It was kind of funny... but kind of pathetic at the same time that many athetists dedicate themselves to convince people not to believe. Mainstream Christianity could give a crap about atheists or non-believers... its like shopping at a specific store... either you're in or you're out... whatever. The Catholic Church has been around for nearly 2000 years and its survived greater problems then some angry atheists or ######ed fanaticals.
Its these evangelical, fanatical, zealots who can barely read, let alone explain what the Bible is actually trying to say which give Christianity a bad name. Here's a hint, it was never meant to be literal... Best example is the quote "it is easier for a camel to walk through an eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven." Does that mean a sewing needle? In that case, the Bible says we all have to be poor! Oh Noes!
An Eye of a Needle is actually the translated name of the city entrances in much of the Holy Land in that time. They were slightly too short for a camel, so they would have to kneel.
What it really says is basically to live with some humility and respect. Who knew? Obviously not these weirdos, and clearly not many of these atheists.
Whether Jesus existed or not and was divine is subject to scrutiny, but by no means does it detract from the strong morals and personal value system it has created, and the numerous benefits to Western society.
Last edited by Thunderball; 01-10-2008 at 11:09 PM.
but kind of pathetic at the same time that many athetists dedicate themselves to convince people not to believe.
No more pathetic than someone that dedicates themselves to convince people TO believe. It's human nature to try and share your way of thinking with others and to try and convert them over, be it over religion, lack of religion, or sports team.
However most atheists don't concern themselves with deconverting, they don't believe you go to hell for believing, they just believe you are wasting your time.
Quote:
Whether Jesus existed or not and was divine is subject to scrutiny, but by no means does it detract from the strong morals and personal value system it has created, and the numerous benefits to Western society.
Mostly agree, though I wouldn't totally agree about the benefits to society, at least overall. It's been shown in a study that religiosity and quality of life do not go hand in hand, in fact there's a negative correlation (more religious countries in the first world democracies tend to have more homicides, teen pregnancies births and abortions, STDs, juvenile deaths, etc).
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I look at the Old Testament as a collection of 'stories'....written to perhaps teach us a few moral lessons, but certainly not to be taken as the literal way to follow God.
So the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) isn't meant to be taken as a way to follow God? I'm sure the Jews of the world would take offense to that comment.
And what moral lessons are we supposed to learn from the Old Testament? That God is a genocidal monster who on numerous occasions murdered thousands of innocent children? That it is better to freely offer a woman to be gang-raped by a mob than to allow homosexual acts to be committed? That if a woman cannot find a husband, she should get her father drunk, seduce him, and then become impregnated by him?
Quote:
It was kind of funny... but kind of pathetic at the same time that many athetists dedicate themselves to convince people not to believe.
And how is that different from the millions of evangelical Christians who make it their life's mission to "save" non-believers?
Quote:
Mainstream Christianity could give a crap about atheists or non-believers
You're quite wrong on that point. If that was the case, then Christianity could exist in the privacy of homes and churches and atheists wouldn't care one iota what they believed. It's because Christians try to push their views on us that we're compelled to push back. Every atheist I've ever met would be more than content if Christians just left us alone and kept their beliefs and moralty to themselves, rather than try to force it on society at large.
Quote:
Its these evangelical, fanatical, zealots who can barely read, let alone explain what the Bible is actually trying to say. Here's a hint, it was never meant to be literal
Ok, if the Bible isn't meant to be literal, then does God really exist and did he create the universe? Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Did Jesus really die on the cross and then ressurrect from the dead three days later? What parts are a retelling of actual historical events and what parts are merely allegory? How do you know?
No more pathetic than someone that dedicates themselves to convince people TO believe. It's human nature to try and share your way of thinking with others and to try and convert them over, be it over religion, lack of religion, or sports team.
However most atheists don't concern themselves with deconverting, they don't believe you go to hell for believing, they just believe you are wasting your time.
Which is why the mainstream Christian faiths abandoned conversion of the heathens/evangelism at least 100 years ago. If you don't, you don't. You might regret it, you might not. It's Pascal's Wager to the mainstream... whats the worst thing that can happen if you do believe and there isn't a god? What's the worst thing that can happen if you don't believe and ther is a god? Does it really hurt? Does it mean I have to go nuts about it? Depends on who you ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Mostly agree, though I wouldn't totally agree about the benefits to society, at least overall. It's been shown in a study that religiosity and quality of life do not go hand in hand, in fact there's a negative correlation (more religious countries in the first world democracies tend to have more homicides, teen pregnancies births and abortions, STDs, juvenile deaths, etc).
