Jesus as Doorway to Heaven

Generally speaking, I like most of the teachings of the Christian religions. They tend to emphasize love, forgiveness, kindness, and virtue. However, there are some points with them that I do have difficulty with. Specifically, there’s that whole notion that only people who believe in Jesus will get to heaven. As for all others, most Christian teachings argue they are condemned to hell.

That last – I find difficult to accept. I was raised Catholic and apparently there is a doctrine known as “Baptism by Desire” – in which individuals who are not Christian, who have never heard the Gospel or even Jesus’ name, will get to heaven by simply leading a good and virtuous life. At least there, that seems like the Catholic Church itself has had issues with this doctrine, too.

Regardless, to me, even with that step taken, I still can’t buy it. I know Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” And, elsewhere He said things like only those who believe in Him will have Eternal Life. And there may be a few other similar statements – coming from His mouth, no less. All together, they seem to condemn those who don’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah/Son of God/The Word or what-have-you. And, for the life of me, I don’t see how not believing the words of a man who lived 2000 years ago, words recorded in a book that is but one of dozens claiming to be the ultimate authority on religion, could possibly justify eternal damnation. I just can’t. It doesn’t make sense to me.

This is the best I can make of the claim. Take Jesus as the Gateway to Heaven. I can accept that it is Jesus who makes the call, that is, the decision as to who will and who will not make it into heaven. I can accept that He judges us based on our works and deeds and our inner thoughts and hearts.  If He wants us in heaven, He can send us there. If He wants us to be reincarnated to live again, He can do that, too. Or, off into Purgatory, or even hell, should He so decide. Although, I do not think hell to be an eternal punishment, but a temporary one, perhaps – still terrible beyond comprehension, but temporary.

Of course, I do know that most Christian sects don’t agree with any of that. They state that it is simply the “belief in Jesus” in and of itself that determines our destination after this Life. Reincarnation is not supported by the Bible. Neither is the idea that someone can be saved without Faith (there’s always an ongoing debate about Faith vs. Works – I lean more on the Works side of that argument) except in the Catholic “Baptism by Desire.”

Anyway, to sum up my position, I think we are saved by works, but it is Jesus who makes the call. He measures our works and our hearts to make that call. And “saving” consists simply in guiding us out of this universe to return to our heavenly home.

But then again, I could be wrong.

A Few Brief Thoughts on Politics and Stuff

Not sure what to say about the escalating tensions in the world.  As I generally suck at politics, maybe I shouldn’t even bother commenting on the current situation(s). But I feel that maybe I should. I kind of think that most people, not involved in governments of any kind, (most, but possibly not all) would be far happier if tensions eased, war was averted, and peace prevailed. I think that would be great. Not sure it’s actually going to happen. But I send out at least one prayer to God every night in hopes that it does.

Take the Israeli-Gaza situation in the Middle East, for example. I think the long-term answer has to be peace in some form or the other, but I just don’t see how to get from point A to point B. I think the Israelis would be glad if peace could be assured. I’m not sure the same is true of the Palestinians. And now Iran is getting into the mix. Lovely.

It is my understanding that the Biden administration has given aid to both Israel and the Gaza Strip and the Iranians, too. Although I think I support the idea of trying to befriend an enemy with the use of aid, I think you have to be a little shrewd and careful about it. If you want to give money to an ally or even weapons and armaments to an ally, I think that’s fine (although I do wish weapons weren’t necessary). Doing the same to an enemy, though, I think is a bad idea. I know a psychiatrist who thought we should try to win them over by building hospitals. However, as they (Hamas) tend to hide hostages and innocents in hospitals, I don’t think that’s a good idea. And, ultimately, I’m not convinced any act of kindness will be enough to diffuse their hate. The choice between hate and forgiveness is just that: a choice. And we can’t make our enemy’s choice for them. At best, we can make a gesture that hopefully won’t be used against us (or even better, can’t be used against us), but whether or not our (or Israel’s) enemies accept that gesture is beyond our control.

But again, I tend to lean toward absolute pacifism, however, that’s something I don’t think a politician should ever do (thanks to Neville Chamberlain). Which is another reason why I think I suck at politics and probably should never get involved beyond the voting booth. And you probably shouldn’t listen to me either, particularly when it comes to politics.

Anyway … just felt inclined to babble.

April Promotions for My Books

Hi all! Just a quick note that I am running promotions for the following three ebooks of mine: “Drasmyr” (free – code: ZW22R), “The Children of Lubrochius” ($1 – code: CM84L), and “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth: A Conversation on Truth, Part 1” (free). The books should be available at Smashwords and/or other retailers to which Draft2Digital/Smashwords distribute – although it may take a little time to register. FYI – Drasmyr and Lubrochius are already up and running on the Smashwords site. And Truth on Draft2Digital. The promotions are running from now until April 30th. Drasmyr and Lubrochius are the first two novels in a dark fantasy series. The truth book is a philosophical dialogue on truth – kind of stylized like something written by Plato. Anyway, give ’em a gander and spread ’em around. Woo hoo!

Freedom is more Valuable than Money

I wrote this post several years ago. My father was alive at the time, and, I think, I was more under the influence of my antichrist issues at the time, too. Anyway, I think it is still worth reading although I’m not sure I agree with everything in it – well, I think I do, just maybe not as strongly. Anyway, read on…

This post is about the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate. Back when I was in college, one of my roommates was a Democratic Socialist (DS). He was a nice guy, who sincerely believed in the cause. I wasn’t really into politics or economic systems at the time (still am not) but we were good friends through college and he left me with a positive outlook on DS. The older I get, though, the more alarmed I get by DS. Count me in the Capitalist camp (CC).

