How good is good enough to get to Heaven?

InformedIgnorance said:

I have to admit, I found the description you gave from revelations nothing short of frightening (but even were I to put aside my initial repulsion, it is quite a disheartening view of eternity; eternity without night without the beauty of the stars, the gentle embrace of darkness the feeling of looking forward to the next day, the glorious sunset all of it denied? it paints a very sterile picture even without the branding and eternal servitude); but i do find the assertion that god reigns and his will is done to be most interesting... isnt that supposedly the case anyway even here on earth?

Click to expand...

Negative. The picture of the Earth in Scripture is one in which two "kingdoms", God's and the Devil's, at odds with each other. It's talking about who people's hearts are aligned to when it talks about "kingdom". From scripture's pov people are either in one kingdom or the other, regardless of what they may want to believe about their souls

Matthew 3:2 "Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near."

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:12).

"The Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn. 3:8).

Matthew 12:25-26

25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.26 And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?




Matthew 4:

8Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;9and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.”10Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’”11Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

2 Corinthians 4: The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Sir Doom said:

So, sin causes a hard heart.

In other words when you said:



What you meant was that I am unable/unwilling to acknowledge sin because I sin too much myself. Have I got that right?

Click to expand...

We're not singling anyone out here. We're talking about a certain condition and discussing whether or not it is that which keeps people from acknowledging sin. Or perhaps it is by practicing the "virtues" of rationalism that we are freed from "ancient" and "outdated" concepts such as sin. These seem to be the two competing ideas in our conversation. It's a pretty simple debate to settle as a tree is judged by it's fruits.

Are you saying that the pursuit of rationality 'hardens our hearts'?

Please say I am wrong, please say I misunderstand somehow - that you arent asserting that rationality our cognitive faculty, our one basic advantage compared to any other species is 'hardening our hearts' which your source asserts arises from sin or pride... are you suggesting that our pursuit of and application of rationality is a sin, or that to rely on it is pride (also a sin)? Please tell me you are not saying that you hold contempt for the sole feature of humanity that allows us to distinguish ourselves from animals, to build tools and families, architecture and societies, to refine our understandings and to develop an appreciation for that which we do not understand.

The 'virtue' you speak of, is the only thing that allows you to speak in the first place to form language and have it in common with others, let alone to have a medium by which to record it and to convey it to others over great distances - yet you place it in quotation marks as if to suggest that it is not a 'true' virtue... it really is quite a hideous disparagement of all that actually does set humanity apart, not imagined tribal importance, geocentrism and divine mandate; but rather that we alone have been lucky enough to have acquired through our genetic heritage the most fundamental capacity, intelligence - what characteristic could better suit the term 'virtue' than one that allows us to even consider other concepts in the first place.

InformedIgnorance said:

Are you saying that the pursuit of rationality 'hardens our hearts'?

Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that a hardened heart impedes one's ability to view things as they are

... could you define rationality please? I think we must be using very different understandings of the term that you would even consider that rationality is something that impedes any process within our brains.

Also, I may have edited my post since you replied to it (sorry I was so agitated that editing it took longer than it should have)

InformedIgnorance said:

... could you define rationality please? I think we must be using very different understandings of the term that you would even consider that rationality is something that impedes any process within our brains.

Also, I may have edited my post since you replied to it (sorry I was so agitated that editing it took longer than it should have)

Click to expand...

rationalism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

I caught your rant that you edited in. As someone that feels quite at home in academic environments I can assure you that I'm about the last person who will make disparaging remarks about the intellect. I'm talking about the philosophical idea but I don't think faith and reason are at odds with each other. I'm attacking the idea that they are.

Ummm that link itself seems to be contradicting the use you were using it in as shown by (note that this quote is IMO a simplification): "Rationalism has long been the rival of empiricism, the doctrine that all knowledge comes from, and must be tested by, sense experience." The link you have used notes many examples of rationalism whereby there exists significant asides to intuitive models of knowledge. I assume therefore that you are looking at the rather different usage of ethical and/or religious rationalism, which holds to intellectual faculty as a source of knowledge opposed to some other assertion of authority, but even intellectual faculty includes emotional influences, intuitive decision making models and so forth.

But onto your statement that you "don't think faith and reason are at odds with each other", you stated that you believed rationalism hardened people's hearts, preventing them from seeing things as they are, how is this not a case where you are suggesting the two are at odds?

InformedIgnorance said:

But onto your statement that you "don't think faith and reason are at odds with each other", you stated that you believed rationalism hardened people's hearts, preventing them from seeing things as they are, how is this not a case where you are suggesting the two are at odds?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that at all. You somehow extrapolated that from what I said. In actuality I think a hardened heart is often revealed in judgements which the person believes and/or wants to believe are totally unbiased and based solely off available "evidence"

InformedIgnorance said:

Ummm that link itself seems to be contradicting the use you were using it in as shown by (note that this quote is IMO a simplification): "Rationalism has long been the rival of empiricism, the doctrine that all knowledge comes from, and must be tested by, sense experience." The link you have used notes many examples of rationalism whereby there exists significant asides to intuitive models of knowledge. I assume therefore that you are looking at the rather different usage of ethical and/or religious rationalism, which holds to intellectual faculty as a source of knowledge opposed to some other assertion of authority, but even intellectual faculty includes emotional influences, intuitive decision making models and so forth.
?