Well, considering Western society's laws are based primarily from the Bible, with marginal imput from Plato, and other Ancient writings... I'd say the benefits are pretty substantial. Not to mention the Church was the one who saved most of the ancient texts through the dark ages, invented the printing press, brought about some of the most beautiful architecture on Earth and put greater emphasis on altruism and outreach then most governments...
As well, you're right... to a degree. Being religious does not make you a good person, and not being religious does not make you a bad person.
I think you might find that religious countries in first world democracies argument doesn't hold up well. France, Italy and Spain (countries with the highest permeation of Catholic believers per capita) do not have those problems at a higher extent as say, atheist and agnostic bastions like Canada and the United States. They actually have the lowest birth rates in the world, and their abortion rate is not even close to the US.
I think that I'd need to see some stats to back up that claim... which I don't believe exist. You'd have to prove that its the "devout" people that are suffering these the most, then you'd have to show which specific christian sect they are, and then you'd have to prove that its a function of religion and not liberal society. There really is no way to prove that argument, just like there's no way I could successfully say that religious people commit more crimes than atheists. The stats just don't exist because there's no real measure of piety, and degree of devoutness.
So you point out that Christianity as well as atheists has their more vocal groups who spend more time attacking and belittling than they should, but atheism is a religion of intolerance but Christianity isn't?
I think there's plenty of criticism to go around, to single one group out and lump them all together as more intolerant than the other seems a bit extreme.
Yes I'm generalizing but, I really haven't been given or seen any other preoccupation within the atheist religion. If they have any higher purpose in forming their organizations I've missed it.
I do see atheism as a religion of intolerance. As for Christianity there is certainly intolerance within it's large canopy but, there is also areas where there is none. There have been a post or two on this very thread by people holding Christian beliefs who wouldn't even go as far as to speculate on the eternal destination of one who lives and dies outside of the Christian faith.
I personally fall into a group that would be considered intolerant by most here. I'm comfortable with that because I don't see tolerance as a Christian virtue. I think that the Bible presents a very narrow path to salvation: Faith without works. Within all the sects that identify themselves as Christian very few embrace this teaching. Almost all sects adds works to salvation either in the earning of salvation or the maintaining of this coveted position. I see this as folly. They've missed the narrow path.
But my brand of intolerance would never harm those who hold different beliefs. Nor would I attempt to silence dissent. Jesus had very sharp words for those who weren't following Him but, He never attempted to silence them or send them away. One of the tenants of my faith is soul liberty. We must receive freely.
My pointing out the obvious intolerance(obvious to me) of the atheist religion was merely a reaction to their unfair generalization of Christianity. I don't know any Christians who attempt to kill those of other faiths or delight in the lost going to eternal damnation. I know within Christianity folks like this have existed and no doubt still do. The point is this is a small minority and doesn't represent the general aims or accomplishments of Christianity. Conversely, intolerance appears to a very good adjective to describe atheist sects aims and accomplishments.
So the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) isn't meant to be taken as a way to follow God? I'm sure the Jews of the world would take offense to that comment.
They can take offense all they want. Creationism has been disproven, and even before it was, the logistics of two people was not sound, and the Bible itself prohibits brothers and sisters from having intercourse. If creation was literal, brothers and sisters would have had to at some point, no? Genesis was a way to explain the universe to people thousands of years ago. It could have still been a divine explanation, written in a way that one would attempt to explain something very complex to a toddler... who knows?
And what moral lessons are we supposed to learn from the Old Testament? That God is a genocidal monster who on numerous occasions murdered thousands of innocent children? That it is better to freely offer a woman to be gang-raped by a mob than to allow homosexual acts to be committed? That if a woman cannot find a husband, she should get her father drunk, seduce him, and then become impregnated by him?
The Old Testament is a tricky subject that I'll admit I didn't learn a whole lot about it when I studied theology in University. However, one theory is the Old Testament was meant to frighten people into adhering to a responsible code. To believe this line of thinking is to believe in a God who can make errors. This tact changed to one of openness and love in the New Testament.
