Who here is good enough?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
In the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry:
Jesus calls His followers to become one with God as He was one with God.
Jesus calls His followers to become sons of God as He was a son of God.
Jesus calls His followers to become righteous as He was righteous.

In the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry:
Jesus taught what is and ...[text shortened]... the kingdom of heaven.
48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Your dodge to the question is noted.

In case you missed the question here it is:

Do you believe you are good enough on their own to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? (And that you would actually qualify to be saved by your works)

The options are:

A. Yes I am good enough.
B. No I am not good enough.
C. I don't know.
D. Other (please specify)

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]...God never expected man to be able to perfectly keep the law...

Actually God did:
Ezekiel 18
26“When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. 27“Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices ...[text shortened]... nd rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.”

As with many other things, you are plain wrong.[/b]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it is impossible to please God without faith.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Your dodge to the question is noted.

In case you missed the question here it is:

Do you believe you are good enough on their own to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? (And that you would actually qualify to be saved by your works)

The options are:

A. Yes I am good enough.
B. No I am not good enough.
C. I don't know.
D. Other (please specify)

In my opinion, ToO is simply trying to drive people away from God by claiming no one goes to heaven unless their conduct is absolutely perfect.

He ignores that God expected Jews in the Old Testament not to be able to keep the Mosaic law, which is why He allowed them to sacrifice animals to atone for sins.

He ignores the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and bizarrely claims that the Good News of Jesus is there are a whole lot of new sins (being angry, looking on a woman with lust) and you no longer get to sacrifice animals to atone for sins. Spread the good news!

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Your dodge to the question is noted.

In case you missed the question here it is:

Do you believe you are good enough on their own to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? (And that you would actually qualify to be saved by your works)

The options are:

A. Yes I am good enough.
B. No I am not good enough.
C. I don't know.
D. Other (please specify)

BTW, and not to state the obvious, my answer is “B.”

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]There are no works that I can do to "earn" anything, and even what works I do on Earth, if they are truly good, it can only be because I received the good graces to truly make them good. For when I do something that is of my own will, there is sure to be some stain upon it that comes from my selfish motivations.

This might sound overly pessimistic to non ...[text shortened]... gical escape from the profoundly misanthropic state of mind that Christianity itself propagates?

If you were to look at humans that are quite close to the state of nature, e.g., tribesmen, you will see that something like 27% of them, on average, die violent deaths in combat, they impose sexual slavery on one another, they have all generally practiced cannibalism (or still do so), etc.

It isn't a pretty picture.

Even in this modern day and age, you have plenty of people that suffer crippling depression and take their own lives.

But if you would like to make some case for optimism, be my guest.

Originally posted by @romans1009
In my opinion, ToO is simply trying to drive people away from God by claiming no one goes to heaven unless their conduct is absolutely perfect.

He ignores that God expected Jews in the Old Testament not to be able to keep the Mosaic law, which is why He allowed them to sacrifice animals to atone for sins.

He ignores the purpose of Christ’s sacrific ...[text shortened]... n with lust) and you no longer get to sacrifice animals to atone for sins. Spread the good news!

I wonder what he has to say about Pauls claims that he is the chief of all sinners. And I also wonder what he has to say about the Comforter who will convict people of their sin.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I wonder what he has to say about Pauls claims that he is the chief of all sinners. And I also wonder what he has to say about the Comforter who will convict people of their sin.

You could ask him but I suspect those will be questions 245 and 246 that ToO ignores.

Originally posted by @philokalia
If you were to look at humans that are quite close to the state of nature, e.g., tribesmen, you will see that something like 27% of them, on average, die violent deaths in combat, they impose sexual slavery on one another, they have all generally practiced cannibalism (or still do so), etc.

It isn't a pretty picture.

Even in this modern day and a ...[text shortened]... and take their own lives.

But if you would like to make some case for optimism, be my guest.

I tried to discuss it with you before here Thread 176043 but you ran off.

As for how religions can result in people acting in morally sound ways, I welcome it ~ even if it takes conjecture about supernatural causality [and stuff like "everlasting life"] to carry it off.

But my default setting with people I interact with is positive, optimistic and broadly philanthropic. To my way of thinking, humanity is flourishing and this is the best age ever in which to have lived - for the vast majority of people.

Catchall self-loathing misanthropy doesn't resonate with me.

And a whole religion based on the convoluted notion of a supernatural being only being willing to forgive mankind if he first arranges for his own "son" to be killed/sacrificed? It's perverse. Incoherent.

Originally posted by @fmf
I tried to discuss it with you before here Thread 176043 but you ran off.

As for how religions can result in people acting in morally sound ways, I welcome it ~ even if it takes conjecture about supernatural causality [and stuff like "everlasting life"] to carry it off.

But my default setting with people I interact with is positive, optim ...[text shortened]... nkind if he first arranges for his own "son" to be killed/sacrificed? It's perverse. Incoherent.

<<And a whole religion based on the convoluted notion of a supernatural being only being willing to forgive mankind if he first arranges for his own "son" to be killed/sacrificed? It's perverse. Incoherent.>>

One wonders why, during the 30-40 years you claimed to be a Christian, this didn’t strike you as perverse and incoherent. Perhaps you were not a Christian and never were?

As to your point, God willingly took on human flesh in the form of Jesus Christ to both teach man and save man. The teaching part is easy enough to understand. Saving man is only understood when one realizes how holy God is and that living with God in the afterlife requires one to be free of unforgiven sin.

As anticipated, no atheists have answered the question.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think Christianity pisses on people's backs, tells them it's raining, and then offers them an Emperor's New Umbrella.

I find it particularly amusing when an atheist is expected to take seriously the question, 'who believes they are good enough on their own to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?'


Psst, atheists don't believe in heaven. (And no, I'm not going to assume what the Bible says is true).

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I find it particularly amusing when an atheist is expected to take seriously the question, 'who believes they are good enough on their own to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?'


Psst, atheists don't believe in heaven. (And no, I'm not going to assume what the Bible says is true).

Atheists are incapable of engaging in thought experiments?

You claimed about a week ago you had “impeccable morality” so presumably you think you qualify for heaven on your own.

BTW, that “impeccable morality” post was one of the most hilarious things you’ve written.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Atheists are incapable of engaging in thought experiments?

You claimed about a week ago you had “impeccable morality” so presumably you think you qualify for heaven on your own.

BTW, that “impeccable morality” post was one of the most hilarious things you’ve written.

It seems they are only capable of making assumptions and having logical discussions when it suits them. (Which is hardly ever)

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Assuming what the Bible says is true, who here believes they are good enough on their own to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? (And that they would actually qualify to be saved by their works) Speak now or forever hold your peace.

I believe all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If you believe you haven't sinned and don't fall short, feel free ...[text shortened]... exactly you do that you think can save you.

PS: I wonder if Rajk will pitch up eventually...

I have discussed this at length many times.