[gagaslilmonsteruk]

I don't know a great deal about Buddhism, but I think if you are good enough in this life and follow the eightfold path, which I don't think looks too difficult, you will make your way to Nirvana or the next cycle up (I can't remember accurately)

[KickingKat88]

No one can decide if you are going to heaven other than the Lord himself. I am sure many devout Christians often ask themselves this question. I know I do.

[Bright.Inspiration.]

You sound decent, if I was god I'd let you into heaven

[CallumTM]

No you can't get into heaven. Why you ask? Because it doesn't exist. You die and get put in a hole in the ground or you get burnt and put in a pot or whatever. That is it as far as i'm concerned...

[bellazz]

if u believe in GOD then u must also believe in the teachings which he has sent.. try to read out books and believe what makes sense for you.

[Okashira]

When it comes to Heaven, it's not coincidence that people think we get there by good works. That if you're good enough, you will go there. Yet anyone can see just by looking at this life, not everyone has equal opportunity to do a lot of good. Some of us are born into the most heinous of situations. Some of us are born only knowing evil as the proper way to live. (Such as growing up in bad neighborhoods)

Even if you do all the good in the world, you can destroy all of it just by one evil act. So if good works was the condition of getting into Heaven, how much good do you have to do? Do we have to consider motive? (Are you doing good works because it is the right thing to do, or are you doing good works simply to get into Heaven?) Do people who grow up in extremely bad situations have a chance at Heaven?

The truth is, if Heaven exists, it's not likely at all you get in because of good works. Why? Works can be voided. For instance, a baby could die without any works, good or bad. If this baby get into Heaven, it wouldn't be fair to anyone who is judged based on works. We would all wish we died at childbirth.

So if Heaven does exist, the only way you will get in is by knowing God personally. That you enter God's house by invite. Either that or you must be God's child, because a good father always receive their children. (Unless as I stated in a previous post, the child is grown and couldn't care less for his parents) That is the relationship God wants to restore with all of us.

[mare?]

(Original post by Flyteryder)
I believe there's a God and that there's a Heaven and Hell. I don't think I have to tie that to a specific religion.

These concepts are vague if you do not link them to a specific philosophy/religion. Not that you have to in order to understand them.. but maybe you should start your quest for redemption with some sort of conceptualisation. It might help clear your thoughts.

You could do this by reading different interpretations of these concepts and thus different answers to "life's big questions" after which you can hopefully decide which works for you.. or perhaps even form your own answers? I don't know, just brainstorming with you. Best of luck

[Xotol]

(Original post by Okashira)
When it comes to Heaven, it's not coincidence that people think we get there by good works. That if you're good enough, you will go there. Yet anyone can see just by looking at this life, not everyone has equal opportunity to do a lot of good. Some of us are born into the most heinous of situations. Some of us are born only knowing evil as the proper way to live. (Such as growing up in bad neighborhoods)

Even if you do all the good in the world, you can destroy all of it just by one evil act. So if good works was the condition of getting into Heaven, how much good do you have to do? Do we have to consider motive? (Are you doing good works because it is the right thing to do, or are you doing good works simply to get into Heaven?) Do people who grow up in extremely bad situations have a chance at Heaven?

The truth is, if Heaven exists, it's not likely at all you get in because of good works. Why? Works can be voided. For instance, a baby could die without any works, good or bad. If this baby get into Heaven, it wouldn't be fair to anyone who is judged based on works. We would all wish we died at childbirth.

Okay, let's run with that...

So if Heaven does exist, the only way you will get in is by knowing God personally. That you enter God's house by invite.

I don't understand. What do you mean by 'knowing God personally' and how is the invite criteria decided? How can a baby or, for example, a tribal person isolated from Christianity know God personally?

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
Okay, let's run with that...



I don't understand. What do you mean by 'knowing God personally' and how is the invite criteria decided? How can a baby or, for example, a tribal person isolated from Christianity know God personally?

Matthew 18:3-5

We are told to enter heaven with the innocence of a child. Even Jesus when he was on earth said to never stop children from coming to him because "the kingdom of heaven belongs to them"

I think we can safely say that babies don't go to hell.

In regards to those who do not know of Jesus, again look at the Old Testament. Not a single person prayed to Jesus. Not even Abraham prayed to Jesus. No one even knew who Jesus was because he had not come yet. Are they all in hell..?

If one truly does not know, they will not go to hell. But if one does know but chooses to reject the message of Christ, they will go to hell 100%.

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
Matthew 18:3-5

We are told to enter heaven with the innocence of a child. Even Jesus when he was on earth said to never stop children from coming to him because "the kingdom of heaven belongs to them"

I think we can safely say that babies don't go to hell.

Okay. I'd like to know if you (or other Christians) believe that is fair.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
Okay. I'd like to know if you (or other Christians) believe that is fair.

Yes I believe it's fair. Any Christian I have ever known believes it's fair. My church believes it's fair. You are free to ask Christians on this forum though.

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
Yes I believe it's fair. Any Christian I have ever known believes it's fair. My church believes it's fair. You are free to ask Christians on this forum though.

