Though it wouldn't surprise me if I have previously misspoke on this, or any, subject, I am happy to say that I stand firmly behind what I posted in that particular thread you're quote-mining from. Let's look at the dialogue at greater length:


Notice the question I was responding to was not if morals matter. *The question was "So are you saying that only by believing in jesus and being morally good will you go to heaven?"



I'm pleased to find it is in line with the theology I am presenting now.

Look at it this way.
We both die and are put on trial.
I obtained counsel.
You didn't.

We were both charged with the same crimes, and both found guilty.
Christ already served my sentence, however, and so it was commuted.

You rejected counsel when you were offered the same deal.

Both of us are judged and found guilty.
One of us was pardoned.

Let's say I'm convicted of a rape I did not commit, and I'm sentenced to 20 years in prison. After serving 10 years, DNA evidence confirms I did not commit the rape, and irrefutably links someone else to the rape. This person goes on trial, is convicted, and entenced to 20 years. Does he get credit for the 10 years I already served?

Jesus had foreknowledge of everything, and willingly suffered on our behalf. That's a big difference.

In a legal sense, Why?

What do you mean a legal sense?

Other than making them super nice, Why does a person's foreknowledge or willingness to pay for a crime have any bearing on the punishment? I have other points I could make here, but we'd start crossing our discussion in the other thread.

It seems like you're trying to apply the way mankind's laws and punishments work to the way God's laws and punishments work. They are both reasonable and logical in their own system, but there isn't an earthly example for Jesus. If we depart from the comparison to mankind's laws, then we can examine it according to the Bible if you'd like. Also, I agree this is going to repeat a lot of the other thread.

Its the other way around for non believers. It got stricter. I could follow Gods laws in the bible (and i do follow some of them). I couldn't convince myself to have faith that Jesus is my savoir.

But i get what you mean.

You are not being clear at all. You are avoiding a direct answer

Please just answer my question with a simple yes or no.

Does god take into account your deeds when deciding whether you get into heaven? Yes or No

By take into account I mean, use them as criteria to decide whether you get into heaven or not
Ie, does someone who has lived a "better" life ( I understand your point that everyone is a sinner in gods eyes) have a better chance of getting into heaven?

thanks

I am giving a direct answer. I'll answer as I see fit, so that my beliefs won't be misunderstood. I don't know why you're objecting to me giving fuller answers. Again, yes a person's deeds are accounted upon God's judgment. Again if they're righteous they go to heaven, if they're a sinner they go to hell. If they're the nicest sinner to ever live, they go to hell. God's judgment isn't on a bell-curve.

You are still avoiding answering clearly.

You are saying the only way to go to heaven is to be righteous, correct?

You are saying the only way to be righteous is to believe in jesus, correct?

I answered this in a previous post. Maybe you missed it. Quoted below.
I would reword 3 to "The only way to be righteous in God's sight upon judgment is through faith in Jesus." But I think it was clear enough before.

No, you didnt answer my questions in that post. Or else you answered them, but I didnt understand your answers.

Will you answer the following questions with a one word answer, either correct or incorrect ? This is so that I can clearly understand where you are coming from. If I am wrong, then please state incorrect, this will help me.

You are saying the only way to go to heaven is to be righteous, correct?

You are saying the only way to be righteous is to believe in jesus, correct?

I'll give short answers followed by corrections.

Correct enough. I would modify "be righteous" to "be seen/judged by God as righteous". This is more to make the following easier to understand and apply.

Kind of correct. I would modify it from "be righteous" to "be seen/judged as righteous". Faith in Jesus doesnt make a believer righteous himself in the sense that a believer will never again sin. Jesus imparts his righteousness to us upon judgment so that instead of being judged by our unrighteousness, instead Jesus's righteousness is counted to us. And our unrighteousness to Jesus.

Ok then

1) the only way to get to heaven is to be seen/judged by god as righteous

2) the only way to be seen/judged by god as righteous is to believe in jesus

Therefore, the morality of the person in question is not taken into account, it doesnt matter how good/bad they have been. As long as they believe in jesus, they will be seen/judged by god as righteous.

