While this is a nice thing to believe, it does not reconcile well with The Bible. The Bible makes it clear that we are all sinners, and that none of us deserve to go to Heaven. "Good lives" are not important. We are saved by faith, not by works.

let me elaborate upon what i mean by good.

never murdered, raped, stole, basically most the morals that come with religion except the god thing and keeping the sabbath holy because the sabbath doesnt pertain to all religions. we all sin, but that doesnt mean we arent good. sins arent human nature, human nature i feel is an excuse; sins are human habbit and people can break or lower their habbit.
i forgot one of my other examples on the good/bad thing >_<

who should go to heaven (if it exists):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
atheist woman who has never commited any crime or atrocity
OR
monotheist man who believes but rapes young childeren
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
muslim man who murdered one person
OR
christian man who murdered one person
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

...but who are we to decide whom god accepts and declines into heaven, we have no evidence of his existence or non existence. i suppose debating about it would be worthless since none of us have ever experienced death and know of an afterlife.

I asked a person if someone who belives whys somoene who bleives in God, in Jesus, but before doing so raped and killed 1000 people would get into heaven, but the Dali Lama wouldn't.

I never got a good answer.

By good, I mean logical

yay at least someone understands my logic! ^_^

It's not a very fulfilling reason, but I think the general belief is that the most important thing to God is that you love him for all the things that he has done. Loving your fellow humans is nice, and God encourages it, but it's still not as important as loving God (again, this is in God's opinion). Someone who does not believe in God, obviously cannot love him, and thus does not go to Heaven. Someone who believes in God, but under different religious principles, isn't giving God credit for his actual work, so it's still worthless to the *real* God, and thus does not go to Heaven. The murderer may have acted atrociously in the past, but has since come to love God, and one of God's principles is that revenge is bad, all that matters is loving God, so the murderer would go to heaven.

Personally, if there is a God, I hope he's not that mean.

If there is a God, which I personally don't belive there is, I think that an all knowing being would be a resonable fellow.

Yeah, it's not too logical for us to say who gets into heaven and who doesn't at all.

I mean frankly heaven and hell aren't that logical either. Why would God create something that had the "free will" to go to everlasting damnation?

So we can choose to worship him and get "rewarded" sort to speak, or not to and get punished? To go to heaven, according to man's interpitation, one must get there through his only beliefs and all, not somthing that is formed by a higher being.

But there's nobody who's lived a completely moral life. Even the most moral person you know has sinned many times in their lifetime. The whole point of Christianity is that we are all sinners -- that sin is inherent human nature -- and that Jesus' sacrifice is the only sacrifice big enough to atone for our sins and allow us to be with God. If we do not accept that sacrifice, then we cannot be with God. It is not our own good works that get us into heaven, but rather God's grace. If someone were to live a perfectly moral life, never committing any sins, they would get into heaven by their own power. But nobody has ever done that, and nobody ever will do that. It's impossible. Everyone is a sinner, whether they've killed thousands of people or they've lied to their mother. All sins, however big or small their earthly consequence may be, are equal in their divine consequence -- they all separate us from the perfect love of God.

There is a point in that, but I see no harm in discussing the subject, or in debating its Biblical basis. You are right, however, in that none of us have the right to make the final judgement. That is left up to God.

So we can choose to worship him and get "rewarded" sort to speak, or not to and get punished? To go to heaven, according to man's interpitation, one must get there through his only beliefs and all, not somthing that is formed by a higher being.

I think that an all-knowing and all-powerful being is unlikely to conform to your idea of reasonableness. If you and God have differing ideas on what is fair and what is justified, I believe that God's definition of fairness takes precedent over yours or mine.

Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

I like this speech, and used it as part of the basis of a paper I wrote last year on divine mercy and judgement.

I think we can agree that in this world there isn't a whole lot of justice, who wants to think they honestly deserve every wretched thing that happens to them. All those children that died as a result of the Tsunami, what could they have possibly done to deserved that?

If there is a God, I think he or she surpasses all human understanding (like Nevin said) therefore we'll have a rather tough time understanding why God allows somethings to come to pass and others not to.

Also, I grant this comes from my Catholic perspective, I feel a faith without works is dead. Ergo I'm more likely to grant salvation to an atheist who volunteers at a soup kitchen than the reformed murder who becomes christian but takes no responsibility for his common man. The speech points out that, we pray for mercy, and that prayer should teach us to be merciful.

Also there is within the catholic church the doctrine of exclusive salvation. essentially the Hindu or Buddhist who lives a life that follows Christ's teachings, but doesn't claim to be a christian is an "anonymous christian" one who believes without claiming to believe, and their belief is evidenced by the life they live and the things they do. Essentially actions speak louder than words, and their actions speak of a belief and an acknowledgement of the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps we should start up another discussion on this? Heaven and hell? I think I'll do that preliminarily and if any of the other mods have an issue feel free to move this stuff back.