Well, yeah. Do you understand why some people do not think it's morally fair though?

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
Well, yeah. Do you understand why some people do not think it's morally fair though?

No I don't. It's entirely fair.

Is it also morally unfair that a child is born with AIDS just because his mother has it too? Or is it just that we are all unique and thus are born with individual pros and cons.

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
No I don't. It's entirely fair.

Is it also morally unfair that a child is born with AIDS just because his mother has it too? Or is it just that we are all unique and thus are born with individual pros and cons.

It's your God, not mine.

I think it's entirely morally unfair that babies (or people isolated from Christianity for that matter) get a free pass into heaven without being subject to the judgement of belief. We spend ~70 years that are, in all honesty, infinitely ****ty compared to the eternal bliss of afterlife, and there's ultimately the chance that we don't find reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. We could end up in eternal hellfire for lacking in belief. The actions do not seem to match the consequences. I don't believe anything could.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
It's your God, not mine.

I think it's entirely morally unfair that babies (or people isolated from Christianity for that matter) get a free pass into heaven without being subject to the judgement of belief. We spend ~70 years that are, in all honesty, infinitely ****ty compared to the eternal bliss of afterlife, and there's ultimately the chance that we don't find reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. We could end up in eternal hellfire for lacking in belief. The actions do not seem to match the consequences. I don't believe anything could.

Yeah YOU think. So? What exactly have you proven? That you have an opinion?

Cue applause....?

What you have said in no way means anything objectively.

I believe that God provides a standard of morality. Human beings too have inherent morality but it is not objective (in that it is not eternal).

As you may very well know...the standards of human morality are constantly changing, temporally, geographically and even individually.

The standards of God's morality do not shift that way. They are objective and eternal.

In that sense of morality, no I do not see anything wrong with a baby going to heaven without believing in Christ.

Edit: also, just know one thing. As an atheist (I assume you are), you morality is absolutely worthless. Why? because if you had lived in the stone ages, you morality would have been quite different and if you had lived in Nazi germany as hitler's top confidante, again your morality would have been entirely different.

Your type of morality is laughable...it is so easily malleable depending on situation, time period and context. There is nothing firm or solid about it. Why should I give a hoot about what you think is moral or otherwise? Tomorrow, you could wake up and have totally different morals.....

You can say nothing objective in such topics.

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
Yeah YOU think. So? What exactly have you proven? That you have an opinion?

Cue applause....?

What you have said in no way means anything objectively.

Well of course not, but that's not my point. God could be in favour of infanticide and genocide and it still wouldn't have any bearing on his objective existence.

I simply said why I don't think it was fair at all - and, unless you can rationally explain to me why it is fair that babies get a free pass to heaven while we don't, I won't be changing that opinion. Your God may exist, but I don't think he's really worth worshipping.

It might mean nothing objectively (and, tbh, not many atheists can make a valid objective moral argument against a theist), but it might be some food for thought.

I believe that God provides a standard of morality. Human beings too have inherent morality but it is not objective (in that it is not eternal).

As you may very well know...the standards of human morality are constantly changing, temporally, geographically and even individually.

The standards of God's morality do not shift that way. They are objective and eternal.

In that sense of morality, no I do not see anything wrong with a baby going to heaven without believing in Christ.

That's fine. I just found it odd that you couldn't understand that some people may find it unfair. If someone doesn't believe in your God, they might find rational reasons to disagree with your position. All you've said so far is 'God says so', which is perfectly valid if your God exists, but do you actually have any logical reasoning apart from that? For example, I assume that Christ's preaching of love and respect have a deep rooted message that don't entirely depend on 'emulate me because I said so'.

Edit: also, just know one thing. As an atheist (I assume you are), you morality is absolutely worthless. Why? because if you had lived in the stone ages, you morality would have been quite different and if you had lived in Nazi germany as hitler's top confidante, again your morality would have been entirely different.

Yes, I have not denied that.

Your type of morality is laughable...it is so easily malleable depending on situation, time period and context. There is nothing firm or solid about it. Why should I give a (for lack of a better word) damn about what you think is moral or otherwise? Tomorrow, you could wake up and have totally different morals.....

I don't see how because the morality I possess isn't eternal or objective, it's laughable?

Just like that, I can say your morality is laughable. What stops me from making up a new religion, saying that I have sufficient evidence to believe in this all-powerful 'God', and adhering to the rule that this God says that I should kill babies? In this instance, the morality I believe would be based on objectivity, would it not?

You can say nothing objective in such topics.

Yes, once again, I have not denied that.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
Well of course not, but that's not my point. God could be in favour of infanticide and genocide and it still wouldn't have any bearing on his objective existence.

I simply said why I don't think it was fair at all - and, unless you can rationally explain to me why it is fair that babies get a free pass to heaven while we don't, I won't be changing that opinion. Your God may exist, but I don't think he's really worth worshipping.

It might mean nothing objectively (and, tbh, not many atheists can make a valid objective moral argument against a theist), but it might be some food for thought.

EDIT: wait for me to respond to the rest before you respond.

Stay on topic. We aren't discussing God's existence here.

