KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

Are You Good Enough?

▼

Are You Good Enough?

How Do You Know for Sure?

from JoeUser Forums
The million dollar question is How does one get to heaven? The prerequisite is death, and for that we seem to all agree. But after that let the speculation begin. For many life is much too busy to even think about this right now. I mean life is pretty full right now to even bother thinking that far ahead. Life has to be lived, jobs have to be done, kids have to be fed, my tv program has to be watched and I do have to sleep at least 1/3 of the day. There is just no time to think about this right now. Isn't that what we believe even if we don't come out and say it?

When I was on vacation I read a book by Andy Stanley called "How Good is Good Enough?" In his book he brings up some very good logical points that I believe many have not thought thru. Many times I hear that if one is "good enough" they can enter heaven. Obviously that is a very common belief and one that Stanley tackles in his book.

Most people believe that once you die your soul goes somewhere. Most believe in heaven, some believe in hell. In spite of all the differences out there, all share one common denominator: how you live on this side of eternity determines where you spend eternity on the other side.

If God appeared to you at the gate and asked you "Why should I allow you into heaven? how would you answer? Most people no matter if they are Christian, Hindu, or Muslim would answer with:

"I always do .......
"I never have done........."
I've done more good than bad....."
"I've tried my best to be......."

The majority of answers recall living a good life, and living a good life is another prerequisite for heaven. So then we need only to behave ourselves now and we can reach heaven. Now back to our lives.

But as you get older, you start to think more often about it even if you find yourself pushing it away from your mind. Maybe you get some bad health news, or you go to yet another funeral. Maybe it's going to a birthday party or maybe it's your own birthday that gets you to thinking about eternity. You may not talk about it, but it's there.

The mortality rate for humans is 100%, and as we get older it becomes more evident in our minds. As good as we can be, and we usually think we're pretty good, we can't really be sure we're good enough. We can hope so. But how can we know for sure? Where's the line? The standard? Is there enough time to do more good deeds to counterbalance the bad ones? Who decides? If it's God, shouldn't he have been a bit more clearer about how all this works? A mile marker would do or a mid term would be helpful.

But hey we have religion and their many books to help us right? We have teachers, preachers, rabbis, priests, lamas and they are all in the business of getting us to the other side. Ok, so why are we still unsure? Many even tho they have been religiously taught one way or the other are still not confident in their standing before God. Stanley puts a quote in his book from Gandhi showing that even Gandhi couldn't find certainty in religion. If he couldn't be sure can we? When questioned why he proselytized in the arena of politics but not religion Gandhi said:

"In the realm of the political and social and economic, we can be sufficiently certain to convert; but in the realm of religion there is not sufficient certainty to convert anybody, and therefore, there can be no coversions in religions."

Even what we would consider the salt of the earth people here, can sometimes have no idea where they will spend eternity of if they are good enough to enter. The best they can say is "I hope so." Why is that? If the nicest, kindest, most loving people we know here on earth can't know for sure how can we? Why don't they know? Because nobody can tell you how good you have to be to go to heaven. Nobody.

In his book Stanley talks of making dangerous assumptions. For many of us we go to bed assuming we will wake up in the morning. We don't worry about waking up to smoke filled bedrooms because we have smoke alarms. We feel safe. But do we test them? Do our extinquishers work? Do we test them? Or do we assume they work? Yet in spite of our lack of investigation we go to bed every night under the assumption that our family is safe. Since most think they are good, they go to bed assuming that if they were to die in their sleep (it happens) they would find themselves standing at the pearly gates hoping they have the right answers or enough good deeds to get in.

How many of us even take the time to test the assumption that good people go to heaven? Are we too busy? After all the logic seems fair. If you do well, you deserve good things. It's a reward for good behavior. After all, this action and reaction relationship is illustrated in all the religions. The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Ellen White's Books etc. all tell of God's eagerness to reward good behavior in this life. So it only seems fair if you do well here, you go to heaven. Plain and simple.

Also it's logical to assume that if God is good and dwells in a good place, then it makes sense that God would surround himself with good people. Bad people wouldn't go to heaven. That's not logical. Don't we think that? We tell our kids if they're good they can go to a very special event or be treated to a very special place as a reward for good behavior.

While we know we're not perfect, at the same time we feel as though we are good enough for heaven. The truth is very few people that believe in life after this earthly one believe they aren't going to a better place. Almost 90% of Americans believe in heaven while only about 30% believe in a hell. Most that believe in hell don't think they are going there.