And how is that different from the millions of evangelical Christians who make it their life's mission to "save" non-believers?
I don't speak for evangelical christians. Personally, as a Catholic, I think many pervert Christian theology for their own gain or simply out of ignorance. To compare the Roman Catholic Church to Jehovah's Witnesses is as insulting as calling a Chinese man Japanese. There is a huge difference.
You're quite wrong on that point. If that was the case, then Christianity could exist in the privacy of homes and churches and atheists wouldn't care one iota what they believed. It's because Christians try to push their views on us that we're compelled to push back. Every atheist I've ever met would be more than content if Christians just left us alone and kept their beliefs and moralty to themselves, rather than try to force it on society at large.
It does exist in the privacy of homes and churches... and schools. Mainstream Christianity forces itself on no one. I mean, Christmas and Easter are mainstream Christianity's most sacred occasions, and yet they don't force the religious aspect... they might say they're irritated, but that's about it.
Ok, if the Bible isn't meant to be literal, then does God really exist and did he create the universe? Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Did Jesus really die on the cross and then ressurrect from the dead three days later? What parts are a retelling of actual historical events and what parts are merely allegory? How do you know?
I don't know... neither do you. Does God exist? Maybe, but unless you can definitively prove he doesn't, he may as well. Did Moses part the Red Sea? Likely not. It was probably a simple explanation for a natural event, or a metaphor for crossing out of slavery to salvation. Did Jesus die on the cross? Well, there are some historical pieces that point to someone loosely resembling Jesus dying on the Cross. Did he rise? Maybe. There's a reason its called faith. There is a finite amount of information one way or the other. The majority of the New Testament is meant as stories (perhaps based on real events) but written so well as to provide different meanings to different people with a few overriding beliefs and values for people.
Yes I'm generalizing but, I really haven't been given or seen any other preoccupation within the atheist religion. If they have any higher purpose in forming their organizations I've missed it.
I do see atheism as a religion of intolerance. As for Christianity there is certainly intolerance within it's large canopy but, there is also areas where there is none. There have been a post or two on this very thread by people holding Christian beliefs who wouldn't even go as far as to speculate on the eternal destination of one who lives and dies outside of the Christian faith.
I personally fall into a group that would be considered intolerant by most here. I'm comfortable with that because I don't see tolerance as a Christian virtue. I think that the Bible presents a very narrow path to salvation: Faith without works. Within all the sects that identify themselves as Christian very few embrace this teaching. Almost all sects adds works to salvation either in the earning of salvation or the maintaining of this coveted position. I see this as folly. They've missed the narrow path.
But my brand of intolerance would never harm those who hold different beliefs. Nor would I attempt to silence dissent. Jesus had very sharp words for those who weren't following Him but, He never attempted to silence them or send them away. One of the tenants of my faith is soul liberty. We must receive freely.
My pointing out the obvious intolerance(obvious to me) of the atheist religion was merely a reaction to their unfair generalization of Christianity. I don't know any Christians who attempt to kill those of other faiths or delight in the lost going to eternal damnation. I know within Christianity folks like this have existed and no doubt still do. The point is this is a small minority and doesn't represent the general aims or accomplishments of Christianity. Conversely, intolerance appears to a very good adjective to describe atheist sects aims and accomplishments.
why do you keep calling it the atheist religion? the meaning of the word itself is to have a complete lack of religion. there is no church, there is no supreme leader, there is no book of rules, and before this recent storm of christians trying to force their way into politics and law there were no real organized groups of atheists of any kind. in fact, there still aren't, the most you'll get out of placing a group of atheists together is a protest group. i don't see many out there calling Greenpeace or PETA religions (though they certainly have enough wackjobs in each to qualify)
Which is why the mainstream Christian faiths abandoned conversion of the heathens/evangelism at least 100 years ago.
Not all though, most of the churches I've gone to my life have been very into evangelism. Plus all the TV evangelists, revivalists, etc.. it's not dead yet.
Quote:
Well, considering Western society's laws are based primarily from the Bible, with marginal imput from Plato, and other Ancient writings... I'd say the benefits are pretty substantial. Not to mention the Church was the one who saved most of the ancient texts through the dark ages, invented the printing press, brought about some of the most beautiful architecture on Earth and put greater emphasis on altruism and outreach then most governments...
Fair enough, I think I'd be impossible to really quantify all the positives and negatives and add them up to some net positive or negative.
