Originally posted by HalitoseIf "hell" is atheist humanism, I'll take it.
I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that eventually there will only be two types of people: those who say to God, "your will be done"; and those to whom God will say it.
He continues to say that he firmly believes the gates of hell to be barred from the inside -- the lasting vestige to their own selfishness and sanctimony.
I very much doubt hell to b ...[text shortened]... chamber.
Edit: Like trying to please Santa to get bigger and better presents at Christmas.
Originally posted by dottewell"Presumed guilt" is not an accurate assessment. Condemned at birth is closer to the mark. Any other manner would not have worked.
A good person isn't a perfect person. You probably are a good person, skeletons and all.
I prefer a system that doesn't start from a position of presumed guilt.
Originally posted by dottewellAh. You see, my point was, I don't the value of system of heaven IS based on the morality we have on earth. It's more like earth's value system is a pale, distorted version of heaven's.
If the value system of heaven is based on the morality we have on earth, then if no one is bad enough for hell why should they be good enough for heaven?
That's why I have a problem with seeing heaven as some kind of reward for 'good people'. It's a rather earth-centric view. Whereas I think what really matters is whether you have a relationship with the owner of heaven.
Originally posted by orfeoSo from a God's-eye moral viewpoint, the actions of a Hitler or Stalin are insignificant? Hmm. He doesn't come across that way in the OT.
Ah. You see, my point was, I don't the value of system of heaven IS based on the morality we have on earth. It's more like earth's value system is a pale, distorted version of heaven's.
That's why I have a problem with seeing heaven as some kind of reward for 'good people'. It's a rather earth-centric view. Whereas I think what really matters is whether you have a relationship with the owner of heaven.
Originally posted by dottewellInsignificant? No. I don't think that God simply ignores what's going on.
So from a God's-eye moral viewpoint, the actions of a Hitler or Stalin are insignificant? Hmm. He doesn't come across that way in the OT.
But in terms of getting to heaven then, yes, my Christian beliefs include the fact that I am in need of salvation just as much as Hitler or Stalin. It's a binary state - you either need saving or you don't need saving, it doesn't matter HOW far short you've fallen.
I know that no1marauder finds this position deeply unpalatable, so he'll be along any minute now to rip me apart if you don't do it yourself...
Can you give me examples of what you have in mind from the OT?
Originally posted by orfeoThe examples I was thinking of were those showing God acting in ways we can assess with our human ethics, and where there were supposed to be moral lessons. Virtually anything would do - Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt, Belshazzar's feast.
Insignificant? No. I don't think that God simply ignores what's going on.
But in terms of getting to heaven then, yes, my Christian beliefs include the fact that I am in need of salvation just as much as Hitler or Stalin. It's a binary state - you either need saving or you don't need saving, it doesn't matter HOW far short you've fallen.
I know that no1 ...[text shortened]... on't do it yourself...
Can you give me examples of what you have in mind from the OT?
I can't accept the binary state thing, for obvious reasons.
Originally posted by dottewellThe New Testament also has similar examples - the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5 would be a good one.
The examples I was thinking of were those showing God acting in ways we can assess with our human ethics, and where there were supposed to be moral lessons. Virtually anything would do - Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt, Belshazzar's feast.
I can't accept the binary state thing, for obvious reasons.
The 'binary state' is simply a matter of logic - no different to either a woman is pregnant or she isn't. I take it what you don't accept is the notion that everybody is on the same side of the dividing line.