What other view could there be? Bad people go to heaven? Nope, can't be. Unthinkable. All the experts can't be that off can they?

I'd like to look at that next time.









"
religion
8,192 views 62 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mohammad existed, too. Does that prove Muslims are right? [/quote]

they're right that Mohammed lived. yes.

You said that you had more than just faith to base your "truth" on.[/quote]

let's go back to what faith is. Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1

What is substance? Faith gives reality and proof of things unseen treating them as if they were already objects of sight rather than hope. This is what Jesus kept trying to tell those who chose only to see with the physical eyes. The evidence is there, open your eyes....he was saying. "Look at me. When you see me you see the Father." That type of thing.

[quote]You'll say that I'm nitpicking, but you are asserting that you have something more than hearsay. I don't see how people who lived 100 or more years after Jesus's death can be considered eyewitnesses. Therefore, you just BELIEVE what they are saying, based on faith, not their eyewitness account.


he (Josephus) was born in 37AD....just a couple, maybe 4 years after Christ died. That's not 100 years. The entire bible was penned (lastly by John) by the mid 90's. Again that's not 100 years after Christ was killed. The entier NT was either written by eyewitnesses or those who had first hand info from the eyewitness accounts. For instance Mark wrote the gospel but it's clearly senn thru the eyes of Peter. We learn from Acts that Peter and Mark traveled together. That was part of the criteria for putting the canon together. It had to be by eyewitness accounts or first hand by an Apostle only.

[quote]Like I said, there was probably really a Siddhartha Gautama. There was probably really a Muhhamed. If I offered you contemporaries that can verify their existence, would it offer substantive reason to believe Buddhist and Islamic doctrine?


there was and I have no problem beliving this to be true. You don't have to offer me anything. I'm already convinced they lived. The documents point to their existence although you may want to find out when their writings were first published in contrast to the bible's. If I remember correctly, for both it was hundreds of years later, when all who would be able to verify were long since dead. The gospels were written when many were still alive during the happenings 20-30 years prior.

oh and here's another link on Josephus...from my POV one of my favorite sites....I find this guy very fair and honest in everything I've read from him. He's very dedicated to the truth...no matter where it might lead and I think you can see that in what he had to say here.


WWW Link
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Post more, please. Show me another that was in the same century Jesus lived. Tacitus? Pliny


ok...Polycarp who was a disciple of John before John died. Polycarp linked the Apostles with the 2nd Century Christians. Iraneaus was a disciple of Polycarp. I think Ignatius died in 110 but unsure of his birth and he started out pagan.

There was also Justin Martyr who also was born a pagan. He was born about 100AD. These were pretty much contemporaries and I belive all were killed for their faith by the Roman officials.

So you can start there.....Polycarp, Iraneaus, Ignatius, and Martyr.

That should give you HW if you really want to research them.

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Faith gives reality and proof of things unseen treating them as if they were already objects of sight rather than hope."


OH... so by believing, you see more "substance" than people who don't? Are you serious? That's like page one of any cult playbook. "You can't really know what the proof is until you believe."

"he (Josephus) was born in 37AD....just a couple, maybe 4 years after Christ died"


Which pretty much rules him out as an eyewitness to anything that you could call "substance". Which makes his testimony hearsay, and yours hearsay of hearsay. Given that you'd have to be blind not to see that his words about Jesus were tampered with, I don't see how you can say its of any objective value in terms of making your ideas more than belief.

Anyway, as I said, the mere fact that Jesus existed doesn't prove a thing about your Christian doctrine.


"The entire bible was penned (lastly by John) by the mid 90's..."


You can't possibly be offering the Bible as an eyewitness account of... the Bible. There was a ton of other stuff penned that you don't agree with then, too. There is more apocryphal material than accepted material. The Church just picked out what best suited their beliefs about Jesus.

So, if you point to the Gospel of Mark, why can't someone else point to the gospel of Judas, or the gospel of Thomas? If they wrote it in the year 100-something, or 200-something, well, you list great names from that era as testament of Jesus, too. You don't think, just maybe, you're working backward from your beliefs, do you?

Of course you are. You accept what you accept to be true about Jesus, and reject what you think doesn't fit. Just like my take on God, just like Lucas' take on religion in general. You aren't any different, you just refuse to admit it.








Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
So you can start there.....Polycarp, Iraneaus, Ignatius, and Martyr.