Click to expand...

In fairness, that link was pages long and covered alot of different things. Further down the page was the part that's applicable here. One would think that the context of this conversation would be a clear indicator that this is what I was talking about when I mentioned "rationalism".

....."In religion, rationalism commonly means that all human knowledge comes through the use of natural faculties, without the aid of supernatural revelation. “Reason” is here used in a broader sense, referring to human cognitive powers generally, as opposed to supernatural grace or faith—"

I thought that might be the part of rationalism you were talking about - but note that the intellectual component they refer to is significantly broader than you have implied, it contains ingrained ethical value systems we already have, assumptions, prior experiences, intuitive decision making and much more. Reason is a process that includes an enormous amount of variables, many of which occur at the subconscious level, such as numerous biases and the like - the best we manage to obtain is 'bounded rationalism' because we can never obtain all the relevant data nor be certain our intellectual processes are completely free of prejudice

I paraphrased true; what you stated was that perhaps practicing the 'virtue' of rationalism was perceieved to unshackle us from sin, while the source you provided indicates that this is a sign of a hardened heart - which arises from sin and pride (also a sin) and that a hardened heart prevents people 'from seeing things as they are' (whatever that means)

This is about the only thing you have said in this thread that I DO agree with (though would note that many religious people believe theirs is evidence too - such as divine revelation, certainly the belief in revelation can 'harden hearts')

-Peacemaker- said:

We're not singling anyone out here. We're talking about a certain condition and discussing whether or not it is that which keeps people from acknowledging sin. Or perhaps it is by practicing the "virtues" of rationalism that we are freed from "ancient" and "outdated" concepts such as sin. These seem to be the two competing ideas in our conversation. It's a pretty simple debate to settle as a tree is judged by it's fruits.

Click to expand...

You're right. Using rationale is exactly what is preventing me from adopting the idea of 'sin'.

By the way, it is still preventing me from adopting the idea of sin.

In other words, you haven't convinced me its necessary, useful or fun to distinguish 'sin' in actions or people. No point A to point B. You just keep trying to explain why someone might 'not see it'.

EDIT: I wanted to add that when you say, '...keeps people from acknowledging sin.' I am in that group. So even when you discuss that group generally, you are talking about me. I do not acknowledge 'sin'. Therefore, I am a part of the people you are talking about here. I address statements like this directly because I can only speak for myself and my own actions and thoughts. Just as in your OP when you refer to everyone believing that we are all sinners, I took objection as I certainly do not believe that but I am certainly part of everyone.

sojourner said:

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here, based upon a fairly narrow view of eternity.

The standard is Divine perfect love and perfect forgiveness. We all have it at our disposal. All are invited; all are welcome, because all are one as the Divine is One.

Click to expand...

This is prayed for but not achieved yet.

Not all accept the invitation.

Sir Doom said:

You're right. Using rationale is exactly what is preventing me from adopting the idea of 'sin'.

By the way, it is still preventing me from adopting the idea of sin.

In other words, you haven't convinced me its necessary, useful or fun to distinguish 'sin' in actions or people. No point A to point B. You just keep trying to explain why someone might 'not see it'.

EDIT: I wanted to add that when you say, '...keeps people from acknowledging sin.' I am in that group. So even when you discuss that group generally, you are talking about me. I do not acknowledge 'sin'. Therefore, I am a part of the people you are talking about here. I address statements like this directly because I can only speak for myself and my own actions and thoughts. Just as in your OP when you refer to everyone believing that we are all sinners, I took objection as I certainly do not believe that but I am certainly part of everyone.

Click to expand...

I believe that is like saying that you don't believe there are poisonous snakes. The fact is that you can be bitten by one and die anyway. It is like saying you don't believe there are poisonous mushrooms. You can eat one and die anyway.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

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?

Click to expand...

I beleive He does it often but He still may decide a person needs Hell.

Muffled said:

I believe that is like saying that you don't believe there are poisonous snakes. The fact is that you can be bitten by one and die anyway. It is like saying you don't believe there are poisonous mushrooms. You can eat one and die anyway.

Click to expand...

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?

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

-Peacemaker- said:

I'm just curious what everyone believes on the subject and by what rationale they defend their view. I realize this is a diverse board but I think we can all agree that we are all sinners to varying degrees. If Heaven is real then God must have some standard of imperfection that one must meet if they are to reach the pearly gates or else we are all destined to burn. What is that standard?

Click to expand...

I think the OP is based on a wrong assumption. That heaven is some all or nothing result of a person's life. I think there's all grades in-between.

George-ananda said:

I think the OP is based on a wrong assumption. That heaven is some all or nothing result of a person's life. I think there's all grades in-between.

Click to expand...

For all I know, this could be the afterlife.

Sir Doom said:

For all I know, this could be the afterlife.

Click to expand...

It kind of is IMO (I believe in reincarnation).

Muffled said:

I beleive He does it often but He still may decide a person needs Hell.

Click to expand...

So sometimes, he chooses to act without compassion?