• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Misc All Things Religious

I just believe ... and I truly believe do unto others and love your God ... now I am Christian, but do not feel I have any business whatsoever faulting good folks who are not ... so long as they are good folks ... and if they are not and if I can help them, then all the better ... but I do not think it is good to force myself on anyone ... unless I just want to cause rebellion and hate ...
I understand but what defines someone as "good?"
Now we are into the age old question ... and I am not that far up the food chain to decide ... but I know "good" when it happens ... from me or to me ...

Phil, I think you are an excellent poster, so I'm truly not meaning to be argumentive, but I echo Poimen's question here. I would personally agree with your description of "good," as would a lot of people. However, what about people who define good differently. Some people (a disturbing number in fact) think it is "good" to steal, hurt, rape, kill, etc. To them, gettting what you can, when you want is "good" and consistent with the animal world; therefore "natural." What makes our view of "good" any "better or more correct" than theirs? To have any real meaning behind the idea of being "good", there has to be a standard beyond what any of us think, otherwise it is just opinion.

So if "being good folks, as long as they are good folks" were enough, whoose opinion of "good folks' should we use to asses them with? Just because you or I think they are "good" does that make them so? Just because Hitler thought someone was "good" did that make them so?
 
Phil, I think you are an excellent poster, so I'm truly not meaning to be argumentive, but I echo Poimen's question here. I would personally agree with your description of "good," as would a lot of people. However, what about people who define good differently. Some people (a disturbing number in fact) think it is "good" to steal, hurt, rape, kill, etc. To them, gettting what you can, when you want is "good" and consistent with the animal world; therefore "natural." What makes our view of "good" any "better or more correct" than theirs? To have any real meaning behind the idea of being "good", there has to be a standard beyond what any of us think, otherwise it is just opinion.

So if "being good folks, as long as they are good folks" were enough, whoose opinion of "good folks' should we use to asses them with? Just because you or I think they are "good" does that make them so? Just because Hitler thought someone was "good" did that make them so?
First, thanks for the compliment.
Second, you ask an age old question and I might not be wise enough to answer, but from a pedestrian angle, I'll try ... I think society, or the overwhelming majority of people innately "know" what good is (that ability to somehow "know" being a gift from God, which sets us above the animal kingdom); I think the vast majority of people ingrain that "good" into base-line societal norms, and that we then as individuals somehow strive to exceed the baseline, and when we do, we're doing God's will on an everyday level; as to "bad" people who define their own "good" ... God also gifted us with free will and how we use that is the ultimate measuring stick from on high ... Don't know if this makes sense (but it does to me anyways) ...
 
Peace and Hope
5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we[b] boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we[c] also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 
First, thanks for the compliment.
Second, you ask an age old question and I might not be wise enough to answer, but from a pedestrian angle, I'll try ... I think society, or the overwhelming majority of people innately "know" what good is (that ability to somehow "know" being a gift from God, which sets us above the animal kingdom); I think the vast majority of people ingrain that "good" into base-line societal norms, and that we then as individuals somehow strive to exceed the baseline, and when we do, we're doing God's will on an everyday level; as to "bad" people who define their own "good" ... God also gifted us with free will and how we use that is the ultimate measuring stick from on high ... Don't know if this makes sense (but it does to me anyways) ...

I would agree completely, and in fact, am arguing exactly that. Specifically, that the ability to truly define good can only come from a standard outside of ourselves (God). I also agree that most people have this knowledge, even if they choose to ignore it ("God's law is written in our hearts") yet some do not recognize that knowledge as coming from Him.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, or at least the context of it. It sounded to me like you were presenting the view that "being good folks" was enough (to get to heaven; ie. One can get to heaven by being good) in the context of the conversation about folks in other parts of the world whom had never heard or whom had lived prior to Christ. In other words; if they had never heard the Gospel, but were good folks, they would go to heaven. I would not necessarily agree with that as I do not think "being good" delivers us back into God's presence (only the sacrifice of Jesus does). And further, if being good could, how would we define good? But I agree the standard is God, not personal opinion of what is good.
 
I did not know that folks who were never exposed to Christianity could not go to heaven ... where are all the good folks who lived in Africa, North America, South America, Asia, Australia ... for say 1700 plus years? I do not recall Jesus saying that Moses and Abraham and Isaac (who could not have "accepted" Jesus, being before His time), or American/Native Indians or Australian Aborigines or Eskimos, or Cave people are/were banned ...
That’s my thinking also. We have a God that loves us but creates people to just go to hell? That’s why I don’t discuss my Christianity much or get into discussions. I believe people have to find what they believe and not what others believe. Everyone has a different interpretation of the scriptures and what they mean. No one can truly say their way is completely wo a doubt the correct way and beliefs. When I say completely I mean with living actual no doubt proof.