Edit by Nevin: I split the topic.

Well as always, it depends what part of the Bible you're examining. Surely Paul holds this to be true in his letters, and the idea of "earning heaven" doesn't really make sense to me or a lot of people.

However, it's interesting to look at the Gospels. In his ministry, Jesus by and large does not preach to others saying "believe that I'm the son of God" or else. And in fact, he poses the question "Who do you say that I am" to the apostles well after they've decided to follow him--in other words--he didn't tell them right off the bat.

Rather, Jesus spends most of time healing, comforting, making blind men see and crippled men walk and all that kind of good stuff. He doesn't go around condemning people to hell, by and large. Furthermore, when he DOES get all preachy, he says things like "I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE." He doesn't say "I am the NAME that will save you," but the WAY, TRUTH, and LIFE. It seems to me that if Buddhists or atheists live their lives in such a way that follow the WAY, that follow the TRUTH, and that follow THE LIFE, they are in fact Christian--"anonymous Christians," as Boru has already eloquently said.

I think what Paul is trying to say is that you can't say that you don't get into heaven by trying to earn your way in--which actually isn't what Buddhists and atheists (and others) are doing anyway--they're not trying to earn their way into heaven because they don't believe in heaven. They're doing what they're doing because they recognize a particular WAY of humanity, a particular TRUTH to humanity, and a particular LIFE of humanity that makes sense to all people everywhere--regardless of whether you think a person named "Jesus" was the one and only "son of God."

I imagine that Jesus probably recognized that not everyone would want to admit that he was the son of God--perhaps this is why he didn't announce it everywhere. Instead it seems that he chose to save others through his presence and his life, not through his mere words or his mere identity. And in this light, it makes Jesus to me seem all the more divine--that he could come down and live a LIFE that Buddhists recognize as enlightened, that Muslims recognize as holy, that many atheists deem at the very least admirable.

And so we are saved insofar as we transcend our own egos to live as Jesus did--not in an effort to "earn heaven," but merely to live life in a way that reflects God's eternal truth.

According to Islam, Hell is reserved for the apostate and the truly evil. Even if you're not Muslim, if you live a good life and try to help your fellow man, you still have a place in Paradise.

I have always wondered exactly what is meant by "a good life." Are there certain good acts and certain bad acts, and the good has to outweigh the bad at the end of one's life? Must one do a certain number of good acts? Must one refrain from doing a certain number of bad acts? Must one accomplish something within one's lifetime? What allowances are made for forgiveness? For example, if someone were to murder another, but then realize his wrongdoing and be truly sorry, and spend the rest of his life helping people, would he still go to Paradise? What if he were to murder ten people, and have the same experience? It's always seemed to me that the idea of being a "good person" is far too subjective.

I recall you saying that you believe in a conscience. Might being a "good person" simply be "following one's conscience?"

Do you REALLY believe that you can't recognize a "good life" if you see one?

A "good life" is very subjective, yes, and it rightfully should be. To answer some of your questions ...

Yes, there are certain good acts and certain bad acts. These are all laid out in Torah, the Gospel, and Qur'an - the messages of Allah to mankind.

One should refrain from doing any bad acts, but Allah knows we are human and prone to mistakes.

We only get one lifetime, so yes, it is important to do what is right when we are here. Once we are dead, judgement is upon us.

Allah forgives all things if Allah is asked with sincerity.

As for your example, the answer is yes. The murderer would be in Paradise no matter how many he had murdered.

Absolutely not. Firstly, I do not believe that merely because one believes something to be right or wrong, it is right or wrong. I do believe in the conscience, but rarely can we understand what our conscience is saying. We are often thrown mixed, confused messages and very rarely do we really realize what's right and what's wrong. I also said, if I recall correctly, that our conscience should only be one of many moral guides -- the other I mentioned was Scripture, although I think that reason may also be a good guide (that is, rather than going on intuition and conscience, one should examine why or why not something is moral or immoral). Now, I believe in absolute moral truths. As you may or may not know, I am a pacifist, and as such, believe that to take another human being's life is wrong in any and all cases. However, I recognize that the vast majority of the Christian world believes this, and that many are following, or at least think they are following, their conscience when they go to war. This does not make their actions right -- they still sin when they kill. But God will forgive them, for clearly they cannot ask for forgiveness for that which they do not know is sin. To knowingly sin, however, and not want for forgiveness, is different -- also, it may be that a recognition that our morals are often incorrect and a plea that we be forgiven of all our sins, known and unknown, is necessary. The specifics of such matters I do not know -- I will leave that to God, who is far more qualified to judge such things than I am. But I certainly do not believe that merely because one thinks something is moral or immoral, that that makes it so.

