Hmmm. Here's a shot into left...

Let's say you have an Atheist, a Taoist and a Hindu. The athesist doesn't believe in God or life after death, the Taoist believes in the Ying-Yang swirling (ever-changing) and the Hindu... well, see Hinduism 101. All three do good things to help people, never try to hurt anyone with ill-intent and all lead balanced, pacific lives. Then you have a Judeo-Christian that sits waiting to judge them all. They are a hypocrite, a back-slider and practice more religion in public than private. They break as many laws of God and man (government) as the prior three that were mentioned.

If there is a heaven, I don't think the JC is a shoe-in. I think not believing in something doesn't mean your excluded specifically from your karma/just deserts & rewards, etc. Sitting in judgement is probably going to keep the Judeo-Christian out quicker than the other "sins" committed. Why? Probably because they seperated themselves out above the rest even though they were equal.

We are all equally ignorant of the "eternal truths" or the "divine enlightment" or whatever a person may select to call it. We have ideas, some of them good ones... others way off the mark. {shrugs} Doesn't matter as long as we don't try to enforce our beliefs upon the unwilling. Ghandi was an inspiration because he knew the use of force to accomplish goals, be they political or religious, was an abomination against mankind. This idea is based upon the fact that man has free-will and a larger control of their own destiny as well as affecting that of others.

So we can call ourselves whatever we want, believe what we want.. but if we believe in higher ideas and purposes with all goodwill versus worrying about the "names" of god(s) or religion, we oughta be alright.

Personally, I take somethings from various religions that feels "true" or "right". The Bible has a lot of basic things that are suggested for clean living. The Koran and Gita or other "holy" books have good guidelines. War is touched upon in each. We all know it's unavoidable.. since man has that darn thing called "Free Will". :) An "eye for an eye" and stoning unfaithful wives or prostitutes seems a bit excessive. Birth control should be the responsibility of self, family, community (can include church) and laws. Law shouldn't govern who can give birth or can't... shouldn't govern who an have an abortion or can't... shouldn't deem who is worthy to marry or have specific sexual preferences. These things, if they are to be judged "after life" will be judged then.. otherwise, no crime has been committed in the eyes of a diety or even Nature. Because if we violate the good ol' Mother, she'll make us pay in her own way, right?

Yeah, a touch druidic on the last part.

I would agree with you that that Christian probably isn't saved. But the rest of your example falls short. You say that they all "do good things to help people," and "never try to hurt anyone." Do you honestly know of anyone who has never tried to hurt anyone? Who has been completely selfless their entire life? Many men have done great things, but no one has led a completely sinless life. I guarantee you that even Gandhi did, at some point in his life, commit a selfish act. I guarantee you that at some point he did knowingly hurt someone. Nobody is perfect, and so when one tries to make a comparison between two flawed human beings, one is left with a problem. It is impossible to say that person A is better than person B because they are both sinners. Granted, person A may have committed less sins than person B, but does this make him a better person? If so, where does one draw the line? To draw a completely arbitrary number out of the air, does one say that if a human being can commit, on average, less than one sin per day, then they can go to heaven, whereas those who commit one or more per day (on average) will go to hell? Do magnitudes of sins have to be factored in? Can one go to heaven provided one never kills anybody? Clearly both these ideas are nonsense. How many sins are too many, or how much wrong a person has to do to make him or her "bad," is completely arbitrary. Furthermore, a murderer could truly feel remorse at his or her crime, and go on to repent and never kill again. It is very easy for us to say that, for instance, Hitler was the worst man to ever live, and that his acts were unforgivable. But what, exactly, makes that so? If Hitler were, hypothetically, truly sorry for all of his terrible deeds, who are we to say that he cannot be forgiven? One finds it difficult to say that such a terrible dictator as Hitler could ever be forgiven, and yet, it also seems barbaric to say that a one-time murderer who is truly sorry could never be forgiven. So where does one draw the line? There simply is no point at which one can say "people who abide by so and so laws are going to heaven and people who don't aren't," because one will inevitably be faced with a person who has not abided by said laws, but is truly sorry of what he or she did. And to confound all of this already jumbled mess, not a single human being on Earth can agree on what is right and what is wrong. There are those who might argue that Hitler's oppression of the Jews was a good thing. Most people wouldn't, to be certain, but is morality really decided by majority rule? Given all of this, how is it possible to say that someone is going to heaven or hell based off of their acts on Earth?