Edit: and sure, I will wait.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
That's fine. I just found it odd that you couldn't understand that some people may find it unfair. If someone doesn't believe in your God, they might find rational reasons to disagree with your position. All you've said so far is 'God says so', which is perfectly valid if your God exists, but do you actually have any logical reasoning apart from that? For example, I assume that Christ's preaching of love and respect have a deep rooted message that don't entirely depend on 'emulate me because I said so'.

Well no I still do not understand why it is unfair. Regardless of whether I believe in God or not, the life we are born in is unique to us and there is absolutely nothing moral about the circumstances we are born in. Just as one can be born with beautiful hair, or another be born as an autistic savant or yet another who is born with diabetes...I see absolutely nothing moral or immoral about any of them. And the reason is because we are all born unique, into unique situations. We have absolutely no control over it. How can we call something like that moral or immoral? Morality comes into play when we DO have a choice.

let's say for example that God created every single person the exact same. Let's also say that we had absolutely no free will and were rather like robots. Would morality even exist at this point? Nope, because there is nothing moral or immoral about things that DO NOT HAVE CHOICE.

This is the fundamental point I am trying to get across to you.

So babies and people who haven;t heard of Christ going to heaven is not at all immoral or moral...there is no element of choice. I hope you can see this.

I don't see how because the morality I possess isn't eternal or objective, it's laughable?

Just like that, I can say your morality is laughable. What stops me from making up a new religion, saying that I have sufficient evidence to believe in this all-powerful 'God', and adhering to the rule that this God says that I should kill babies? In this instance, the morality I believe would be based on objectivity, would it not?

Okay, perhaps I was a little harsh in calling it laughable. What I meant was, that because it is so vulnerable to extraneous effects of time, location, personal beliefs, etc, it is not a type of morality that can be relied upon. The contrast I was making was that God's morals are the same for everyone, irrespective of time, geography, opinion, etc. Thus, they are more reliable (in fact eminently reliable) because you can be confident that they will not alter.

[pyjamatrousers.]

(Original post by Flyteryder)
I'm gay and I have gay sex a lot. I drink and get drunk; not in moderation. I'm lusftul, jealous and lazy. I've never raped, murdered, stolen, been violent, vandalised etc and I never plan to. I don't believe in any religion, so I don't believe in a prophet like Jesus or Mohammed. Even after all that I believe I'm a good person. I believe that there's a god, but that's it. Can I get into Heaven/Paradise/whatever might be out there, or am I too corrupted?

According to Christianity, all you need to do to get to Heaven is to believe in Jesus Christ and believe that he died for your sins. Because you can't make it to Heaven by yourself, that's why God sent Jesus to die for us

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
Well no I still do not understand why it is unfair. Regardless of whether I believe in God or not, the life we are born in is unique to us and there is absolutely nothing moral about the circumstances we are born in. Just as one can be born with beautiful hair, or another be born as an autistic savant or yet another who is born with diabetes...I see absolutely nothing moral or immoral about any of them. And the reason is because we are all born unique, into unique situations. We have absolutely no control over it. How can we call something like that moral or immoral? Morality comes into play when we DO have a choice.

This is morality on God's part. I know I don't have any authority over an omnipotent being, but I think I am allowed to question his judgement criteria with the morals this society deems acceptable, especially considering I don't actually know whether he exists at the moment. I have not contested the fact that people are born different, but this shouldn't have any say on your fate in the afterlife. As far as I know, having beautiful hair, being autistic, or being born with diabetes does not have any direct bearing on whether I go to heaven or hell. However, if I died as a baby, I would definitely go to heaven. For eternity. How is that morally justified, apart from 'God says so'? Again, why do some humans get a free pass to heaven while I have to slave away in a ****ty life for ~70 years at risk of being tortured forever.

If your answer is 'God says so', fine. But I'm curious if you have any other explanations that isn't based on that line of reasoning.

let's say for example that God created every single person the exact same. Let's also say that we had absolutely no free will and were rather like robots. Would morality even exist at this point? Nope, because there is nothing moral or immoral about things that DO NOT HAVE CHOICE.

This is the fundamental point I am trying to get across to you.

So babies and people who haven;t heard of Christ going to heaven is not at all immoral or moral...there is no element of choice. I hope you can see this.

You've completely misunderstood my position it seems. Of course, a baby is 'not' immoral for going to heaven since it didn't choose. However, God chose this.

Okay, perhaps I was a little harsh in calling it laughable. What I meant was, that because it is so vulnerable to extraneous effects of time, location, personal beliefs, etc, it is not a type of morality that can be relied upon. The contrast I was making was that God's morals are the same for everyone, irrespective of time, geography, opinion, etc. Thus, they are more reliable (in fact eminently reliable) because you can be confident that they will not alter.

No, that's not true at all. Unless you can virtually show without doubt that your God does exist (which you can't - since that seems to go against the whole point of faith), they are not entirely reliable. What if the God I posited is true instead? Let's just say that he rules that babies that die go to hell - that directly contradicts what your God says. So which is more reliable?

Human and societal morals, on the other hand, change based on what we perceive to be correct at the time. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. They evolve as we evolve (socially).