Originally posted by FreakyKBHIts what they used to put on signs in London in the old days.
[b]No dogs , No blacks, No Irish
Is that your idea of heaven, or are you projecting? It certainly isn't how Heaven is depicted in God's word.[/b]
It sounds kind of what you are suggesting, except the sign would be on the pearly gates and it would read
No Jews, No buddhists, No Muslims. etc
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundAgain, that sounds more like your projection than reality. The Kingdom of Heaven is not about Jew or Gentile, black or white; all believers come from all walks of life. In Christ, there is no division.
Its what they used to put on signs in London in the old days.
It sounds kind of what you are suggesting, except the sign would be on the pearly gates and it would read
No Jews, No buddhists, No Muslims. etc
Originally posted by FreakyKBHi've made no projections, i dont think, i just asked if a good man could enter your perception of heaven, if he doesnt believe in God.
Again, that sounds more like your projection than reality. The Kingdom of Heaven is not about Jew or Gentile, black or white; all believers come from all walks of life. In Christ, there is no division.
Originally posted by whodeyNo; the implication being that people are punished (and this is no minor punishment) for making an honest, rational choice.
The implication being that we were programed to reject him, no? Well the Bible teaches that we have free will and therefore are held accountable for our actions. This contradicts the claim that we do not have a choice. If God can do anything, he would be able to not only create us but create us with free will and not programed will.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSo what does that have to do with Irish or black?
i've made no projections, i dont think, i just asked if a good man could enter your perception of heaven, if he doesnt believe in God.
The fact remains, that without Christ, no one will see the Kingdom of God. It also remains that no one is good, despite whatever standard you may be using to measure the same.
Originally posted by dottewellYou never did respond in my other thread "If God exists" as to whether or not you would serve the God of the Bible if you could prove he exists.
No; the implication being that people are punished (and this is no minor punishment) for making an honest, rational choice.
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyMy point of asking you this is, is that the rejection of the God of the Bible has little to do with the "proof" that he exists and has more to do with your lack of desire to serve him based on your perceived view of him. That was the purpose of the thread "If God exists", and I think from the responses from that thread I have been proven right. Perhaps you do not like some of the commandments in the Bible or perhaps you enjoy certain activities that are labled "sins" and do not wish to be inhibited in any way from those activities. Throughout the Bible there are stories about men and women who have been provided ample "proof" that he exists, but fail to place their faith in him for one reason or another. Therefore, God is not interested in proving himself to you. Why should he if those that have come before you choose not to serve him even though they know he exists? A story comes to mind about king David. David was an avid servant of the God of the Bible until he became entagled in lust for a married woman. He then had an affair with her and she became pregnant. To cover his sin, he then told one of the commanders in his army to send her husband to the front lines in order to have him killed. Now David adds to his lists of sins adultery and murder. God's response to David was interesting, however. God's response was asking David why he despised him. God took Davids actions to be direct evidence that he despised the absolute moral laws God set in place that represent his absolute moral nature. Davids blatant rejection of God's law was interpreted by God as a blatant rejection of himself. It was apparent that David on a personal level abhorred this behavoir even though he did these things and rationalized these actions to fulfill his lusts. This was evident when David repented immediately and publicly when confronted with his crimes. I guess what I'm saying is that it all comes down to who and what you love. It is not about simply making an "honest" and "rational" decision to not serve God based on the inability to prove he exists. The question is, do you love the purity of God's moral code even though it may step on your own toes, or do you prefer your relative moral code that may fly in the face of abosolute morality?
You never did respond in my other thread "If God exists" as to whether or not you would serve the God of the Bible if you could prove he exists.
Originally posted by whodeyIt is very tiresome to keep pointing out to you that atheists do not necessarily view morality as relative (i.e. versus absolute). Most don't.
My point of asking you this is, is that the rejection of the God of the Bible has little to do with the "proof" that he exists and has more to do with your lack of desire to serve him based on your perceived view of him. That was the purpose of the thread "If God exists", and I think from the responses from that thread I have been proven right. Perhaps you ...[text shortened]... prefer your relative moral code that may fly in the face of abosolute morality?
If we are asking whether it is fair to make it a condition of A's going to heaven that A believes in your god, then it makes no difference whether A, or other people, would not serve god even if he existed. They should still be allowed to make an informed choice. Free will is important, is it not?
Imagine you're in a sport's team. You are very good, perhaps the best player. You turn up for the big game and your coach says he's leaving you out because everyone else has brought money to donate to the coach's favourite charity. The coach said he decided that morning that whoever brought money for the charity would definitely play. He even PHONED some of the other players to tell them in advance. But he never phoned you.
Now it may be that had the coach phoned you, and told you, you would have told him to stick his team where the sun doesn't shine. Or you might have put an extra $50 in your wallet.
Regardless of that, NOT telling you was NOT fair.
Incidentally, if your god were truly benevolent and perfectly good, then most people would serve him if they believed he existed; that seems perfectly obvious.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHthat is your belief, and i dont want to argue with that.
So what does that have to do with Irish or black?
The fact remains, that without Christ, no one will see the Kingdom of God. It also remains that no one is good, despite whatever standard you may be using to measure the same.
I dont think it is a very productive idea of heaven, and i would not like to be part of a heaven that would not allow a good man in, solely on the basis of his religious beliefs.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundAs with everyone else, you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. However, I will (as politely as possible) point out to you that you appear to be using an untenable standard.
that is your belief, and i dont want to argue with that.
I dont think it is a very productive idea of heaven, and i would not like to be part of a heaven that would not allow a good man in, solely on the basis of his religious beliefs.
You believe that all good people should be let in to heaven, but the question you must ask yourself is, what is good?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThats the $64, 000 question.
As with everyone else, you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. However, I will (as politely as possible) point out to you that you appear to be using an untenable standard.
You believe that all good people should be let in to heaven, but the question you must ask yourself is, what is good?
i think the real question is what is good, in the absense of bad?
If you eliminate bad, what does good become?