So 4 guys stand at the pearly gates...

[ragarth]

This question is designed to isolate specific aspects of Christian morality, specifically the origin and context within which morality is 'right'.

3 guys stand before the pearly gates. 2 are Christian and the last atheist. All three men lived moral lives as described in the bible. They helped old ladies across the street, gave to charity, was kind to their fellow man, etc. They all acted to the betterment of those around them and were outstanding citizens, beacons of morality.

Of the Christians, one was moral because he truly cared about those around him, his motivation was a genuine concern for those around him. The 2nd Christian, however, was motivated by fear, fear of God's retribution, of Hell, of an eternity suffering. The Atheist lived a moral life because he truly cared about those around him, his motivation was a genuine concern for those around him.

Given this, what do you see as the fate of these three men? Heaven or Hell, and why? Please be detailed in your reasoning for your choice.

 

[Washington]

One and Two are a go. Number three gets a bye.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." [Acts 16:31)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

(John 3:7). "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

​

Being a good guy just doesn't cut it with the Big guy. He needs your adoration and undivided worship because . . . . well, because that's just the kind of needful guy he is. Go figure!

 

[Angel4Truth]

One and Two are a go. Number three gets a bye.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." [Acts 16:31)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

(John 3:7). "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

​

Being a good guy just doesn't cut it with the Big guy.

Well done - this is exactly right since we have to assume since 1 and 2 are said to be christians in the example that they both born again. Its not about being good or bad its about repentance and forgiveness.

He needs your adoration and undivided worship because . . . . well, because that's just the kind of needful guy he is. Go figure!

This part is not accurate its because He is Holy and will not be before sin - we were created for fellowship with God to share love with. If wanting to give and recieve love it means one is needful then i guess thats something we all are isnt it and we were made in His image after all...

Whose the 4th guy though i only see 3 in the OP

 

[PantsMcFist]

So....our salvation, which Christ died for, depends wholly on missionaries finding us in time? I don't buy into that.

I vote 1 and 3, because they both fulfilled Christ's teaching to the best of their abilities.

In the words of my (Christian) Philosophy of Religion prof - "I expect there will be many buddhists, hindus, atheists and muslims who find themselves in heaven, and a great many Christians who will not."

 

[Washington]

"He needs your adoration and undivided worship because . . . . well, because that's just the kind of needful guy he is. Go figure!"

"This part is not accurate its because He is Holy and will not be before sin

I fail to see why being holy necessarily dictates adoration and worship. And what is "not be before sin" mean? and why would it too necessarily dictate adoration and worship?

- we were created for fellowship with God to share love with.

Okay. but so what? What does this have to do with his inviolate rule for admission?

If wanting to give and recieve love it means one is needful then i guess thats something we all are isnt it and we were made in His image after all...

So one can't want to give and receive love unless the object shows unwavering adoration and worships? This doesn't really change the fact that this is because it's the kind of guy he is, which still makes me say: Go figure!

 

[Gremlins]

I don't think anyone but God is qualified to answer this question. And I don't think he's got a CF account...

 

[Sitswithamouse]

I vote all will go to heaven.
Christ died for all of us and we are all saved by his sacrifice.

Now if we are talking about murderers and evil doers they eventually may go to heaven, but that's a whole other thread.

What happened to the 4th guy???

 

[Washington]

Gremlins:

So you don't think "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" is clear enough? Which part don't you get?

 

[Sitswithamouse]

So you don't think "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" is clear enough? Which part don't you get?

I take it you are asking me?

 

[ragarth]

Whose the 4th guy though i only see 3 in the OP

What happened to the 4th guy???

Sorry about that. I was originally going to have 4, 2 Christians and 2 Atheists, one of each that has made it to or beyond the level of social contract and one of each that is still at appeal to authority or fear based morality. Unfortunately I couldn't think of a good universal fear motivator for an Atheist that would have the same weight as God for a Christian.

 

[ISk8Joyful2]

entering Heaven is not about morality,
but rather obedience to God.
He basically is saying that we can only enter heaven His way, not ours.

 

[Washington]

I take it you are asking me?

No, I was addressing Gremlins, and had a momentary lapse of PPP (proper posting protocol). Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

 

[ragarth]

I don't think anyone but God is qualified to answer this question. And I don't think he's got a CF account...

This line of logic can be applied to many things in life. I am, for instance, not qualified to have an opinion on the national budget, but I do anyway. I'm not qualified to have a preference for the use of transistors over vacuum tubes in space, but I do anyway.

What I've proposed is an open ended question, there is no right or wrong answer, it's purely based on you and how you view the nature of your ethics and morals.

 

[Veyrlian]

This question is designed to isolate specific aspects of Christian morality, specifically the origin and context within which morality is 'right'.

3 guys stand before the pearly gates. 2 are Christian and the last atheist. All three men lived moral lives as described in the bible. They helped old ladies across the street, gave to charity, was kind to their fellow man, etc. They all acted to the betterment of those around them and were outstanding citizens, beacons of morality.