Quote:
As well, you're right... to a degree. Being religious does not make you a good person, and not being religious does not make you a bad person.
Definately agree.
Quote:
I think you might find that religious countries in first world democracies argument doesn't hold up well. France, Italy and Spain (countries with the highest permeation of Catholic believers per capita) do not have those problems at a higher extent as say, atheist and agnostic bastions like Canada and the United States. They actually have the lowest birth rates in the world, and their abortion rate is not even close to the US.
I think that I'd need to see some stats to back up that claim... which I don't believe exist. You'd have to prove that its the "devout" people that are suffering these the most, then you'd have to show which specific christian sect they are, and then you'd have to prove that its a function of religion and not liberal society. There really is no way to prove that argument, just like there's no way I could successfully say that religious people commit more crimes than atheists. The stats just don't exist because there's no real measure of piety, and degree of devoutness.
There was a study done not too long ago, over 800 million people over many countries, and the result of the study was basically what I said; there's a correlation between how religious the country was and how poor its quality of life was. The US was of course leading the pack but the trends overall were there as well.
I'm not claiming there's any causation there, but it does speak to the often made claim that religious societies are "better off".
Not all though, most of the churches I've gone to my life have been very into evangelism. Plus all the TV evangelists, revivalists, etc.. it's not dead yet.
Evangelical Christianity is NOT what is considered a mainstream Christian sect. They be on TV and they may have a lot of stooges... but they lack the history, governance, connection to the original Church, and international recognition that the Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, Anglican Church, Calvinist sects and other significant Protestant churches have. They also lack any ecumenical ties (desires to unify belief and understanding between other Christian faiths). The Catholic Church for example has signed documents of ecumenical understanding with the Lutheran, Anglican and Methodist churches. Hell, in Calgary, the Catholics and Lutherans share a church with blessing from both sides.
Fair enough, I think I'd be impossible to really quantify all the positives and negatives and add them up to some net positive or negative.
Agreed... but they did provide an awful lot of positives.
There was a study done not too long ago, over 800 million people over many countries, and the result of the study was basically what I said; there's a correlation between how religious the country was and how poor its quality of life was. The US was of course leading the pack but the trends overall were there as well.
I'm not claiming there's any causation there, but it does speak to the often made claim that religious societies are "better off".
That was an interesting article, thanks for posting it. I think all it really proved is the United States is a very screwed up case. Everyone was in a reasonable range considering that most mainstream Christian sects allow fairly liberal deviation from dogma... usually that's a good thing. Sometimes, well... the rates in the US speak for themselves.
why do you keep calling it the atheist religion? the meaning of the word itself is to have a complete lack of religion. there is no church, there is no supreme leader, there is no book of rules, and before this recent storm of christians trying to force their way into politics and law there were no real organized groups of atheists of any kind. in fact, there still aren't, the most you'll get out of placing a group of atheists together is a protest group. i don't see many out there calling Greenpeace or PETA religions (though they certainly have enough wackjobs in each to qualify)
I guess this would be a good time to bust out one of my favorite lines.
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.
Yes I'm generalizing but, I really haven't been given or seen any other preoccupation within the atheist religion. If they have any higher purpose in forming their organizations I've missed it.
Well atheism isn't an organization, so you can't really attribute any kind of attributes to it.
Quote:
I do see atheism as a religion of intolerance.
How is saying "There's no evidence that there is a God" or "I think the evidence shows there's no God" intolerant. That you keep calling it a religion doesn't make it so. What guiding tenant of atheism makes it intolerant?
Quote:
As for Christianity there is certainly intolerance within it's large canopy but, there is also areas where there is none.
You've just described every group of people on the planet. As for atheism there is certainly intolerance within it's large group of diverse people who happen to not believe the same thing, there is also areas where there is none. As for Islam.. As for hair stylists... Every group has it's variety.
I've met far more intolerant Christians than I have met intolerant atheists, that's for sure.
Not to mention that religious intolerance defined by Christianity.. before Christianity, most everyone believed in many gods, and which ones you worshiped depended on where you lived and such, but it wasn't much of a big deal. Christianity established intolerance as they pretty much founded the idea that a religion was about what you believed, not what you did (ritual sacrifice, traditions, etc, kind of stuff found in the OT). And if you didn't believe correctly, you were excluded. That was new to religion at the time, Christianity was the one that introduced it.
