Do Atheists believe in Heaven?

[ideologyhunter]

Some parables of Jesus

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

Perhaps Learner could explain what Jesus meant by “them.” And what does he mean by “you”? Here he seems to be saying that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given to the disciples, but then why did the disciples ask him why he spoke in parables? If they already knew the secrets of the kingdom of heaven they would have no reason to ask why he spoke in parables.

The quotation is from MT 13. It's even weirder in Mark 4 and Luke 8. Here Jesus is depicted as adding Isaiah 6:10 into his little speech. "To you has been given the secret of the Kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven." In other words he doesn't want to be understood by all those who hear him, even if it means that they will lose everything in the afterlife. This berserk morality is taught by Paul in Romans 9:
"Everything depends, not on what man wants or does, but only on God's mercy...God has mercy on anyone he wishes, and he makes stubborn anyone he wishes. But one of you will say to me, 'If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? Who can resist God's will?' But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Italics added for the cause of common sense.)
It's standard Christian pablum that we are all God's children, and that he desires a love and worship relationship with all of us. For that to be true, Jesus would not be presenting messages to his hearers that they could not understand (and that he says he knew they would not understand) and God would not be making anyone stubborn when presented with his message. But this is Bible Land, and any amount of illogic can prevail. Believe this stuff if you wish, Christians, but don't tell me that "Nothing can separate us from the love of God", because these texts show God and his "son" actively separating people from God and his love.

 

[pood]

Some parables of Jesus

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

Perhaps Learner could explain what Jesus meant by “them.” And what does he mean by “you”? Here he seems to be saying that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given to the disciples, but then why did the disciples ask him why he spoke in parables? If they already knew the secrets of the kingdom of heaven they would have no reason to ask why he spoke in parables.

The quotation is from MT 13. It's even weirder in Mark 4 and Luke 8. Here Jesus is depicted as adding Isaiah 6:10 into his little speech. "To you has been given the secret of the Kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven." In other words he doesn't want to be understood by all those who hear him, even if it means that they will lose everything in the afterlife. This berserk morality is taught by Paul in Romans 9:
"Everything depends, not on what man wants or does, but only on God's mercy...God has mercy on anyone he wishes, and he makes stubborn anyone he wishes. But one of you will say to me, 'If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? Who can resist God's will?' But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Italics added for the cause of common sense.)
It's standard Christian pablum that we are all God's children, and that he desires a love and worship relationship with all of us. For that to be true, Jesus would not be presenting messages to his hearers that they could not understand (and that he says he knew they would not understand) and God would not be making anyone stubborn when presented with his message. But this is Bible Land, and any amount of illogic can prevail. Believe this stuff if you wish, Christians, but don't tell me that "Nothing can separate us from the love of God", because these texts show God and his "son" actively separating people from God and his love.

Well said. Learner?

 

[pood]

Let’s not forget too that in the Bible God declares himself the author of evil.

 

[Elixir]

Ho[w] about Aesop's Fables?

Most concise moral/ethical guidance I ever got.
That might speak more to my moral/ethical depravity than to the quality of old Aesop's material though.

 

[steve_bank]

Hey Jesus, why you talkin' to us in riddles and stuff like dat, ya think we some kinda dumb fishermen or what?


Will ya just speak in plain Greek for once?

 

[steve_bank]

Keep in mind literacy rate was low. Even an HJ minus the supernatural may not have been literate.

If he came from humble status he may have been able to read scripture but not write.

From reporting on the Pakistan tribal areas kids in Islamic schools learn to read and recite scripture, but but are not taught to read as in our primary seduction. General reading and comprehension.

With one or two exceptions his 12 disciples would not have been literate.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some parables of Jesus

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

Perhaps Learner could explain what Jesus meant by “them.” And what does he mean by “you”? Here he seems to be saying that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given to the disciples, but then why did the disciples ask him why he spoke in parables? If they already knew the secrets of the kingdom of heaven they would have no reason to ask why he spoke in parables.

The quotation is from MT 13. It's even weirder in Mark 4 and Luke 8. Here Jesus is depicted as adding Isaiah 6:10 into his little speech. "To you has been given the secret of the Kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven." In other words he doesn't want to be understood by all those who hear him, even if it means that they will lose everything in the afterlife. This berserk morality is taught by Paul in Romans 9:
"Everything depends, not on what man wants or does, but only on God's mercy...God has mercy on anyone he wishes, and he makes stubborn anyone he wishes. But one of you will say to me, 'If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? Who can resist God's will?' But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Italics added for the cause of common sense.)
It's standard Christian pablum that we are all God's children, and that he desires a love and worship relationship with all of us. For that to be true, Jesus would not be presenting messages to his hearers that they could not understand (and that he says he knew they would not understand) and God would not be making anyone stubborn when presented with his message. But this is Bible Land, and any amount of illogic can prevail. Believe this stuff if you wish, Christians, but don't tell me that "Nothing can separate us from the love of God", because these texts show God and his "son" actively separating people from God and his love.

So to me it seems like what I was saying before, at least until that psychopath Paul got his hands on it.

The second bit by Paul seems standard Calvinist bullshit, for all he predates and clearly serves as the inspiration for Calvin.

I can see exactly one interpretation that doesn't paint Jesus the bad guy, and that's the idea that Jesus thought that "the secret of the kingdom of heaven" would be dangerous in the hands of malignant people, and that they who should not be "forgiven" might be those who would seek mercy in bad faith.

That's an excessively generous interpretation of Jesus, however.

Paul is simply irreconcilable.