Why?

Because Freedom is far, far more valuable than money. DS strives to redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness.” But suppose one man wants (or even needs) a boat, and another wants (or needs) a car. The best way to fulfill these wants and needs is to let the two respective men make their own choices and buy their own boat or car. The government should not be in the business of picking and choosing goods for its people. Okay, so maybe the government should just supply each man with the money he needs and let him make whatever choice he wants. Okay, but why can’t one man have two boats, if he wants, and leave the other with but one car? Because that would mean they would have disparate wealth. But if the first man was willing to put in twelve hours a day, instead of eight, or find a more efficient way to make money, or maybe even build his own boat … why can’t he keep it? He should be allowed to pursue the acquisition of whatever goods he desires to whatever extent he wants. The second man might not be too into material things. He might be perfectly content with his one car. Maybe that permits him to get by on a thirty-hour work week, half of what the first man works. He finds time to be more valuable than any boat. Why can’t we just let each pursue their own goods without interference from the government? I certainly feel that I am more capable of determining what my material needs are than the government. Forcing someone to purchase a product against their will (cough, Obamacare) is anti-freedom. As for just giving money to this person and that person, that gives the government undue control over each person, because sooner or later, the government will cut off the spigot for whomever displeases it. Then, where are you? Someone must divide the money. Are you suggesting that the division be perfectly equal? Then the guy who wants to work 12 hours a day to get a boat is treated the same as the guy who just wants to work 6. I’m not judging either man, I’m just pointing out that wealth distribution is not something readily amenable to simplistic rules.

Generally speaking, massive centralized governments are a bad idea. They are clumsy, inflexible, and unwieldy. They are also weighed down with inertia. It is true in the private economy that it is the small new businesses that can most readily adapt to and respond effectively to new developments in the market. I see no reason why government wouldn’t follow the same pattern.

For those that want to use government to care for the poor via socialist policies, that too is a bad idea. Dollar for dollar private charities are far more effective. The last time I checked, for every dollar given to government to help the poor, about $0.35 actually reaches the poor person. The rest of the money is consumed by the bureaucracy. That number is likely to get worse as the bureaucracy grows. As I recall, charities average around $0.70 for every dollar. The really good ones get $0.90 or $0.95. Still, I’m kind of up in the air about whether or not government should have any social welfare programs at all (I benefit from two, personally – actually, three, now). Sometimes having a great size has advantages. But I just see the danger of them becoming huge money-sinks that will consume wealth with a rapacious appetite. With that in mind, I think, if we are going to have them, they should rely on voluntary contributions.

Speaking of bureaucracy, the more dealings I have with the U.S. Government, the more I dislike it. Just one example to consider, I recently got medication for my elderly father. Obtaining the medication was delayed because the hospital ER failed to provide a Diagnosis Code. I mean, really? I’m not going to blame the ER for a trivial paperwork error when God-knows how much paperwork they have to deal with. No, this problem came straight from Medicare. You don’t delay medication so you can cross a “t” properly. That’s just stupid.

Speaking of paperwork, let’s talk about its source: the multiplication of Laws. We have more Laws, thanks to the bloated bureaucracy, than we know what to do with. I mean, the Tax Code, is tens-of-thousands of pages long. And Obamacare was like 4000 pages or something stupid like that. I’m a pretty smart guy but I know I can’t keep track of that many laws with my poor mortal brain. When are we going to learn to give the people closest to a situation some leeway based on their own best judgement? I say we get rid of most of the legal code, except the really critical Laws like those against murder, rape, and child molestation. Yes, the antichrist is against excessive laws. Wasn’t I referred to by St. Paul as the Lawless One?

In considering Capitalism and Socialism, my instincts tell me this (like I say my “instincts,” I’m not sure how these would fare under scientific analysis) that Capitalism will “lift all boats”, but perhaps some at different rates. Socialism might lift all boats but far, far more slowly although I am more inclined to think it will sink them in the long run. Last I heard, the United States, the beacon of Capitalism, is responsible for something like 50% of the innovation on the planet. And yet, it has only 5% of the population. From my own experience, in 2009 I traveled to another small city to get access to an MRI machine. About 8 years later, I had three MRI machines as options in my own city. The technology had become more common and more readily accessible, thanks to, I think, Capitalism. I’m inclined to think that in Capitalism, the cutting edge technology is first available to the rich, who, in some ways offer themselves up as guinea pigs to use it. Then, 5 years out, the middle class get access to it. Then, 10 years out, even the poor get access to it. In a socialist system, the cutting edge technology likely advances more slowly and more often than not, is accessible only to those in power. That means, 10 years out only the rich can access the latest technology from 10 years prior; 20 years out, the same. 50 years out, maybe it will reach the poor, but I doubt it. And if this is the situation, which I am inclined to think it roughly is, count me with the Capitalists.

Also, a problem with socialized medicine is that it makes my lifestyle everyone’s business. Can I eat Doritos? Sane people would say it is up to me. But with socialized medicine, everyone else is paying my medical bills and they have a vested interest in keeping me from eating junk food like Doritos. Bite me. I want my friggin’ Doritos when I want them. If they kill me, fine. Blame it on  me.

For my final warning (and Christians won’t like this) against centralized government I will point to Jesus. He was offered control of the planet by Satan, and He turned it down, because He knew it would destroy Him. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.