How good is good enough to get to Heaven?

[-Peacemaker-]

I don't think there's one cohesive message of the Bible, so I think it's a bit of a snipe hunt to try and search for a larger context.

But regardless, if we consider the perspective of a parent of a child - even perhaps a child they've disowned, if we want something analogous to what your passages describe - it's still possible to think of things in terms of "need" and not "deserve".

For instance, even if you weren't on speaking terms with your son, but as you were walking down the street one day, you found him on the sidewalk without a pulse, you'd administer CPR, right? Maybe he's been so bad that he doesn't "deserve" any regard from you at all, but I think most reasonable people would think something like "he's still my son; I can't let him die"... wouldn't you agree?

Edit: heck, even set the parent/child angle aside. You'd do at least that much for a stranger, right? I don't know about you, but when I see someone in need, I think "that person needs help; I should give it." I don't generally stop to ask myself whether that person in need "deserves" my help.

Does your God have at least that level of compassion?

Hebrews 12: 5

and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,

“MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;

6FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”




Your metaphor of a parent not on speaking terms with their son does actually find a parallel in Scripture. Here we see that the Lord does not toss his children under the bus when they screw up but tries to rehabilitate them. The line still exists however between those he views as sons/daughters and those he views as enemies. As far as providing for his enemies, that's why Christians believe he sent Jesus, to offer even the worst of sinners a way to Heaven. The catch is that you don't get to be your own god anymore. You have to submit to him by obeying his commandments. Seems like a pretty good deal to me if it's true as his commandments really are pretty reasonable.

1 John 5: 1Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.3For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.4For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.



John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

 

[Alceste]

Hypothetically speaking, if there were a heaven ruled by an omni-benevolent, perfectly compassionate being, he would let anybody in who wanted in. Heck, he'd make whatever afterlife we wanted for ourselves.

I personally wouldn't toss anybody into a lake of fire, and it should not be possible for me to be more compassionate than God, right?

Of course, if your God is not benevolent or compassionate I suppose his decisions could be completely arbitrary.

Either way, not worth worrying about.

 

[Reverend Rick]

How good is good enough to get to Heaven?

Our best efforts are nothing buy filthy rags before him. That is what I believe.

Not one of us is worthy of heaven who has ever walked the earth save one, Jesus Christ IMO.

Heaven is a gift not an entitlement. Your opinion or mileage may vary.

 

[Sir Doom]

Hypothetically speaking, if there were a heaven ruled by an omni-benevolent, perfectly compassionate being, he would let anybody in who wanted in. Heck, he'd make whatever afterlife we wanted for ourselves.

I personally wouldn't toss anybody into a lake of fire, and it should not be possible for me to be more compassionate than God, right?

Of course, if your God is not benevolent or compassionate I suppose his decisions could be completely arbitrary.

Either way, not worth worrying about.

I always figured that anyone who thinks Hell is necessary just gets a Hell in their afterlife that has little burning representations of myself and anyone else they felt deserved it. Its not really me, its just their afterlife projecting what they want. Personally, I find it a kind of victory to think some people probably just couldn't live for eternity without me. Doesn't bother me, I'll be off in my own afterlife doing normal things like ummm... watercolors and what not.

 

[Blackdog22]

Hypothetically speaking, if there were a heaven ruled by an omni-benevolent, perfectly compassionate being, he would let anybody in who wanted in. Heck, he'd make whatever afterlife we wanted for ourselves.

I personally wouldn't toss anybody into a lake of fire, and it should not be possible for me to be more compassionate than God, right?

Of course, if your God is not benevolent or compassionate I suppose his decisions could be completely arbitrary.

Either way, not worth worrying about.

I am sure someone will argue that while he is compassionate he is also just and justice includes torturing people forever. This of course means his justice overrides his compassion as it simply doesn't make sense in terms of an infinitely compassionate God caring enough about justice to cease being compassionate and vice versa. I simply can't make sense of this God in any rational way.


Another argument is God doesn't want to force us to live with him if we don't want too and therefore the "only" possible alternative is burning everyone alive forever. People actually think this way.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I wonder of people realize that the Christian God is merciful and compassionate to the point that he is willing to forgive even the most egregious of sins, except one (the rejection of his son).

 

[Alceste]

I wonder of people realize that the Christian God is merciful and compassionate to the point that he is willing to forgive even the most egregious of sins, except one (the rejection of his son).

Then I suppose I must be more compassionate and merciful than he is. Therefore he is not particularly compassionate and merciful, since I am a pretty normal human being. Most of us would not torture others even a little bit, let alone a lot for all of eternity.

 

[Blackdog22]

I wonder of people realize that the Christian God is merciful and compassionate to the point that he is willing to forgive even the most egregious of sins, except one (the rejection of his son).

What exactly do you mean by "rejection"? Do you mean not believing something on bad evidence AKA being rational not only to the Christian belief, but also rational towards all beliefs? I mention other beliefs because I bet you would suddenly become very rational when it came to determining why Islam isn't a true doctrine for you.