Nevin, Rancer's post isn't necessarily about justification by works. After all, he does say this:

He didn't say, "if we DO this and that we oughtta be alright." He says "believe." What issue would you take with this?

Nope, know some great people, but don't know anyone well enough to claim they are perfect... and the ones I do know that well definately aren't. :) If I had full faith in the Holy Bible, then Job would probably be on that short list.

I like this part. People tend to judge themselves or other people in relation to still other folks. In sports or music, it happens so often, they refer to a previous player or artist that exhibited certain traits and made analogies. Dunno how you can tell who is better or worse. Glad that isn't my job. St. Peter or the gatekeeper to Paradise/Nirvana/Olympus/Utopia or where'ere we'd go can keep that one. Heck, it's even possible that when we get to those gates in whatever afterlife, they simply put it back on us to judge ourselves. Makes a person wonder about that "whole life flashing before your eyes before you die" thing and hypothesising it from that.

Ewwwww, here's where I'm really ignorant. Not sure if sins fall into "deadly" or "abominable" or "unforgiveable" categories. Yeah, it's a curiousity to many as to whether some are worse than others. And for the question of gaining entry, that question has plagued holy men for ages, since some holy books state that killing is a sin or wrong, yet it can be justified. If it's justifiable, we make that circle back to who judges? What makes it justifiable and in who's eyes?

Even if the answer was known and rock-solid, folks would still probably do it. Wars would still happen. Some in the military may even enjoy it. Or be like a Hitler, having their way in trying to wipe out the inferior peoples.

And it's possible that when the "sins" are committed, the persons intent or motive comes under judgement. If a person knew it was wrong, knew they would be punished and yet rationalized the act; they would do it out of "righteousness".

This may bring up a picture of Islam extremists in mind. I can't say they are right or wrong in their beliefs or belief-system. Yet I do struggle with the moral dilemma as to how they can kill their neighbours and close kinsmen in order to try to reach their objective(s), which sometimes includes killing the "invaders" or "evil decadents".

If I were responsible for trying to eliminate the drug trade and had carte blanc, would killing the dealers on the street be "justified"? Would a few innocent "customers" be killed in the process? At some point, the "customers" might be thought of as not-so-innocent, since theft is sometimes employed to gain the cash for purchases. Should the peasantry that harvests the poppy be killed in the fields? Or are they trying to eek out a living for their family and this may be the only way they can avoid starvation. Yeah, they are probably not ignorant of where the crops go, who makes the real profit and how uncaring their "bosses" are to their living conditions and health. They too may simply see the "customers" as being ignorant or non-innocent.

Yet that's how the world works sometimes and we could shake a moral stick at someone because it seemed like that person's acts were evil. The witch hunts in Winston/Salem was another "purification", just as Hitler's was. The prisoners in Civil War camps starved just as those did in the German camps of WWII. American soldiers raped and pillaged in Indo-China, just as if they were under Genghis Khan (though not to the same degree). Are the acts less evil now than then? Are they more "civilized" if they are deemed alright by any law?

{Shrugs} Too hard for me to answer some of those questions. When it comes to "perfection", nah, I'm realistic enough to know it's probably not attainable. Does that mean it isn't a worthy goal though? Maybe I can be "perfectly" good or well-behaved 1 day out of this year. Maybe. :)

It is not the idea that someone has never committed a sin in his life that counts. What counts is he how turns out in the end. If you end up perfect (which is possible in my eyes. Enlightment is essentially perfection), then whatever sins you have committed do not count because your realize they were wrong and have most likely paid for them.

On Rancer's comment about Islamic extremists:
Of course Islamic extremists are wrong in there beliefs. The very idea of the idea, "extremists", mean they are not adhering to moderation, but instead to extremism, which no matter what side it is on, is bad.

