[koko298]

(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?

Heaven and Hell are God's. He is the One to put you in either one of those, not Religion I think so. If your belief makes you a better person, then let it be, why not? If something you believe in makes you a bad person, then I don't think thats right

[CAC]

(Original post by Politricks)
Well, a Muslim can see this and equally say, "But the bottom line remains the same! God is a fair and just god. And the only way to get into heaven is to profess that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger, no other way!"

Anyway, how is your god just and fair? If somebody simply doesn't know that your god, Jesus, is really the true god, out of the thousands upon thousands of gods that people claim are true, and somebody makes the mistake of simply believing in the wrong god, and they get sent to hell just for that - then how is that fair?
Is, or is not, the criteria for getting into your idea of heaven, simply being gullible enough to believe the outlandish out-of-the-norm stories of the Bible?

To answer you question...

Fortunately for us, God is not fair. Fairness would mean that everyone receives exactly what he or she deserves. In many people’s minds, fairness is everyone being treated the same. If God were completely fair, we would all spend eternity in hell paying for our sin, which is exactly what we deserve. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23) and are therefore worthy of eternal death (Romans 6:23). If we received what we deserve, we would end up in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15). But God is not fair; instead, He is merciful and good, so He sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross in our place, taking the punishment that we deserve (2 Corinthians 5:21). All we have to do is believe in Him and we will be saved, forgiven, and we will receive an eternal home in heaven (John 3:16).

However, despite God’s loving grace, no one would believe in Him on his own (Romans 3:10-18). God has to draw us to Himself in order for us to believe (John 6:44). God does not draw everyone, but only certain people He has sovereignly chosen (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:5, 11). This is not “fair” in our eyes because it appears God is not treating all people equally. However, God does not have to choose anyone. Again, it would be entirely fair for everyone to spend eternity in hell. God saving some is not unfair to those who remain unsaved, as they are receiving precisely what they deserve.

Those whom God has chosen are receiving God’s love and grace. But, when God draws our hearts and opens our minds, we all have the opportunity to respond to the revelation of the creation (Psalm 19:1-3), as well as the conscience God has put within us (Romans 2:15), and turn to God. Those who do not will receive what they truly deserve because of their rejection of Him. Those who reject Him receive the punishment that is fair (John 3:18, 36). Those who believe are receiving far more, and much better, than what they deserve. No one, though, is being punished beyond what he or she deserves. Is God fair? No. Thankfully, God is much more than fair! God is gracious, merciful, and forgiving--but also holy, just, and righteous.

[Politricks]

(Original post by CAC)
To answer you question...

Fortunately for us, God is not fair. Fairness would mean that everyone receives exactly what he or she deserves. In many people’s minds, fairness is everyone being treated the same. If God were completely fair, we would all spend eternity in hell paying for our sin, which is exactly what we deserve. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23) and are therefore worthy of eternal death (Romans 6:23). If we received what we deserve, we would end up in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15). But God is not fair; instead, He is merciful and good, so He sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross in our place, taking the punishment that we deserve (2 Corinthians 5:21). All we have to do is believe in Him and we will be saved, forgiven, and we will receive an eternal home in heaven (John 3:16).
However, despite God’s loving grace, no one would believe in Him on his own (Romans 3:10-18). God has to draw us to Himself in order for us to believe (John 6:44). God does not draw everyone, but only certain people He has sovereignly chosen (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:5, 11). This is not “fair” in our eyes because it appears God is not treating all people equally. However, God does not have to choose anyone. Again, it would be entirely fair for everyone to spend eternity in hell. God saving some is not unfair to those who remain unsaved, as they are receiving precisely what they deserve.

Those whom God has chosen are receiving God’s love and grace. But, when God draws our hearts and opens our minds, we all have the opportunity to respond to the revelation of the creation (Psalm 19:1-3), as well as the conscience God has put within us (Romans 2:15), and turn to God. Those who do not will receive what they truly deserve because of their rejection of Him. Those who reject Him receive the punishment that is fair (John 3:18, 36). Those who believe are receiving far more, and much better, than what they deserve. No one, though, is being punished beyond what he or she deserves. Is God fair? No. Thankfully, God is much more than fair! God is gracious, merciful, and forgiving--but also holy, just, and righteous.

Circular reasoning.