You're just naming people at random now. I can name people too. Nero, Marcus Auralius... I keep a copy of his Meditations right on my desk, too. Please explain to me how any of those people you mention offer any substance to your Christian beliefs. None of them offer anything but hearsay testimony of Jesus.

You keep saying, basically, that you have "substance" to your beliefs because you can name other people who believed them a long time ago. No doubt a lot of other religions can say the same. The people you are citing from the first century are CHURCH fathers, the ones that drafted your beliefs, not secondary "substance" to back them up.

If a Muslim came to you and offered you "proof" of Islam's veracity in the form of the earliest Muslim theologians, you wouldn't accept it. You'd say "Of course THEY attest to it, it's their work to begin with." Pointing to the guys who drafted your beliefs as substantive proof of your beliefs makes little sense.

I'm not debating the existence of Jesus or the Christian faith, I'm debating how you KNOW it to be true in a substantive form moreso than the mere "belief" you seem to have disdain for.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is more apocryphal material than accepted material. The Church just picked out what best suited their beliefs about Jesus.


yes there is. No, the church went with the sure things first, and then carefully went outside that. I know that there was initial discussion on a few books but in the end I believe there was full agreement on the Cannon being put together.



OH... so by believing, you see more "substance" than people who don't? Are you serious?

spiritually speaking yes. It's not like I see dead people walking tho...LOL.

You can't possibly be offering the Bible as an eyewitness account of... the Bible.


no, I was just saying the whole bible was penned before the 100 mark that you had mentioned. The cannon was completely written by then most of it written during the time of live witnesses to most of the events listed. Josephus was not an eyewitness but he lived just a few years after the death of Christ. It would be like someone growing up in the 40's and hearing all the stories of WWII. They would have full knowledge from the eyes of those who lived thru it.

In our time we had 9/11. We can tell our children, who were being born during this time, of all the events we witnessed. You can call it heresay if you want, but there is a general consensus that it did indeed happen. Was Josephus going to discount all because he didn't see it with his own eyes even tho he grew up hearing the stories? Isn't that what you're doing? What kind of logic is this?

I know you don't really agree with that, because it would be like denying the Holocaust never happened because you never saw it. So years from now I can't really rely on your daughter's view thru your eyes because it's not valid. It's just heresay regardless if all had the same stories. It's still stories.

Funny you will use diff sets of principles for modern times than you do for ancient times. Why is that?








Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I know you don't really agree with that, because it would be like denying the Holocaust never happened because you never saw it. So years from now I can't really rely on your daughter's view thru your eyes because it's not valid. It's just heresay regardless if all had the same stories. It's still stories.

Funny you will use diff sets of principles for modern times than you do for ancient times. Why is that?"


It's interesting that you keep trying to change the point here. No one is saying that it did or didn't happen. No one is saying that you have nothing but belief to prove that Jesus existed. You were saying that you have something more than belief to base your religious beliefs on.

Do I have something more than belief to base my knowledge of the holocaust on? Sure. Photographs, confessions, documentation in film, Nazi records, heck, I can look at the tattoos on the people's arms. In order for me to believe that the holocaust happened, though, I DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL.

As I said, you keep trying to shift this to whether or not Jesus existed. Mohammad existed, Buddha existed, but you choose not to worship them. You are saying you have something more than belief to back up what you know to be true. Surely the truth of Christianity is more than just Jesus existing.

"Was Josephus going to discount all because he didn't see it with his own eyes even tho he grew up hearing the stories? Isn't that what you're doing? What kind of logic is this?


All that Jesus can attest to is that Jesus lived, was crucified, and people subsequently worshiped him. You have such outside testimony in other religions. Are you saying that Josephus can attest to the divinity of Christ? Or the miracles?

What about your religious beliefs does Josephus offer testimony of?
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

You're just naming people at random now


ok, now I'm really banging my head against the wall. Did you or did you not ask this question:

Post more, please. Show me another that was in the same century Jesus lived.


so I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Baker you're either very tired or just like to argue for argue's sake. gah!!

[quote]I'm not debating the existence of Jesus or the Christian faith, I'm debating how you KNOW it to be true in a substantive form moreso than the mere "belief" you seem to have disdain for./quote]

Belief is enough for me. I don't need to prove anything to you or anybody else. Three things I've learned to live by to get the most of life...

1. Lve with nothing to prove.
2. Live with nothing to hide
3. Live with nothing to lose

when you live with nothing to lose you let go what the world has to offer. This drove Paul's enemies crazy. They sought to kill him, his answer? Well to live is for Christ and to die is gain. If I die, I get promoted.