There is no excuse to the taking of life. With a few exceptions, nothing can be solved by violence that cannot be solved with words. No religion is wrong, whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism. The people who interpret these teachings are wrong and given into their desires to remove or kill whoever stands in their way.

It seems no longer that they have a purpose. They will never succeed in converting those who they attack. In fact, it will work against them in the sense that those who are attacked will band together and rally against their attackers cause.

All in all, Islamic extremists are extremely wrong in their actions.

Alright, seeing how I have yet to figure out if there even is an afterlife, I'll just comment about my personal views on the subject (Concerning Christainity)

I imange that one who would judgeing us, lets say for sake of arguement "God", would quite understand where we are coming from. Logically, and yes, I will say logically because an creature who we are supposed to be made in the essence of would probably share our forms of logic, the Dali Lama really should be going into heaven, while the mass murder who turns himself over to God on his deathbed probably should be looked into a bit more throughly.

And this is just another one of the issues I have with Christainity. Many interepetations would tell me that no, the Dali Lama didn't accept God, while the Mass Murderer did, accordingly the former goes to Hell and the later ascends into Heaven.

I hadn't noticed that statement, but I suppose I'd need a clearer idea of what it is that needs to be believed, what is meant by "higher ideas and purposes." After all, a lot of people might think that there "higher idea" justifies all sorts of things (like Rancer said in his most recent post).

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but it is an interesting idea, judging oneself more based off of oneself rather than based off of others. It is a common idea in, for instance, track and field, where you do not try to break someone else's record, but rather your own. In "Mere Christianity," C.S. Lewis notes that some people have naturally poor dispositions and so should not be faulted so much for becoming angry as those who are naturally cheerful. However, although this may say much about the ethics of individual actions, I don't know how much it applies to ultimate salvation.

Indeed, although this is true with many things, I think that killing is definitely one of the biggest. I find it quite disgusting, in fact, the heinous acts of murder that people attempt to twist the Bible around to support. I, personally, am a pacifist, meaning that I find killing to always be wrong, but I am definitely in the minority amongst Christians in that.

I quite agree, actually. I think that, although perfection is innattainable, that we should still try to attain it. Indeed, I believe that that is the essence of Christianity, that by accepting Jesus we then come one step closer to perfection. We try to attain it in this life, and that trying has value in and of itself. It is only in the afterlife, however, that we fully attain that which we strive for in this life.

Would you mind elaborating on this? How does one pay for one's sins -- by doing good acts, perhaps? Is there some sort of a payment that must be made for each sin, that can be eventually paid through enough moral deeds?

You're going to have to bare with me on this one, Nevin.
Along the path to perfection, one automatically understands what is wrong and feels what he has done is wrong through a guilty conscious. Mentally, he feels the pain; he truly feels sorry whatever has been done.

Payment for sin need not be individiually counted. Sins can culminate if God sees an opportunity for a lesson learned later on in the future. Petty things like quickly slapping your sister up-side the head will have you bump into a table or hit a door.

In my belief, sins cannot be removed by moral deeds, but you can improve your moral standing through your actions. To elaborate, you will pay for every sin you commit down to the last drop, but through this process you will learn, and become enlightened.

On that path to enlightenment, helping others, helping Earth, are simply side effects and therefore will help you anyways.

Interesting. Not exactly like the Christian doctrine of confessing one's sins, but the same idea is definitely there. Even more interesting because when I questioned Abdul-Sala'am (another poster who sadly hasn't been active for quite a while) about Islam, he gave quite a similar response about feeling sorry for past sins.

Fascinating. How would a Hindu deal with the dilemma of bad things happening to good people, and vice-versa, for that matter? Is all suffering intended as a means of teaching, or is some a result of human actions, and some God's way of teaching us lessons? Is retribution necessarily paid through suffering, or are there other ways in which it is paid as well?

So if enlightenment, or perfection, is more of a state of mind than anything, and is not dependent on one's actions, good or bad. However, if one reaches such a state of mind, one's actions will be evidence of this. Am I understanding you correctly?