Perhaps this almighty god (there are thousands of almighty gods to different peoples), if he were real, should provide compelling evidence of his own existence, unless he does that, it would be unfair of him to punish somebody for simply not knowing that he's actually real; to believe that Jesus died for your sins, would mean that you have to believe the Bible, and there's no compelling evidence that the Bible is the 100% true word of god. People don't choose what they believe, there is no choice in faith, people are only compelled to believe in something if they see a good reason to do so. Before you tell me that there are a lot of people who do see a good reason to believe in the Bible and convert to Christianity, let me reminds you that there are also a lot of people who also see a good reason to believe in the Qur'an and convert to Islam.

Your barrage of bible verses are virtually meaningless to me, your bible verses are no more special than the Qur'an, The Book of Mormon, or the Hindu scriptures.

[iamthestig]

Personally, I would say it's not up to any of us to tell you whether you can get into heaven. That would be judgemental.

What I will say is, you could perhaps make a decision with an informed conscience, read around faiths, etc and come to a decision for yourself. As a Christian myself, I would say it depends very much on whether you have a liberal or conservative mindset and whether you consider historical cultural aspects of the Bible or if you're an absolutist.

I can't answer it for you, none of us can, it's on your own conscience i'm afraid. Though in my view, we're all sinners, nobody's perfect, and all sins are as bad, but I think forgiveness is always possible if you think you need it and you want it.

[CAC]

(Original post by Politricks)
Circular reasoning.

Perhaps this almighty god (there are thousands of almighty gods to different peoples), if he were real, should provide compelling evidence of his own existence, unless he does that, it would be unfair of him to punish somebody for simply not knowing that he's actually real; to believe that Jesus died for your sins, would mean that you have to believe the Bible, and there's no compelling evidence that the Bible is the 100% true word of god. People don't choose what they believe, there is no choice in faith, people are only compelled to believe in something if they see a good reason to do so. Before you tell me that there are a lot of people who do see a good reason to believe in the Bible and convert to Christianity, let me reminds you that there are also a lot of people who also see a good reason to believe in the Qur'an and convert to Islam.

Your barrage of bible verses are virtually meaningless to me, your bible verses are no more special than the Qur'an, The Book of Mormon, or the Hindu scriptures.

At the end of the day we both have our views and opinions and i can see that your have strong opinion. To be honest no matter what i say it wont make a difference, and i dont have time to be going back and forth. So i we just agree to disagree and wait and face the consequences of our actions.

[CAC]

(Original post by iamthestig)
Personally, I would say it's not up to any of us to tell you whether you can get into heaven. That would be judgemental.

What I will say is, you could perhaps make a decision with an informed conscience, read around faiths, etc and come to a decision for yourself. As a Christian myself, I would say it depends very much on whether you have a liberal or conservative mindset and whether you consider historical cultural aspects of the Bible or if you're an absolutist.

I can't answer it for you, none of us can, it's on your own conscience i'm afraid. Though in my view, we're all sinners, nobody's perfect, and all sins are as bad, but I think forgiveness is always possible if you think you need it and you want it.

i agree! But im not judging im just stating beliefs about life after death and the criteria in which heaven can be obtained based on the bible.

[iamthestig]

(Original post by CAC)
i agree! But im not judging im just stating beliefs about life after death and the criteria in which heaven can be obtained based on the bible.

Yes I know that, sorry, I was just replying in general to the OP

[CAC]

(Original post by iamthestig)
Yes I know that, sorry, I was just replying in general to the OP

Oh okay, no problems!

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
It seems to me that your intention was entirely futile because I have never denied the existence of a human's subjective morality?

And I have never asserted that you denied that. If you recall, I said:

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

To which you replied 'no'. I then tried to explain to you why some people could have problems with it, and this is partly because subjective morality exists.

I think you have misstated your goal. What you were supposed to do was show me that subjective morality was more reliable then objective. If you recall, the word "reliable" was the central theme of this discussion.

Is this misunderstanding of my argument deliberate on your part or not? We did talk about reliability, but in completely different contexts. I argued that subjective morality (i.e. social moral constructs) are more reliable than objective morality of God [X] if we do not know whether God [X] exists beyond reasonable doubt. I already explained why - I could propose an infinite amount of invisible beings with their own conflicting moral compass and we wouldn't know which one is right or not.

However, under the assumption that your God exists, I have never claimed that human morality is more reliable. You've basically built up a strawman and decided to spend walls of text taking it down.

Instead of getting into long-winded semantics, let's just simplify things.