The questions about people never having heard or living before Christ are very good and important questions. Many in the old testament, long before Jesus's time, worshipped God and knew there was a Messiah coming. Forgiveness resulting from Christ's sacrifice was also retroactive (God is not bound by time afterall). For people living after, other's have mentioned that "all men" have knowledge of God's existence but many choose to ignore it, or ascribe that knowlege to something else. Here are a couple of good responses, but there are many more if anyone wants to listen:



 
I would agree completely, and in fact, am arguing exactly that. Specifically, that the ability to truly define good can only come from a standard outside of ourselves (God). I also agree that most people have this knowledge, even if they choose to ignore it ("God's law is written in our hearts") yet some do not recognize that knowledge as coming from Him.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, or at least the context of it. It sounded to me like you were presenting the view that "being good folks" was enough (to get to heaven; ie. One can get to heaven by being good) in the context of the conversation about folks in other parts of the world whom had never heard or whom had lived prior to Christ. In other words; if they had never heard the Gospel, but were good folks, they would go to heaven. I would not necessarily agree with that as I do not think "being good" delivers us back into God's presence (only the sacrifice of Jesus does). And further, if being good could, how would we define good? But I agree the standard is God, not personal opinion of what is good.
Thank you; we do have a small bit of a difference but what's that among friends?
 
Jesus said " I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me" Some may believe differently or not believe at all and that is their right, but it is what I believe. For those who believe there are many pathways to God, either they are right or Jesus was not who he said he was, totally your choice
 
Regarding the concept of "good", how can you know if you have been good enough? What's the empirical threshold? There has to be one, if this is the right answer.
 
The Bible is the one absolute, empirical threshhold. For me it has the final say.
I was talking about the viewpoint that good people are saved because they're good, though. What is the threshold for good? There has to be a line in the sand for this position to be valid: Good enough or not good enough.

Fortunately, the Bible is clear that Jesus is the only way and that we don't have to worry about whether or not we're good enough. Because we're not.
 
Exactly. The problem with saying “good people go to heaven” is that how do you know if someone is “good?” We never know all that a person has done, or what kind of thoughts one harbors in his/her mind. How does God determine if one is good? Does he grade on a curve? I mean, surely some are more good than others, right?

This is why Jesus and the NT raised the bar so high that no one could possibly make it over on his/her own. If you have harbored hate/anger in your heart toward anyone, that’s the same as murder. If you have looked at another with lust, that’s the same as the physical act of adultery. The truth is none of us are good in comparison to a perfectly holy God.

But praise be to God that anyone—regardless of what they have done—can be made holy in God’s sight through faith in Christ.

For he who knew no sin became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God.
 
So I've asked this question in other forums and to friends and tend to get the same answer over and over so I'll ask it here. I may have already way earlier and dont remeber if I did or not.

What's the going take on the omnipotent paradox.

Can god create a stone he cannot lift?
 
So I've asked this question in other forums and to friends and tend to get the same answer over and over so I'll ask it here. I may have already way earlier and dont remeber if I did or not.

What's the going take on the omnipotent paradox.

Can god create a stone he cannot lift?

We'd never know. With each rock he would create to test his strength, he would move and thus have to create a bigger rock, which he would move, and thus make a even bigger rock which he would move and this would continue through eternity.
 
So I've asked this question in other forums and to friends and tend to get the same answer over and over so I'll ask it here. I may have already way earlier and dont remeber if I did or not.

What's the going take on the omnipotent paradox.

Can god create a stone he cannot lift?
The answer to the following question is the key to answering the above question: How many miles is the moon from Mother's Day?
 
Not saying this is happening just an interesting take.
 
So I've asked this question in other forums and to friends and tend to get the same answer over and over so I'll ask it here. I may have already way earlier and dont remeber if I did or not.

What's the going take on the omnipotent paradox.

Can god create a stone he cannot lift?

No. The question is hypothetical, but even if we were going to take it literally there are a couple of points to consider. One is that God is outside of (therefore not bound by) space, time, and matter. He is not bound by the same laws of creation (gravity for example) the rest of us are, so size and weight would have no meaning. Further, God would not have to "lift" things. He created the universe through his word (thought/mind...) so I doubt moving a large object would be an issue. But another issue is that we are asking the question from the perspective of finite beings, in the the created universe, who are bound by it's laws. Our undertanding of the question itself is also bound by our own understanding and the laws we know. By our understanding, God cannot do things that violate logic, such as making a one ended stick or a square circle. Making a stone He cannot lift would be illogical based on the nature of God Himself, as I hinted at above. It's certainly possible there are aspects of logic (and most other concepts for that matter) we can't understand with our limited minds that aren't bound by natural laws, that we'll only learn of in God's presence. However, God also uses logic and laws consistent with His nature so He would not be able to violate His own nature.

Just curious, what is the answer you normally get and what is your take? Why do you ask?
 
Slightly off topic but I want to give a shout out to everyone in this thread. I was reading some religious posts on another forum and the intolerance, name calling, and vitrol was just sad to behold. Too bad we can't get along better, we're all brothers and sisters trying to make sense of our world after all. Thanks to everybody for being cordial and respectful here!

(Where's the group hug emoticon?)
 
Great article about the “mark of the beast” and COVID.

 
Back
Top