If me simply "not knowing" whether anything regarding the Jesus story is even correct, much less whether he was a God or died for "me" (vs just died) means I reject God then yeah I reject God, but only because I take the same rational stance against Christainity as I would any other religion. I do not make exceptions, I am honest when questioned about what I "know" and I refuse to pretend to know something that I don't and no faith isn't a pathway to truth, it is a dishonest position to hold. I can't reject something that I don't "Know". So how exactly do I reject this being if I don't even know he exists.

I would also point out that your above sentence points to Gods mercy and compassion having a limit. In other words he isn't all merciful, he has exceptions. He doesn't appear any different from you or I and I don't see that as a very god like characteristic. Heck, I know humans with more compassion than that. I can't imagine anyone I know being willing to torture me because I don't believe they have a son I have never seen. Most rational people would understand that id question whether they had a son if he never showed up at any point in my entire life, even the parents. They may laugh at my willingness to call them liars, but torture me or leave me for dead on the street? I am sorry, but you paint a picture of a very evil God under these guidelines.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

More than merely indicating that God's mercy has a limit - it indicates that to god; murder, rape and everything similar have less need for punishment (or 'chastisement' if you prefer) than disbelief (non belief?) regardless of the scale on which they are committed - the murder of millions is as nothing compared to not believing in god? This in effect means that god feels the need to 'chastise' the negative 'effects' of your disbelief towards himself, infinitely more than that of any and all negative effects of actions towards others; to the extent that god's emotional hurt is infinitely more important than any other crime any physical or mental harm to anyone committed on inconceivable scales (genocide for example - is not even slightly comparable to making god feel 'sad' that not every single being worships him).

Now there is nothing to suggest that god must be just or merciful (neither of which would be supported by the above conclusions), however if you wish to assert such characteristics for your god concept, then you are probably going to have to revise some of your assertions about the behavior of that god concept; because the evaluation outcomes that you have indicated are completely divorced from mundane definitions of the term just or merciful. You might use 'divine' definitions of such terms, but that would merely serve to underline that the mundane definitions (the way people actually use the term in real life) do not apply to that concept.

 

[Blackdog22]

More than merely indicating that God's mercy has a limit - it indicates that to god; murder, rape and everything similar have less need for punishment (or 'chastisement' if you prefer) than disbelief (non belief?) regardless of the scale on which they are committed - the murder of millions is as nothing compared to not believing in god? This in effect means that god feels the need to 'chastise' the negative 'effects' of your disbelief towards himself, infinitely more than that of any and all negative effects of actions towards others; to the extent that god's emotional hurt is infinitely more important than any other crime any physical or mental harm to anyone committed on inconceivable scales (genocide for example - is not even slightly comparable to making god feel 'sad' that not every single being worships him).

A good point. I also find it bizarre that the only benefit belief has at all is for the religion itself. If I didn't want a religion to die out and I had no way or proving it was correct and people had no reason to believe it how else would you get someone to believe? Naturally, the worst torture imagineable for not believing. It is a trait I think is more useful for people proposing the belief than it is for any actual God being.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

In the past it may have been so, but now I think it is actually quite detrimental. I think that for a time back while people thought might makes right you could have been correct that such a strategy might have helped spread the religion, but now when we examine such a god concept we have access to a range of philosophical tools (and the luxury of not having so many people try to start the punishment here in the secular world by burning non believers at the stake for example, since curiously they seemed to think god needed a hand getting the ball rolling) that make us look at such concepts and evaluate them - to actually consider not just the factual claims but also the assertions of ethical frameworks. I think in the modern day theological traditions which actually rely on fear and intimidation as a means by which to propagate their faiths actually serve to undermine the capacity for non believers to consider such a god concept 'just', making it harder to suggest that worship of such a concept would be moral, even were the concept true.

Congrats on your 800th post

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I wonder of people realize that the Christian God is merciful and compassionate to the point that he is willing to forgive even the most egregious of sins, except one (the rejection of his son).

Rejection of Jesus as a concept? Jesus as a literal being? Jesus as God? Jesus as son of God? Rejection of Jesus as moral? Rejection of his gender? Ethnicity? Orientation? Marital status? Narrative? Teachings? His title?

The list of possibilities for what possibly can be rejected can go on and on indefinitely.

What if somebody reads the Bible, accepts Jesus' teachings and adopts them as their go-to for everything in their life, and defines that as accepting Christ as their "Lord and Savior" (not the personhood of Jesus, but what he offered). That person regularly contemplates on Bible verses (prays), is grateful every day for the teachings (gives thanks), and recognizes the teachings of Jesus as morally superior to all other teachings available (establishes an exclusivity). And yet....does not believe that the Bible is infallible and even questions the literal historicity of the miracles performed and including the resurrection.