Situation 1:
Baby is born
Baby dies
God decides to accept baby into heaven

From the baby's perspective: moral
From God's perspective: moral

Situation 2:
Baby is born
Baby dies
God decides to put baby in hell

From baby's perspective: immoral (unfair)
From God's perspective: moral (I have demonstrated earlier why this is so)

Now, in these situations whether God puts the baby in heaven or hell...the only time that a change in morality occurs is for the subject of the situation: the baby. Morality does not change for God. And an outsider is really in no position to make a call on this. Sure, they can have an opinion on it...I wouldn't deny that...but their opinion has absolutely zero bearing on whether the actual situation is moral or otherwise.

Why? They are affected by the decision because they could so easily feel that God has done injustice - after all, they are directly involved in the criteria God uses to send people to heaven or hell. While a baby is automatically sent to heaven because they cannot be judged on their belief, an adult may be sent to hell because they are. That is the critical difference. They may not have an important opinion, but they still have an opinion. And I would argue that it is just as important as the baby's opinion because they are all human and undergoing the same judgement process.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
Why? They are affected by the decision because they could so easily feel that God has done injustice - after all, they are directly involved in the criteria God uses to send people to heaven or hell. While a baby is automatically sent to heaven because they cannot be judged on their belief, an adult may be sent to hell because they are. That is the critical difference. They may not have an important opinion, but they still have an opinion. And I would argue that it is just as important as the baby's opinion because they are all human and undergoing the same judgement process.

Because having an opinion on something means absolutely jack all when it comes to an actual evaluation of the subject of that opinion.

For example: you may think terrorism is good. I may not think terrorism is good. But does either of our opinions have any shred of affect on whether terrorism is ACTUALLY good? Nope.

This is why I said that the opinion of an outsider means nothing.

The only person who has absolutely any meaningful authority to comment on something is the person experiencing it.

You and I can pass opinion and pretend we know what we're talking about, but it is all useless because our opinion is based on absolutely nothing, and is thus completely worthless.

Which brings us back to to my original point that outsiders have no real reason say in stuff that they either have not experienced, or have no knowledge about. Like you, they may pretend to have a say (by stating their opinion) but what grounds does that opinion have of being valid? Absolutely no grounds. It's just useless talk based on nothing...

Buddy, mentally imbalanced people have opinions too and they so do ignorant people like the KKK. So what? What's your point? That people have opinions? Wow what brilliant insight! Do we consider the opinions of the imbalanced or of the ignorant? Nope...because as I have stated over and over again...those opinions mean NOTHING.

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
The only person who has absolutely any meaningful authority to comment on something is the person experiencing it.

...But we would be experiencing it? In the event that your God exists, I (and many many others) will probably be tortured in ravaging flames for all of eternity while the baby enjoys a free pass to heaven. Ultimately, it is God's choice to implement a specific criteria for sending people to heaven and hell - and you and I will all be affected by that. If the baby or the person experiencing it has a valid opinion on the subject then I should too if I'm suffering the same fate.

Having said that, if you admit that the only entity that has any valid opinion on the subject is God (and not the baby or anyone else), I think we can actually move on from this conversation.

Buddy, mentally imbalanced people have opinions too and they so do ignorant people like the KKK. So what? What's your point? That people have opinions? Wow what brilliant insight! Do we consider the opinions of the imbalanced or of the ignorant? Nope...because as I have stated over and over again...those opinions mean NOTHING.

Quick point, I'd appreciate it if you could tone it down when you're debating. You sound pretty condescending here. Thanks.

[filmore]

(Original post by Xotol)
It's no different to, for example, a God that sends all people not part of the Aryan race to hell. Objectively, he is still God and infinitely more powerful than us. Subjectively, we may have our different opinions and issues with that decision.

Nice debate. Only I think you are not being very successful defending a static model of God. This last example (disretized in space and in time) is actually a nice illustration of how a God can be rejected by humanity and get stripped of the omnis.
I thought the whole point was to try and create a dynamic model with, dare I say, a god-mortals feedback loop (we all know that it exists in practice, after all at each historic period it was a select group of mortals who decided what was defoned as objectively moral, for example).

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
...But we would be experiencing it? In the event that your God exists, I (and many many others) will probably be tortured in ravaging flames for all of eternity while the baby enjoys a free pass to heaven. Ultimately, it is God's choice to implement a specific criteria for sending people to heaven and hell - and you and I will all be affected by that. If the baby or the person experiencing it has a valid opinion on the subject then I should too if I'm suffering the same fate.