Sorry, got sidetracked a bit there.
Quote:
There have been a post or two on this very thread by people holding Christian beliefs who wouldn't even go as far as to speculate on the eternal destination of one who lives and dies outside of the Christian faith.
But some would, whereas no atheist will speculate on the eternal destination because to them it doesn't matter. How does that make an atheist intolerant?
Quote:
I think that the Bible presents a very narrow path to salvation: Faith without works. Within all the sects that identify themselves as Christian very few embrace this teaching.
Very similar to what I've been taught all my life; salvation is a gift, it can't be earned only accepted.
However that doesn't have anything to do with atheism being intolerant.
Quote:
But my brand of intolerance would never harm those who hold different beliefs.
How can a lack of belief harm those who hold a belief? It's not like atheists are saying all faith should be outlawed.
Quote:
My pointing out the obvious intolerance(obvious to me)
Maybe to you but not to anyone else.
Quote:
The point is this is a small minority and doesn't represent the general aims or accomplishments of Christianity. Conversely, intolerance appears to a very good adjective to describe atheist sects aims and accomplishments.
So you speak for all Christianity now?
You've hand waved and made all kinds of outrageous claims about how the percentage of Christians who have motives other than your own are very low, but that almost all atheists can be characterized by intolerance.. now you have to back those up.
The basic tenants that all atheists adhere to and how those are intolerant should be a good start.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I don't know... neither do you. Does God exist? Maybe, but unless you can definitively prove he doesn't, he may as well. Did Moses part the Red Sea? Likely not. It was probably a simple explanation for a natural event, or a metaphor for crossing out of slavery to salvation. Did Jesus die on the cross? Well, there are some historical pieces that point to someone loosely resembling Jesus dying on the Cross. Did he rise? Maybe. There's a reason its called faith. There is a finite amount of information one way or the other. The majority of the New Testament is meant as stories (perhaps based on real events) but written so well as to provide different meanings to different people with a few overriding beliefs and values for people.
I wish no one would use this argument again. Ever.
Here's an example:
What if I were to tell you that I believed that a magical pink elephant with wings lived in the centre of the earth. It could telepathically communicate with everyone on the planet, and even had the power to answer your prayers. Would you believe me? No? Why not? You can't prove that the elephant doesn't exist. Using this logic, there are a million things that you should believe in simply because they can't be dis proven. Goblins, unicorns, Zeus...you get my point.
The fact is is that no one (including atheists) can definitively disprove the existence of anything. That being said, we do have to look at these claims objectively and figure out the probability of said being existing based on evidence (or lack thereof), and just plain rationality and common sense.
While I'm on the subject, I'd also like to point out another flaw in your argument. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Just as the burden would fall on me to prove the existence of the elephant, it also falls on you to prove the existence of your god. Neither I nor anyone else has any responsibility to disprove your claim.
I wish no one would use this argument again. Ever.
Here's an example:
What if I were to tell you that I believed that a magical pink elephant with wings lived in the centre of the earth. It could telepathically communicate with everyone on the planet, and even had the power to answer your prayers. Would you believe me? No? Why not? You can't prove that the elephant doesn't exist. Using this logic, there are a million things that you should believe in simply because they can't be dis proven. Goblins, unicorns, Zeus...you get my point.
The fact is is that no one (including atheists) can definitively disprove the existence of anything. That being said, we do have to look at these claims objectively and figure out the probability of said being existing based on evidence (or lack thereof), and just plain rationality and common sense.
While I'm on the subject, I'd also like to point out another flaw in your argument. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Just as the burden would fall on me to prove the existence of the elephant, it also falls on you to prove the existence of your god. Neither I nor anyone else has any responsibility to disprove your claim.
I just had to get this one off my chest.
This Richard Dawkins video clip sums up my post perfectly.
I wish no one would use this argument again. Ever.
Here's an example:
What if I were to tell you that I believed that a magical pink elephant with wings lived in the centre of the earth. It could telepathically communicate with everyone on the planet, and even had the power to answer your prayers. Would you believe me? No? Why not? You can't prove that the elephant doesn't exist. Using this logic, there are a million things that you should believe in simply because they can't be dis proven. Goblins, unicorns, Zeus...you get my point.