Yes, you got #1 & #2 correct.

It is taken into account. Jesus was crucified for a reason, and this is it. To atone(account) for sin. Exchanging our sins for Jesus's righteousness is called double imputation. The sins don't vanish.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV)

It is not taken into account when judging whether a person goes to heaven. Otherwise believing in jesus would not be the only way to get to heaven.Why are you so reluctant to admit this openly, when you are basically admitting it anyway in what you say.

"If they're the nicest sinner to ever live, they go to hell"

and
"the only way to be seen as righteous is to believe in jesus."

Do you understand logic at all? And that logically, what you are saying implies that it doesnt matter how good or bad you are, its not taken into account when god decides whether you get into heaven?


According to you

The only criteria that is considered when god decides whether you go to heaven or not, is whether you believe in jesus

Wizard, please take a look at this hypothetical situation.

Person A lives the worst possible morally bad life you can imagine as an atheist. She is clearly a sinner (a thief, rapist, serial killer). This person commits thousands of crimes in her life and according to you, must be judged upon it. After living a long life without ever regretting what she has done, before death person A decides to convert to christianity. Now she regrets her crimes, loves Jesus and prays for clemency.

Person B lives a morally good life (the best that you can imagine). She loves her neighbour as she loves herself. She is grateful for that she is alive but is also an atheist. She feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, etc. Person B saves a lot of people and makes them happy. She does never convert to christianity.

Which one goes to hell and which one to heaven?

You're not considering my theology as a whole. You are instead reducing it to certain points of focus in an attempt to make them stand-alone subjects that you find more objectionable without other relevant theology. And in turn you are attempting to justify your disagreement. There are some similarities to the parable of the good Samaritan.

[The Parable of the Good Samaritan]
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
(Luke 10:25-37 ESV)

The lawyer does the same thing when he tries to justify his sinful life in an attempt to reconcile his life with Jesus's commandment. You're being a legalist. I am guilty of having done that, and I'm sure I will do that in the future as well.

I do understand that I am in fact saying that "The only way to be seen as righteous in God's eyes is to believe in Jesus". I just want you to understand why I believe this, and why it is logical.

Yes I stand firmly behind #3. If you're going to attack part of my claim with no consideration for the rest of the claim then you're not being fair. If you want to contend the prerequisites of #3, or the logic of how I arrived at #3, then by all means do that.

I'd rather you understood how I would arrive at the answer to those hypotheticals, rather than simply the answer. It should be apparent if you read this thread, but if after doing that you still cannot figure out how I would answer each, then ask questions about the methodology.

I will note that some things would need to be clarified to answer person B.

For a while there, I thought you meant the Seinfeld bubble boy. He was a mean sob, good luck to him getting to heaven!

OP such a great post, and a good reason not to believe in this version of God and Heaven/Hell

Some believe that Heaven and Hell/afterlife is on a gradual gradient. So that Mother Theresa would be on the top right (upper most part of Heaven) and Adolf Hitler on the bottom left (lower most depths of hell). Everyone else would fit somewhere in between according to the life they lead while one Earth I suppose.

Also, some people don't believe Hell is a fiery pit of misery. Rather, it is a place where God is absent. People actually have a choice to join or not to join Heaven (at least most people do, not sure if Hitler is elligible lol) So this would sort of make the bubble boy irrelevant (although i suppose there would still be a bubble boy as far as who is even given the choice and who isn't). Looking around I wonder, seems an awful lot like God may not be present here...

Some believe that in order to be fit for Heaven God must zap us in a particular way and change us so that we can accept the Heaven lifestyle. All those who agree to the zapping are permitted to be in Heaven (so I suppose Hitler would actually be allowed in on this account?) Those who refuse go to the place where God is not present and are asked if they want to be zapped and let into heaven at a later date.

Super good question OP and a damn good reason to doubt this religion stuff

Here this in a philosophy class?

Coincidentally, I was a philosophy major in college, but I thought of this OP all on my own.