Having said that, if you admit that the only entity that has any valid opinion on the subject is God (and not the baby or anyone else), I think we can actually move on from this conversation.



Quick point, I'd appreciate it if you could tone it down when you're debating. You sound pretty condescending here. Thanks.

The only entities that have any valid opinion at all are God and those who are experiencing/have experienced a specific situation. Keyword: valid. Others may certainly have opinions, I certainly can't stop them from doing so. But their opinions are invalid and rather delusory.

And sure, will do. Didn't mean to be condescending.

[Xotol]

(Original post by filmore)
Nice debate. Only I think you are not being very successful defending a static model of God. This last example (disretized in space and in time) is actually a nice illustration of how a God can be rejected by humanity and get stripped of the omnis.
I thought the whole point was to try and create a dynamic model with, dare I say, a god-mortals feedback loop (we all know that it exists in practice, after all at each historic period it was a select group of mortals who decided what was defoned as objectively moral, for example).

A God-mortals feedback loop doesn't seem to work if the God in question is all-powerful and isn't fond of receiving feedback from insignificant beings. Unless, I'm misunderstanding your statement (which I could be in my half-sleep state )?

(Original post by .eXe)
The only entities that have any valid opinion at all are God and those who are experiencing/have experienced a specific situation. Keyword: valid. Others may certainly have opinions, I certainly can't stop them from doing so. But their opinions are invalid and rather delusory.

And sure, will do. Didn't mean to be condescending.

Well, I certainly don't agree with that at all. Again, in the situation that judgement day actually arrives, we will experience an event (either heaven or hell) directly as a result of God's actions along with the baby in question. God's criteria affects one and all. It's akin to saying that I have no opinion if a teacher gives a student extra marks to pass an exam (i.e. cheating), while the rest are marked unfairly strictly and fail.

That's fine, thanks.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
A God-mortals feedback loop doesn't seem to work if the God in question is all-powerful and isn't fond of receiving feedback from insignificant beings. Unless, I'm misunderstanding your statement (which I could be in my half-sleep state )?



Well, I certainly don't agree with that at all. Again, in the situation that judgement day actually arrives, we will experience an event (either heaven or hell) directly as a result of God's actions along with the baby in question. God's criteria affects one and all. It's akin to saying that I have no opinion if a teacher gives a student extra marks to pass an exam (i.e. cheating), while the rest are marked unfairly strictly and fail.

That's fine, thanks.

No what I am saying is that you have no valid opinion in your example. I never said you don't have an opinion...The teacher is doing something wrong...your opinion has no bearing on it.

You can certainly have an opinion, but it means nothing because the teacher's actions are evaluated on their own merit...irrespective of what your or any other outsider's opinion might be.

Also, it's a little too reductionist of you to reduce and compare death to some teacher cheating in class. We were talking about an issue with much greater ramifications than an unfair mark on a random test. Not everything comparable is a true parallel.

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
No what I am saying is that you have no valid opinion in your example. I never said you don't have an opinion...The teacher is doing something wrong...your opinion has no bearing on it.

You can certainly have an opinion, but it means nothing because the teacher's actions are evaluated on their own merit...irrespective of what your or any other outsider's opinion might be.

Then surely the person who's paper was marked unfairly along with every other unfairly marked paper are part of the evaluation and have an equal and valid opinion to each other. Again, the decision has affected everyone - for different reasons - so they all count. If it was just the test paper marked on its own, there wouldn't be anything to compare it to. If God was only sending one person to heaven/hell, there is nothing to compare it to.

Bringing this back to God, IMO you can only really either say that everyone's opinion counts as much as the babies' with God's on a different pedestal, or that the only opinion that counts is God's.

Also, it's a little too reductionist of you to reduce and compare death to some teacher cheating in class. We were talking about an issue with much greater ramifications than an unfair mark on a random test. Not everything comparable is a true parallel.

Doesn't that make it all the more reason for the 'outsiders' opinion to count, considering that the ramifications on them are huge as well? Also, while it's not a true parallel, it gives a comparison. I don't see what's wrong with it, apart from the magnitude of the situation (which seems to favour my argument?)

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
Then surely the person who's paper was marked unfairly along with every other unfairly marked paper are part of the evaluation and have an equal and valid opinion to each other. Again, the decision has affected everyone - for different reasons - so they all count. If it was just the test paper marked on its own, there wouldn't be anything to compare it to. If God was only sending one person to heaven/hell, there is nothing to compare it to.