 

[steve_bank]

Consider the kingdom may have been a physical location. One of the disciples may have been a Jewish militant. If an HJ had a following there are several possibilities. Any organized Jews may have been seen as a threat to Rome. Secret locations and secret knowledge.

Thousands of years of translations of translations with no original sources. The four gospels written in the samee tie frame differ.

Any interpretation is a reading of he tea leaves.

In Garden Of Gethsemane Paul was armed with a sword.

To Jews good was Israel and evil was Rome. Interrogation in terms of current events and culture.

Armageddon refers to a real place, the ancient city of Megiddo in northern Israel, derived from the Hebrew "Har Megiddo" (Mount Megiddo), a strategic valley known for historical battles, but it also symbolizes the final, apocalyptic conflict in religious prophecy. While the Jezreel Valley area (Plain of Megiddo) is vast, Megiddo itself was a key city, making it a fitting location for the prophesied gathering of armies.

Book of Revelation: The term "Armageddon" appears in Revelation as the place where kings gather for the final battle between good and evil.

Armageddon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can see how this is all a bottomless well for both theist and secular.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The ancient beliefs of the Jews of themselves are in general fairly harmless. For instance they believed that a Messiah would arise. But then you get the Christians who say that that Messiah is here, and all the problems that arose and arise from that belief. Plus they borrowed ideas that they liked from the Jewish beliefs and rejected other Jewish ideas that they didn't like. Plus their strange attitude towards Jews, even though their Messiah was Jewish they act like he was a non-Jew and anti-Jewish, hence the pogroms and Holocaust and so on.

 

[steve_bank]

Ancient Jewish beliefs harmless?

Gaza today in large part is based in Jewish Zionism. The belief that Jews today based in the bible have a right to the land because over 2000 years ago a god gave it to them.

Ancient Jews had the harsh punishments of Leviticus. They were not much differ than any of the other ancient cultures.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Ancient Jewish beliefs harmless?

Gaza today in large part is based in Jewish Zionism. The belief that Jews today based in the bible have a right to the land because over 2000 years ago a god gave it to them.

Ancient Jews had the harsh punishments of Leviticus. They were not much differ than any of the other ancient cultures.

I am not fond of Israel either. However, without Christianity this bad situation would never have arisen. Sure many ancient beliefs are bad, but most of those cultures and many of their beliefs have disappeared.

 

[steve_bank]

I am not anti anybody in general. Ancient Jews were no better or worse than any others.

Early Christians co opted Jewish scripture and a Jewish Jesus as their own.

Paul got rid of some of the Jewish requirements. Evangelical Christians today pick and choose. In Leviticus they ignore the dietary rules but hang on to strong homophobia in Leviticus.

In a broad sense Christianity is ancient Judaism. They quote the bible and Jewish prophets, and claim to live by it. They map ancient Jewish scripture into modern times.

 

[unapologetic]

For me? I never said the purpose of going to heaven was just about me.

So who the hell do you think you are, making (after)life desisions for other people?

Huh? You are asking "why I am making decisions for other people?"

I am not asking why. I asked "Who do you think you are?"

... the promises according scripture are merely read and repeated ...

So something YOU have no direct actual knowledge of.

Ego doesn't do humility!

Your religion doesn't do humility.
'We speak for the ultimate authority, the creator of everything. YOUR OWNER, god his own self.' Even silent impoverished monks are just frontmen for the heaven/hell protection racket.

We can work on your misunderstanding of the biblical concept of humility.

No thanks. I'm saying the 'biblical concept of humility' ('I'm not worthy', kiss the ass of gwad) is fucked-up.

Uncannily, you seem to be in the right direction below:

instructed them to follow His example by serving one another.

So do that. Help people in this life. instead of helping the church sell it's protection racket.

Are you telling me you acknowledge / recognise this part that says 'we should 'follow his example to serve one another..?

( I am wondering what gave me away that " I was helping the church sell it's protection racket"? )

Yes, serve one another. It is irrelevant what you use as an example.

Tell me with evidence, Jesus never existed and I may possibly change my mind.

Jesus' existance is irrelevant. Show me with evidence, your/Jesus' master (gwad almighty) ever existed and I may possibly change my mind.

If there was an all loving god, why the fuck would he care what someone believed?

Dam right. He wouldn't give a shit. It is a mortal cult/church gaslighting you.

you can only enter the Kingdom of Heaven through Jesus himself.

This is the protection racket. Gawd created a hell we are all going to. But pledge fealty to gwad's hippy son and be saved.

long long before email was invented, the bible was sent thousands of years ago from someone who's still there now.

And the bible is proof. (sarcasm)

I don't need to make counter arguments in perspective of your paradigm versions of what you think the Christian doctrines mean.

Maybe you should step outside and take an unbiased look at what your church is teaching you.

There you go - that's all it takes, it's up to you! No one is forcing heaven upon you.

You are selling BS to folks who are not in the market for it. I consider that attempted 'force'. Spam.
Why are you even in this forum?

The RCC hold on power rests on getting people to believe the only way to heaven is through the RCC and its priests.

Without heaven there is no Christianity.

R'amen.

Celestial (heaven) -- no blowjobs

On the contrary.
Learner said: Heaven = contentment.
I say: Contentment = blowjobs.
Therefore: Heaven = blowjobs.

 

[steve_bank]

I see, The Fellatio Heaven Hypothesis.

Sounds male Chauvinist, is there no Cunnilingus Heaven Hypothesis?

 

[unapologetic]

Sounds male Chauvinist, is there no Cunnilingus Heaven Hypothesis?

I wouldn't rule it out.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It was going to be a thing, but they could only find one seraph who would go down on Mother Angelica -- Mopey. When he got his corrective lenses, he quit.