Originally posted by FreakyKBHi just think you cannot describe good without ascertaining bad first.
We agree on this one, but I'll bet only in statement, not in concept.
😉
And i believe one mans good is another mans evil, like your idea of a selective heaven.
if you meant good as concearning this thread, i described it on page 1, as you asked i assumed you meant something else.
Originally posted by dottewellI won't presume to judge you because I don't know what your background is, what your catechesis has been, what psychological factors played into your rejection of God etc.
You don't, but the "natural law" loads the odds unfavourably, and arguably unfairly.
Take me; I has a christening, know something of the Bible, etc, etc, but do not believe in God for honest intellectual reasons. There is no rejection or slight. I have done nothing wrong.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI would guess a lot would depend on how proud he was of being a 'good' man and whether he felt that his 'goodness' entitled him to be in heaven. If he felt that his goodness was all his own doing and had a tendency to judge or look down on ohters who were 'not so good' then I would doubt it. If however he had a different kind of goodness based on humility and the awareness that whatever he had was gifted to him anyway then he's got a good chance.
Does a good man go to heaven if he doesnt believe in God ?
sorry thiests, ah aint pickin on you's 🙂
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundi just think you cannot describe good without ascertaining bad first.
i just think you cannot describe good without ascertaining bad first.
And i believe one mans good is another mans evil, like your idea of a selective heaven.
if you meant good as concearning this thread, i described it on page 1, as you asked i assumed you meant something else.
Not true. God does not need not-God in order to be God. Prior to creation, He was who He was, so to speak. Prior to the Fall and the susbsequent initiation into the system of good-and-evil, Adam and the woman in the Garden were described as 'good,' by God--- again, with no 'bad' used as comparison.
And i believe one mans good is another mans evil, like your idea of a selective heaven.
Using that formula as a template, where do you draw the line? Any standard adopted will invariably lead to someone being left outside of the pearly gates.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHbut Christianity found it so important to have an "anti-God" that they split him into Jesus and Satan, thus giving both a good and an evil choice,and the anti-god to Just God would be nonbelievers, heathens, call them what you will. no?
[b]i just think you cannot describe good without ascertaining bad first.
Not true. God does not need not-God in order to be God. Prior to creation, He was who He was, so to speak. Prior to the Fall and the susbsequent initiation into the system of good-and-evil, Adam and the woman in the Garden were described as 'good,' by God--- again, with no 'ba Any standard adopted will invariably lead to someone being left outside of the pearly gates.[/b]
And consider this.
A man kills another man - evil
A man kills a tyrant - Evil ?
A man steals gold - evil
A man steals gold to feed his family - evil ?
If i do a bad thing, how can you judge it if you do not judge the consequences also?
A violent storm can both destroy houses, and irrigate a stretch of barren land.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI don't know how to respond to this post. Sorry.
but Christianity found it so important to have an "anti-God" that they split him into Jesus and Satan, thus giving both a good and an evil choice,and the anti-god to Just God would be nonbelievers, heathens, call them what you will. no?
And consider this.
A man kills another man - evil
A man kills a tyrant - Evil ?
A man steals gold - ev ...[text shortened]... ences also?
A violent storm can both destroy houses, and irrigate a stretch of barren land.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundhbh: A man kills another man - evil
but Christianity found it so important to have an "anti-God" that they split him into Jesus and Satan, thus giving both a good and an evil choice,and the anti-god to Just God would be nonbelievers, heathens, call them what you will. no?
And consider this.
A man kills another man - evil
A man kills a tyrant - Evil ?
A man steals gold - ev ...[text shortened]... ences also?
A violent storm can both destroy houses, and irrigate a stretch of barren land.
Objectively, yes.
hbh: A man kills a tyrant - Evil ?
Objectively, still yes. However, it may be morally permissible within the circumstances. (e.g. if the action was necessary to prevent impending loss of innocent lives and no other way could be found etc.) It wouldn't be morally permissible if it was done for revenge, for instance.
hbh: A man steals gold - evil
Again, objectively yes. It doesn't matter that it's gold.
hbh: A man steals gold to feed his family - evil ?
Again, objectively still yes. Again, it might have been morally permissible to do so depending on the circumstances and the necessity of the action, whether the thief was willing to make reparation when his family circumstances improved etc. It would not be morally permissible, for instance, if the thief does not seek legitimate employment and chooses to steal instead.
6 edits
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundbut Christianity found it so important to have an "anti-God" that they split him into Jesus and Satan, thus giving both a good and an evil choice,and the anti-god to Just God would be nonbelievers, heathens, call them what you will. no?
but Christianity found it so important to have an "anti-God" that they split him into Jesus and Satan, thus giving both a good and an evil choice,and the anti-god to Just God would be nonbelievers, heathens, call them what you will. no?
And consider this.
A man kills another man - evil
A man kills a tyrant - Evil ?
A man steals gold - ev ...[text shortened]... ences also?
A violent storm can both destroy houses, and irrigate a stretch of barren land.
You seem to be assuming people made this up in your statement
of faith above, because if Jesus and Satan are real we just
acknowledge the reality of each. You are suggesting Christianity is
false above, because if there isn't a Jesus Christ and if there isn't
a Satan there is no need for Christianity.
And consider this.
A man kills another man - evil
No, not always. Defending ones home and country is one thing,
doing it just for pleasure or to get something is another. The
act itself is always going to be judged by the motive in which it
was done, or the reason if it was an accident.
A man kills a tyrant - Evil ?
See answer to the first question, it is the same here too.
A man steals gold - evil
Robbing someone of what is there is breaking with that person and
the reality of ownership. Motives; however, can come into play here
too.
A man steals gold to feed his family - evil ?
[/b]Understandable the need to feed the family it however doesn't
make it good, only understandable.
A violent storm can both destroy houses, and irrigate a stretch of barren land.
A storm would be called evil by the ones it affects; however, it does
not have a motive, it just is.
Kelly