The fact is is that no one (including atheists) can definitively disprove the existence of anything. That being said, we do have to look at these claims objectively and figure out the probability of said being existing based on evidence (or lack thereof), and just plain rationality and common sense.
While I'm on the subject, I'd also like to point out another flaw in your argument. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Just as the burden would fall on me to prove the existence of the elephant, it also falls on you to prove the existence of your god. Neither I nor anyone else has any responsibility to disprove your claim.
I just had to get this one off my chest.
But who needs the argument... if you believe there's a 10 armed blue guy in the centre of the earth, go nuts. Who are atheists to tell believers they're wrong? Who are believers to tell atheists they're wrong?
That whole argument you hate is Pascal's Wager. Its been used to defend the existence of God, and recently, to promote the climate change agenda. Essentially, if God exists and you don't believe in him, the end result is way worse than if God doesn't exist and you believe in him. Therefore, I may as well believe in God just in case.... just like with Global Warming... if it does exist and we do nothing... the end result is way worse than if it doesn't exist and we go nuts trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
My burden of proof is only relevant if I'm trying to convert you. I'm not. I could care less what you believe in. I'm just opposed to both atheists and fanatical christians getting all aggressive in their agendas one way or the other.
Personally, I think the CP forums should ban religious arguments on this site altogether. They go nowhere and it just seems to get everyone's dander up since its such a volatile subject.
Sorry, I should have been more clear in what I was looking for.
Please cite specific passages from the Bible that form the basis of the laws of Western society.
Well, the 10 Commandments are a pretty obvious one... primarily the seven earthly commandments.
Aside from that, they're sprinkled throughout both testaments... I'm a little tired to go rooting through a Bible... I don't even know if I still have one.
Its definitely a major source though, its pretty tough to argue that.
Edit: I did find my compilation of readings from Poli 401... some specific ones to look up:
Leviticus 25: 21 (Basic Property Laws)
Deuteronomy 5 (Basic Conduct), 23, 24 (Lending, Usury Laws, etc.), 27 (Property Laws)
Psalm 15 (Perjury)
Mark 10 (Basic Conduct, Civil Code... not literal)
Acts 5 (Basic Financial conduct, basis for evasion... not literal, very contextual)
There are others, but they're pretty contextual and I can't remember what they meant.
Last edited by Thunderball; 01-11-2008 at 12:58 AM.
ok i'm not trying to insult or flame anyone, but this is pure curiosity. what's the difference between the old and new testaments, aren't both supposed to be the word of god? if there are so many discrepancies between the two, did god change his mind? and what about all the passages that were written which didn't make the final cut into the bible, who was in charge of determining what was and wasn't the true word of god?
The Old Testament is named such because within it you find the Old covenant given to Moses and Israel on mount Sinai. When you think of testament think of a last will and Testament. It's basically a contract or promise between God and man. In the Mosaic covenant God promised Israel to dwell within their mist and be their God. He also promised them the land of Canaan which includes all of the land Israel occupies today and more. The covenant was conditional on them following a very strict set of religious and civil law. The ten commandments was a tenor of the whole law meaning that it was a part that represented the spirit or intent of the whole. The other condition was that they obeyed every thing God would command them in future.
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament state that Israel failed to obey God and keep the covenant. The New Testament in fact tells us that the law was given as a school master to lead us to Christ. Meaning that through the law we became aware of our sin and inability to measure up to God's standard. Through knowing God's standard and our own weakness we recognised our need for a Saviour.
The new Testament or covenant promises that God would write His law upon our hearts and we would Know Him. The word know meaning an experiential knowledge like you know parents or a dear friend. It's more than just knowing a few facts about somebody. Furthermore he promises to remember our sins no more. This covenant was first given to Israel and extended to the world. Heaven is just a promise Jesus gave to his followers. This wasn't promised in the Old Covenant. The after-life wasn't really talked about in the Old Testament. In the New covenant there is no promise of land. The new covenant is conditional upon faith(basically taking God at His word). But as many as recieved Him to them gave He power to become sons of God even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
As for your question on who decided what got into the Bible it is a little complicated. The Old was decided by a Jewish council. They basically acknowledged the Books that pretty much everybody accepted as being written under the inspiration of God. The new Testament was recognized officially by a council of churches using the same method. They looked at more than acceptance of the book or letter but, that's the jist of it.