Bringing this back to God, IMO you can only really either say that everyone's opinion counts as much as the babies' with God's on a different pedestal, or that the only opinion that counts is God's.



Doesn't that make it all the more reason for the 'outsiders' opinion to count, considering that the ramifications on them are huge as well? Also, while it's not a true parallel, it gives a comparison. I don't see what's wrong with it, apart from the magnitude of the situation (which seems to favour my argument?)

Okay, this entire time I've defended my position that in any specific situation (which involves both God and an individual) the only two opinions that matter are God's and the individual involved.

You have not presented any argument as to why the outsider's opinion matter at all. All you have done so far is reject my view. Fine, but present yours as well (with reasons of course), instead of only rebutting mine.

In order to convince me, you have to show two things:

1) That the outsider's opinion has any bearing at all on the situation
2) That the outsider's opinion is valid (meaning: their opinion is based on something objective rather than just emotion, situation, societal effects or some other subjective and changeable criteria) <-- this point brings us back to the reliability debate...which again...you haven't provided sufficient argument for. Specifically, why subjective > objective in terms of reliability (obviously I believe the antithesis of this to be true).

[Xotol]

(Original post by .eXe)
Okay, this entire time I've defended my position that in any specific situation (which involves both God and an individual) the only two opinions that matter are God's and the individual involved.

You have not presented any argument as to why the outsider's opinion matter at all. All you have done so far is reject my view. Fine, but present yours as well (with reasons of course), instead of only rebutting mine.

I'm pretty sure I did. I have argued that if the baby's opinion matters then so should the 'outsiders' since they are suffering the same fate as a consequence of God's decisions.

In order to convince me, you have to show two things:

1) That the outsider's opinion has any bearing at all on the situation

I'm not sure the outsiders' opinion has any 'bearing' on the situation at all, but that applies to the baby as well. Look, God has decided to implement a set of criteria rules which directly affect every single being. The baby is not 'more' affected than anyone else. If you wish to narrow the scenario to only God vs the baby then do so, but it is ignoring the billions of other people that are going through the same process as well.

2) That the outsider's opinion is valid (meaning: their opinion is based on something objective rather than just emotion, situation, societal effects or some other subjective and changeable criteria) <-- this point brings us back to the reliability debate...which again...you haven't provided sufficient argument for. Specifically, why subjective > objective in terms of reliability (obviously I believe the antithesis of this to be true).

If the outsiders' opinion is invalid due to the opinion not having a basis on something objective, then the baby is the same. The only objective opinion would be God's since he is the moral arbiter.

Did you miss what I said about the 'reliability' debate and your misinterpretation of it? Here it is again if you did:

Is this misunderstanding of my argument deliberate on your part or not? We did talk about reliability, but in completely different contexts. I argued that subjective morality (i.e. social moral constructs) are more reliable than objective morality of God [X] if we do not know whether God [X] exists beyond reasonable doubt. I already explained why - I could propose an infinite amount of invisible beings with their own conflicting moral compass and we wouldn't know which one is right or not.

However, under the assumption that your God exists, I have never claimed that human morality is more reliable. You've basically built up a strawman and decided to spend walls of text taking it down.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Xotol)
I'm pretty sure I did. I have argued that if the baby's opinion matters then so should the 'outsiders' since they are suffering the same fate as a consequence of God's decisions.

When they suffer the same fate, they too will have a valid opinion. All in due time.

I'm not sure the outsiders' opinion has any 'bearing' on the situation at all, but that applies to the baby as well. Look, God has decided to implement a set of criteria rules which directly affect every single being. The baby is not 'more' affected than anyone else. If you wish to narrow the scenario to only God vs the baby then do so, but it is ignoring the billions of other people that are going through the same process as well.

As above. Timing is important. There is no need to pre-emptively have an opinion on things that do not affect nor concern you, and if you do have a pre-emptive opinion, at the very least it is an invalid one. A pre-emptive opinion will be one that is based purely on emotion/situation/society/etc.

Did you miss what I said about the 'reliability' debate and your misinterpretation of it? Here it is again if you did

No I didn't miss that, I just didn't really see an argument to convince me otherwise. What you basically said was: I am right in my world-view and you are right in yours. Namely because I believe in God and you don't. Well that's not an argument...you basically just agreed to disagree.

[ESPORTIVA]

No such thing as heaven