Of the Christians, one was moral because he truly cared about those around him, his motivation was a genuine concern for those around him. The 2nd Christian, however, was motivated by fear, fear of God's retribution, of Hell, of an eternity suffering. The Atheist lived a moral life because he truly cared about those around him, his motivation was a genuine concern for those around him.

Given this, what do you see as the fate of these three men? Heaven or Hell, and why? Please be detailed in your reasoning for your choice.

All three. First of all if the only other option for them is an eternity of suffering in Hell, I wouldn't wish that on anyone, nor do I see how it could be justified.
If the Heaven is considered as a reward for the righteous, and there are other less drastic options of afterlife I'll say that 1 and 3 are obvious, but I don't see why the one who has made his good deeds in fear should be excluded. He has done his best, and I think a lifetime of fear would have been punishment enough.

But I suppose I'm utterly wrong and should take Jesus into my heart so I would understand why this can't be.

 

[aotn]

Well, considering that we are saved by grace, not by works, and that grace is giving something that is not deserved... all three?

 

[Gremlins]

This line of logic can be applied to many things in life. I am, for instance, not qualified to have an opinion on the national budget, but I do anyway. I'm not qualified to have a preference for the use of transistors over vacuum tubes in space, but I do anyway.

You are qualified to have an opinion on the national budget; it's you who are paying for it. IMHO, religion is more of a personal thing. We all have a personal relationship with God; I just try to muddle through the best I can in an imperfect worth, and to be honest I think it would be better if Christians did the same, and stopped trying to make God's decisions for him.

 

[Beanieboy]

This question is designed to isolate specific aspects of Christian morality, specifically the origin and context within which morality is 'right'.

3 guys stand before the pearly gates. 2 are Christian and the last atheist. All three men lived moral lives as described in the bible. They helped old ladies across the street, gave to charity, was kind to their fellow man, etc. They all acted to the betterment of those around them and were outstanding citizens, beacons of morality.

Of the Christians, one was moral because he truly cared about those around him, his motivation was a genuine concern for those around him. The 2nd Christian, however, was motivated by fear, fear of God's retribution, of Hell, of an eternity suffering. The Atheist lived a moral life because he truly cared about those around him, his motivation was a genuine concern for those around him.

Given this, what do you see as the fate of these three men? Heaven or Hell, and why? Please be detailed in your reasoning for your choice.

I'm a bit of a Universalist, but as often as the atheist helped the old lady cross the street, he helped Jesus.
For the man who was motivated by love, entering the Kingdom (or that state of mind) will be effortless.

For the one motivated by fear, he will realize that the fear was for nothing, and discover a completely different God.

And for the atheist, I think he will prove himself right, that there is no God, as many people understand him.

I have often thought that God may literally be the energy that we call love.

There was a similar bizarre Christian story. A Christian man, wife, and child are on a boat with an atheist captain. The boat begins to sink. A helicopter sees them, and flies down, but they all realize that they have to act fast, and not all of them will survive. The Christian father pushes his wife and child out of the way, then fumbling, says, "um, I will be better to lift you onto the chopper." The captain lifts the little girl to her father, and then the wife, but the undertow pulls the boat down, and the atheist dies.

What happens to the atheist? I was told, he goes to hell, because he didn't believe in Jesus.
I remember asking, "The Christian man doesn't believe in Jesus. He thought of himself first, even before his child. The atheist, however, helped the family, knowing that he would sacrifice his own life to save theirs. Isn't that what Christ did for us?
He replied, "Even the best of our good works is but filthy rags to God."
I said, "Then why should anyone care that God sent his son to die, if one goes to hell demonstrating that exact kind of love? The atheist was living Christ. The Christian man was not."

Yet, it still seemed just that the "greatest love a man can show is laying down his life for another," and the man did that, and it still isn't enough for their God, but it's supposed to be enough for the nonbeliever? Really?

 

[cantata]

Ugh, Christocentric universalism.

I'm sure all the virtuous Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, &c. would be delighted to know that they're "anonymous Christians"... Sorry, but I just find that idea soooo patronising!

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Sorry about that. I was originally going to have 4, 2 Christians and 2 Atheists, one of each that has made it to or beyond the level of social contract and one of each that is still at appeal to authority or fear based morality. Unfortunately I couldn't think of a good universal fear motivator for an Atheist that would have the same weight as God for a Christian.

"My grace is sufficient."

And the two Christians "go in."

Interesting how utterly ignorant of Christian belief you atheists truly are.

 

[ragarth]

"My grace is sufficient."

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you expand on this a little bit more, how does this allow the two christians in but not the atheist?

Interesting how utterly ignorant of Christian belief you atheists truly are.

I had a pithy remark here, but I decided to remove it because this adds nothing of value to the discussion at hand.

Ugh, Christocentric universalism.

I'm sure all the virtuous Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, &c. would be delighted to know that they're "anonymous Christians"... Sorry, but I just find that idea soooo patronising!

If I may ask, who was this directed towards? If me, I chose Christianity as the focus of this because here in the USA they are the largest religious group, and therefore I'd be the most likely to get a large selection of answers from Christians. I ignored listing 'an atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu, jains, wiccan, shaman, etc etc etc ad infinitum' because then the context of the question gets lost in the mass of human flesh.