We got one heck of a dilemma here if somebody were to adhere to this their entire lives, only to find that God considers this a "rejection" of Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder of people realize that the Christian God is merciful and compassionate to the point that he is willing to forgive even the most egregious of sins, except one (the rejection of his son).

Would you consider someone "merciful and compassionate" if he treated everyone kindly and generously except for people who eat black jellybeans, who he would kill on sight?

 

[Muffled]

And that would be like sin, how? Are you saying that regardless of whether I believe in sin or not, I'll go to hell because of sin?

I believe people go to Hell if their sin is great enough whether they believe in sin or not. That doesn't mean the ones who don't go to Hell but are still sinners get a great bargain.

I was speaking to someone yesterday who was trying to say that sexual sin like the sin of eating pork was an antiquated concept. I reminded the person that one does not get an STD from eating pork. However if one is wise (and sinners don't seem to fall into this category) one could avoid an STD by using a protective device. However there are other repercussions such as psychologial ones that are more difficult to identify.

 

[Muffled]

Regarding the 'sin' discussion above, I would define 'sin' as behavior that ultimately leads to unhappiness. So it is self-punishing not God punishing.

I believe that to be true. God didn't write laws for His benefit but for ours.

 

[Muffled]

So sometimes, he chooses to act without compassion?

Yes. From our persective it would appear that way.

 

[InChrist]

Rejection of Jesus as a concept? Jesus as a literal being? Jesus as God? Jesus as son of God? Rejection of Jesus as moral? Rejection of his gender? Ethnicity? Orientation? Marital status? Narrative? Teachings? His title?

The list of possibilities for what possibly can be rejected can go on and on indefinitely.

What if somebody reads the Bible, accepts Jesus' teachings and adopts them as their go-to for everything in their life, and defines that as accepting Christ as their "Lord and Savior" (not the personhood of Jesus, but what he offered). That person regularly contemplates on Bible verses (prays), is grateful every day for the teachings (gives thanks), and recognizes the teachings of Jesus as morally superior to all other teachings available (establishes an exclusivity). And yet....does not believe that the Bible is infallible and even questions the literal historicity of the miracles performed and including the resurrection.

We got one heck of a dilemma here if somebody were to adhere to this their entire lives, only to find that God considers this a "rejection" of Jesus.

Jesus has already addressed this dilemma:

But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. John 5:39-40


Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.John 14:6

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yes. From our persective it would appear that way.

Can you, hypothetically, describe a perspective in which infinite torture is compatible with compassion?

 

[Sir Doom]

I believe people go to Hell if their sin is great enough whether they believe in sin or not. That doesn't mean the ones who don't go to Hell but are still sinners get a great bargain.

That's fine, but you must have missed my previous post about Hell. I believe your afterlife will contain a Hell and perhaps you'll get to have a nice perfectly detailed copy of me to torture to your heart's content. But it won't be me no matter what you believe. It will just be you. Torturing someone. Have fun with that.

I was speaking to someone yesterday who was trying to say that sexual sin like the sin of eating pork was an antiquated concept. I reminded the person that one does not get an STD from eating pork. However if one is wise (and sinners don't seem to fall into this category) one could avoid an STD by using a protective device. However there are other repercussions such as psychologial ones that are more difficult to identify.

From my point of view, neither of these things could possibly offend God in any way. Let alone offend him so much as to prepare any sort of afterlife repercussions expressly to demonstrate to you how displeased he is that you copulated with another human and/or ate a gross animal. To me, God is concerned with the life on this planet as a whole. From what I can tell God intends for that life to continue growing and improving itself. As long as that is happening (and it is), then God probably doesn't give a moments thought for any of us. Why would it? Everything is going as planned. God is not my buddy. God is not my daddy. God is something else entirely. If you want to know what God wants, look at what life is doing. That's what God wants life to do. Otherwise God would put a stop to it. The one's who care about these sorts of things are US. Because WE are the one's being wronged. WE are the one's assigning sin. That's why I do not subscribe to such a notion. What I know is that I will do exactly what I intend to do without considering God's opinion on the matter. I notice a fair number of my fellow humans act the same way regardless of professed belief or lack thereof. I also notice that any time 'sin' is applied by any human it seems to fall right in line with the same thing. What they personally would or wouldn't do. Or, its something they do in secret and feel guilty about. That happens a lot too. Totally different subject, though.

Anyway, for me and the view of God that I have defining something as sinful would be nothing more than my arbitrary assignment of God's favor to my own personal views of right and wrong. And that is exactly how I see it coming from anyone else as well, since I obviously don't believe in your God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was speaking to someone yesterday who was trying to say that sexual sin like the sin of eating pork was an antiquated concept. I reminded the person that one does not get an STD from eating pork. However if one is wise (and sinners don't seem to fall into this category) one could avoid an STD by using a protective device. However there are other repercussions such as psychologial ones that are more difficult to identify.

Wait... so the people who use protection while committing "sexual sins" are acting wisely and therefore unlikely to be sinners?