was a personal list. (My angry music has included John Grant 'Glacier' and Rage Against The Machine. 😁)

It's so much more useful than blindly following a set of rules.

@pointythings, but I don't see Christianity as this either.

Please: What can you do if you are genuinely worried you won't make it to Heaven?

@Fetchthevet as a Christian? Believe in Jesus Christ. In Him and what He has done for us rather than what we do as we don't 'earn' our way into Heaven.

Not your flavour of Christianity, certainly. I am less sure about others. Faith without thought is meaningless.

In the kindest way, if this is taking up much thought and you are worried about it, the best thing you can do is seek therapy.

if you are worried and anxious you leave your mind open to all sorts of corrupting influences, there are many people claiming to have god on their side who will abuse any vulnerability.

Im a very spiritual person, but you need to make sure you build your spiritual temple on solid ground and that means making sure your mind and body are in a fit state to withstand the demands of a spiritual journey.

Heaven is a state not s place.

Well let’s look at what the title Christ means. Christos is the Greek translation of Mashiach - the Jewish messiah. Both mean “the anointed one”.

But what does that mean? It means chosen for a special purpose. This was often marked out by the anointing of oil, eg the anointing of kings and priests.

In Judaism the Messiah was to have the special purpose of saving the Jews. Although from memory there have been several Mashischs identified St Cyprian comes to mind - but would need to check my memory is shit these days.

Therefore, anyone chosen for a special purpose by the divine can become Christ on the fulfilment of this purpose (Jesus arguably only fully became Christ after he died).

From Mark (really the only synoptic gospel I pay much notice of) it appears God chose Jesus after his baptism.

In the world I inhabit, everyone has a divinely created purpose, often called their “True Will” The spiritual journey is finding out what this is and realising it, often through self sacrifice (like the crucifixion).

Christ consciousness is reaching an enlightenment on an intellectual, emotional and spiritual level and has been reached across time and geography, eg the Buddha.

There is no need to recognise Jesus’s “authority” he’s a good example and offers much guidance but his purpose was different to mine, God chose him for a different task.

I believe the blood prohibition is New Testament (from Paul I think? In Acts). There was quite a bit of debate in the early church as to whether Gentile converts had to follow Jewish dietary requirements or be circumcised, and there are several different passages in the NT discussing this.

Basically the conclusion was that a non-Jewish follower of Christ wouldn't need to, and that everyone should eat according to their own conscience but consider others' consciences so as not to be a stumbling block to them (given certain foods and practices would have been very taboo).

AFAIK the prohibition on consuming blood goes back to the covenant with Noah and is therefore meant to apply to all nations and for all time, not just the Jewish people. So it seems Paul continued this teaching; however Jesus also said very clearly that it's what comes out of the mouth that makes us unclean, not what goes in!

I think you could make a good argument that Paul's restriction was meant for the context of promoting Jewish and Gentile harmony in Jerusalem at the time, as blood would be a particular issue and was also associated with idol worship.

It's not given for 'health and safety' reasons but ritual purity, symbolism and the idea that the life or even soul of the animal is in its blood.

@Kdtym10, I understand what you are saying but it is distinctly different from my Christian beliefs in that I do recognise the authority of Christ. I believe we can all follow Christ and become more and more like Him, closer to full unity with Him/God in our lives. This is in accordance with (mainstream) Christian beliefs which I know you have moved away from. So much so that you don't really identify as Christian. Just as you don't really 'pay much notice of' a large proportion of the Bible.

Really trying to reason our way in and out of Christian based beliefs and faith becomes nonsensical, like comparing apples to oranges as you are speaking from a perspective which rejects much of that in which I believe and place my faith in.

You’re correct in that I have moved away from what many people consider “Christian” as I believe that is a man made construct designed primarily for the purpose of gaining power and (corresponding) wealth. I believe stripping away those kinds of layers leads us back to the true message. One that can really only be understood symbolically. That to me is “true Christianity) not a group of rules carefully selected, added to and destroyed/hidden by a group of power hungry men (which is what the orthodox view has become). I mean look at the rather ridiculous list of sins above! How many of those are mentioned in the bible? How many come from tele evangelists or their less technologically enabled predecessors?

But at the end of the day people can believe whatever they like. But God gave us brains and intellect for a purpose.

Mmm don’t get me started on Paul! Whilst some of the things he had to say were interesting and helpful (as they had been before he appropriated said concepts) I really think greater attention needs to be paid to his possible motives. We certainly shouldn’t be building entire religions on his interpretation.

Going back to the blood thing in Genesis. Yes blood had a spiritual significance, it related usually to activities in the temple. But for the vast majority it was for health and safety, reinforced by an overlay of spiritual significance. There’s many similar examples of rules in the OT.

not a group of rules carefully selected, added to and destroyed/hidden by a group of power hungry men (which is what the orthodox view has become).

@Kdtym10, and you think that's what I follow? Have you read my posts?

I know you're not a fan of Paul, just giving the New Testament context for what you mentioned.

Obviously Christianity is built on Christ, not Paul - although he did write a lot of the NT (as far as we know). Lots of controversy over different passages (and many beautiful ones as well) but I think he's a fascinating character.

I wouldn't presume to cast doubt on his motives as someone who was called by God, accepted by the apostles and ended up being martyred for his faith. I'm sure he was imperfect, but God doesn't require perfection thankfully.

But for the vast majority it was for health and safety, reinforced by an overlay of spiritual significance.

And who made things healthy or unhealthy? The Creator.
I think you're making an unneccesary distinction there and you seem to be making assumptions about motivations again. Maybe let the people of those times speak for themselves.

@Mustardseed86 those prohibitions were written in the context of their time. We live in different times. There is no reason for anything to be set in stone; everything should be open to scrutiny, challenge and change. The Bible doesn't prohibitions slavery, but slavery is now considered a crime. Tradition for tradition's sake leads to complacency and stagnation.

Sure. I haven't said otherwise.

Oh I do let them speak for themselves - well the very narrow representation we can.

Tbh most of them are mentioned in the Bible or can be understood as coming under the same category of things (whether it be drugs, non-Christian religious practices). According to traditional Jewish beliefs tattoos are not acceptable, but that isn't a Christian one.

Personally I'm not as strict or literal with all of the things on that list, but you can't really argue it's unbiblical. It just depends on whether as a Christian you believe certain things are contextual for their time, or are still relevant.

I would seriously question how much Christianity, as people generally think of it, was built on Jesus more than Paul given his overwhelming dominance in the authorship of the NT.

I think it’s right to question motives, history is written by the victors

OK. Where does it say not eating blood is for health reasons?

I was saying this is what people following Pauline Christianity as embellished over the years by the orthodox (with a small o) follow.

Yes, but from a Christian POV the New Testament is inspired scripture. I don't think anyone forced the early Christians to listen to Paul or include his words in the eventual canon of Bible, as far as 'winners' go it was simply what was accepted by the church in its infancy. I don't see any contradiction between Jesus's teachings and the letters of Paul etc; in fact Paul is generally dated a bit earlier than the written Gospels so that would be a bit strange if so. Obviously we can agree to disagree there! 🙂