Secondly, I do not think that anyone follows their conscience at all times. Everyone, at some time or another, does something that they know fully well to be wrong -- whether it be to tell a lie, to get in a fight with someone, to look at pornography, or what have you. They know that it is wrong, their conscience is telling them that it is wrong, but they do it anyway -- they give into the temptation. So no one can be said to always follow one's conscience, and as such, no one can be truly good (although as I said, of course, following one's conscience does not necessarily make one good).

I daresay that I could. But I also daresay that what I see as a good life, another may very well see as a bad life. Who's to say that I'm right and they're wrong? What are the guidelines in judging who has led a good life and who has led a bad life?

On this I would most likely agree. As I said, I believe in absolute morality -- although I think that my understanding of what is good is much less than my understanding of what is evil. Acting right has always been a more elusive concept to me than acting evil.

Interesting. Very similar to Christianity.

But we can be forgiven, you say. Is this left at the discretion of Allah, or is there in Islam some concept of atonement, as there is in Christianity through the Cross?

I am curious, what about the example I gave in my response to psycholopher? Must one recognize one's sins to be forgiven for them? Is ignorance an excuse? Also, what of non-Muslims? You said before that those of other faiths can achieve Paradise. Is it not necessary that they ask Allah in particular for forgiveness? Need they only ask their concept of God? What of atheists? Need they merely be truly sorry, even if they have no one to apologize to?

I am actually quite surprised at that answer. If you don't mind my asking, is that the typical Islamic belief, or more your personal interpretation?

Thinking about it, I realize that there's real value to what you're saying in your questioning of "living a good life" as a "criterion" for getting into heaven. You're right--people might take that definition and just use it to justify their life ("Well I think I'm being a good person").

Further, I have often said, "How to religious fundamentalists know what you need to believe in order to go to heaven?" And then I go ahead and say "all you need to do is be a good person." But how do I know any better than the religous fundamentalist?"

So I agree with your fundamental point. But I still disagree with your position on right/wrong and the conscience. Or I guess it would be better to say that I'm not sure I fully understand it.

Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe in absolute morality but don't believe we can know it? You believe in a conscience but believe that we typically can't trust it?

Well in the end you're right that it's up to God to make the judgment. But do you think that there are no guidelines to what constitutes a good life?

You do bring up a good point I'd like to comment on, in that morality is far too often tied with getting to heaven. I find it disgusting how many say "well, I'm going to do what I have to to get into heaven, but besides that, I'm just going to have fun." That's not what being Christian is about. Being Christian is about doing right because it is right, not because it'll get you into heaven. We are to do good deeds because it is right to do so, not because we're hoping for a reward.

More or less, yes. "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." Absolute morality and absolute truth certainly exists, but rarely can we understand it. I do believe that the conscience certainly has value, but I also believe that it should not be taken as the end all of morality. It's naive and foolish of me to think that just because something seems right to me, makes it right. But, on the other hand, if I have nothing else with which to determine the morality of any action, I ought to follow my conscience. But, on the other hand (I sound like Tevye here), we often need to examine ethical issues more critically than just "this feels right, and this feels wrong." What I think is necessary is a healthy mixture of reason and intuition, along with the humility of realizing that we are not always right.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as "a good life." I believe that there are such things as good deeds, but that we are all primarily sinners, and that no number of good deeds can take away our sin. We are only saved through Jesus' sacrifice. Of course, as I said earlier, this is no excuse for not doing good deeds, because getting to heaven should not be our goal.

Very clear. Thanks.

I try. :)

It's always nice when my ideas work out into a nice, understandable and non-contradictory passage. As you can see from the topic with "my dilemma," this is not always the case.

I'm christian, but that pretty much sums up my beliefs with Heaven and Hell. I say if you lead a good life, you'll go to heaven/Paradise/ whtever's out there. If you lead an evil, hateful, sinful, violent life without repenting (to whatever God/Gods you believe in), you're in trouble......

I've always found the Islamic view of judgment far more reasonable than the Christian one. Both in reference to their faith and in reference to what I deem as logic.

There is something solid in the rationalized "eye for an eye" theory of justice to me. Christian faith clearly states man isn't to judge others as if to decide who looses an tooth or eye or finger... but they can sentence them to jail easily enough. And a few states' bench can sentence death.

Supposedly the Wisdom of Solomon was touted throught history for his fairness in handling civil disputes. Maybe a few more marriage/couple counselors would lessen domestic violence. I'm still not sure about cutting the child in half though. That might seem a bit extreme.