Nero did finally kill him. What Nero didn't see was Paul running to his father. Paul lived with nothing to lose, nothing to prove and nothing to hide.

Arguing just for argue's sake is not good. I think really that's all you want to do. Argue. If I say black, you are going to say white even if it violates what you really believe deep down.











Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
"ok, now I'm really banging my head against the wall. Did you or did you not ask this question:

Post more, please. Show me another that was in the same century Jesus lived. "


Yeah, "another" in terms of another person you were referring to, i.e. independant sources of information about Jesus. People who were contemporaries of Jesus. You said:

"Not only that, but many historians outside of scripture, Christian or not, who wrote in the first century also vouched for the events written in these gospels. There was "no this stuff never happened" discussions or "these gospels are a lie." There was none of that."


Granted, the people who invented the religion will vouch for the religion, but other than Josephus and maybe a couple of Romans who didn't believe, I don't know who you mean.

"Arguing just for argue's sake is not good. I think really that's all you want to do. Argue. If I say black, you are going to say white even if it violates what you really believe deep down."


Then I really don't understand why you took Lucas to task for saying something that you basically just said yourself.

Belief is enough for me. I don't need to prove anything to you or anybody else


Lucas doesn't need to prove it either. Nor does he need to pretend that he has something more than belief in order to make his beliefs seem more reliable.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will treat you the same as any person claiming they have more to prove Darwinism than Creationism. All they have is belief. All you have is belief. Period.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do I have something more than belief to base my knowledge of the holocaust on? Sure. Photographs, confessions, documentation in film, Nazi records, heck, I can look at the tattoos on the people's arms. In order for me to believe that the holocaust happened, though, I DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL.


I do to. Belief is all I need as I said, I don't have to prove anything, although I've said numerous times that my belief is not just on belief but on the evidences that God has put in front of me to bring me to the point of belief. I'm not just beieving to believe in something. That's the substance of Heb 11:1...like the story of Gideon...like the stories all thru the OT and the NT. The whole reason for the miracles was to "prove" to them that Christ was who he said he was because "belief" would not have been enough for most. Those that did, were highly commended by Christ.

You say you have photo's confessions, documentation and the like? How do you know they're real? How do you know the Nazi records aren't faked or the film not produced 20 years after the so called holocaust? Isn't that what you're saying about the works of antiquity?

I say that I have that too, but it's in changed lives including my own, it's in little things daily that God has shown me that validate his word, it's in his fingerprints all over this creation. It's in the miracles I've witnessed that the only explanation left is it's God. I've seen the doctor's faces when they have no explanation for something happening. It's medically not possible otherwise.

BTW...you can't see too many tatoos anymore because there aren't that many still alive to show you so you're going to have to go to photos to prove that pretty
much.


will treat you the same as any person claiming they have more to prove Darwinism than Creationism. All they have is belief. All you have is belief


well I'll give ya you're an equal opportunity arguer....lol.

This just is one of the reasons I believe evolution is nothing but another religion cloaked in Science. It's based on belief like you said. Only it's not in God but in man. But let's not get into that....




Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
"You say you have photo's confessions, documentation and the like? How do you know they're real? How do you know the Nazi records aren't faked or the film not produced 20 years after the so called holocaust? Isn't that what you're saying about the works of antiquity?"


Sounds like you're trying to turn it around and make my point for me. Your evidence is basically non-existent. I can talk to eyewitnesses. You have about as much "evidence" as they have for Apollo stalking the beaches of Troy shooting people with his bow.

You're just trying to dodge your assertion now, and I don't blame you. Casting doubt on "evidence" doesn't make your evidence less doubtful, though, it makes it more. When you make the point that we only have hearsay for the holocaust, it makes me wonder how you expect someone to believe that you have more than hearsay for your whole religion.

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sounds like you're trying to turn it around and make my point for me. Your evidence is basically non-existent. I can talk to eyewitnesses. You have about as much "evidence" as they have for Apollo stalking the beaches of Troy shooting people with his bow.


only because of the time factor. A few years from now, you'll be in the same boat. There is no eye witnesses left to tell us about the war of 1812 either. According to your logic, we might as well not believe that either.
No eyewittness around to tell us.

In fact, we have the same eyewitness testimony for the war of 1812 as we do for the first century believers that wrote what they saw.

So I'm saying 100 years from now we have to believe in the Holocaust the same way we believe in the happenings of 1812, 1517, 1492 or 33. Why is it only the year 30-90 AD we have a problem with?