If God asked "Why should YOU get into heaven" What would you say ?

Bob Cratchet

Note : The mod FANNY CRADDOCK has allowed this new thread. The last one had to be closed because of trolling


If you died tonight and God asked you the big question ;

“Why should you get into heaven ?”

What would you honestly say ?

Please, no trolling this time, I'm genuinely interested in your honest answer.

I don't mind what your particular belief is or none. But please bear and mind that this is a Christian forum and try to be respectful of that.

E.g.

" Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence. " - Bertrand Russell's reply when asked a similar question about being confronted by God

philologos

I don't deserve to be there only by God's grace and forgiveness. It is because of Jesus and His death on the cross that I can be forgiven. It isn't by what I do or earning God's favour. God loved us first all we need to do is entrust everything to Him. I would admit that I am a sinner before God. There is no other answer one could give.

I would thank God for what He has done and I would thank Him for Jesus and for sending the Holy Spirit into my life. All glory is ultimately His. We were made to serve our purpose which is ultimately serving His purposes of love and mercy in everything we do. I aim to do my best but ultimately I fail at this task. I can only keep getting up and trying better as the Lord Jesus puts it on my heart to.

gimmebroadband

I would say to God, I know I don't deserve to be in Heaven, but Jesus invited me and I accepted, so here I am Lord!!!

antiskeptic

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Why should you get into heaven ?”

Because there is no reason to keep me out. I am spotlessly righteous .. thanks to you.

Bob Cratchet

Why ?

I have tried to understand and follow Christ and his teachings and seek forgiveness for any wrong I may have done. I wish I could have done better and been wiser. I seek eternal peace with my loved ones with God as my guide. I am unworthy compared to so many others, but I seek the truth.

Turtwig

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Why ?

I have tried to understand and follow Christ and his teachings and seek forgiveness for any wrong I may have done. I wish I could have done better and been wiser. I seek eternal peace with my loved ones with God as my guide. I am unworthy compared to so many others, but I seek the truth.

Umm aren't you agnostic? Surely you'd have to explain that to Him first.

Bob Cratchet

Malty_T wrote: »

Umm aren't you agnostic? Surely you'd have to explain that to Him first.

I'd say he knows that already. I do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. I am an agnostic theist, but that is not for this thread. Clearly if I end up standing in front of him he exists.

But rather than troll peoples replies - Why don't you do your own, as Bertrand Russell did, or leave us in peace.

I won't be replying to any more such posts, I'll leave them to the mods.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wasn't trolling.

Bob Cratchet

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Malty_T wasn't trolling.

What would your answer be to the OP question ?

Turtwig

Well, honestly, my answer would be:

"Because everyone deserves to. Whether they did right or wrong, they thought they were doing the right thing. You understand us better than we ourselves do. Everyone, was, is and will always be, rightly or wrongly, trying to make the world a better place. When you consider that we had only one way of ever doing the right thing and an infinite number of ways of taking the wrong path I think that honesty of effort should indeed be made a significant factor here. I like to think I tried my best to make the world better. "

dlofnep

I'd ask him why shouldn't I?

gigino

Malty_T wrote: »

"Because everyone deserves to. Whether they did right or wrong, they thought they were doing the right thing. You understand us better than we ourselves do. Everyone, was, is and will always be, rightly or wrongly, trying to make the world a better place. When you consider that we had only one way of ever doing the right thing and an infinite number of ways of taking the wrong path I think that honesty of effort should indeed be made a significant factor here. I like to think I tried my best to make the world better. "

Interesting answer. However, maybe not everyone really deserves to, as much as everyone else ? Those of us who strive to obey the 10 commandments...who have never killed or tortured....who do a bit to help others and generally want to leave the world a better place ..I think we deserve the benefit of the doubt. But someone who has destroyed countless lives - say Idi Amin or Pol Pot ? God can decide cases like that.

Turtwig

gigino wrote: »

Interesting answer. However, maybe not everyone really deserves to, as much as everyone else ? Those of us who strive to obey the 10 commandments...who have never killed or tortured....who do a bit to help others and generally want to leave the world a better place ..I think we deserve the benefit of the doubt. But someone who has destroyed countless lives - say Idi Amin or Pol Pot ? God can decide cases like that.

I'd like to think that those people who never got or will get the chance to hear about the Ten Commandments will get that benefit too. I don't know, I actually know very little about Pol Pot and I don't want to Godwin this thread by referencing the one I know a bit about. My own belief would be that they are just as entitled to the spot as me. Yeah they committed unspeakable, cruel acts, but I have to ask myself if I was brought up in their shoes, same background,same house, same family, same friends, would I have ended up down the same, a similar or worse path? If the events were replayed over and over an infinite number of times would I make the mistakes that they made more often than not? I think that is ultimately the criterion we should use to judge our values as a person.

To put another perspective on it. Pol Pot and his ilk killed millions, yet today we actively have means to save millions upon millions of lives via basic medical and sanitation programs. The cost of these is covered pretty much by the price of a single F-35b in service for a year in NATO. Could the argument be made that by spending money on these we have killed more than those atrocities of the past? What if we didn't have that F-35 though?Can we sit idly by and let dictators exert suffering on their own people? Is the cost of action or inaction the atrocity? Or is it our own intentions that actively define whether or not something ends up being an atrocity? Where do you draw the line though? I mean you could have the best of intentions but be ignorant to a blatant reality (which might have been Pol Pot). So many possible ways of doing something wrong, yet only one of being right. I don't know it. You're right though only God has the ultimate ability to decide.

Robert ninja

There actually wasn't as much trolling on the last thread as you think. I mean think about it, this question isn't soley directed at christians is it? (that would be boring, everyone just saying thanks with a huge confidence issue in the mix).

So it's also directed at people of less or no faith. Most interestingly, atheist... and what in the world do you think they would say? Half the responces in the old thread are probably legit. I mean, you'd be left with nothing OTHER to say than perhaps crack a joke, be sarcastic or whatever. If we assume we know it's the christian god (1/100'000s) then we could ask very specific questions.

I myself, knowing it's the christian god of the bible would probably honesly answer the qeestion, "Why should you get into heaven?" with, "FuÇk off." Why? Well, because of the events in the bible + after all this time of living on this F'd up planet that IT made and now it wants me to explain MYSELF? Yeah, the most legit time to ever say fuÇk off.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Well, honestly, my answer would be:

"Because everyone deserves to. Whether they did right or wrong, they thought they were doing the right thing. You understand us better than we ourselves do. Everyone, was, is and will always be, rightly or wrongly, trying to make the world a better place. When you consider that we had only one way of ever doing the right thing and an infinite number of ways of taking the wrong path I think that honesty of effort should indeed be made a significant factor here. I like to think I tried my best to make the world better. "

Really?

gigino

Malty_T wrote: »

Everyone, was, is and will always be, rightly or wrongly, trying to make the world a better place.

Ironically some of the people in power , who have striven the hardest in their eyes to make the world a better place, may have done the most damage. ( say a certain dictator of the early to mid 20th century, who thought "Gott" was on his side and had progoganda posters to that effect. Consider also those who could have helped limit the explosion in world population , through contraception, from one billion to 8 billion in the space of less than 200 years, with the catasthrophic damage done to the environment, climate change, world poverty etc ). Some woulsd ask would world religous leaders who helped contribute to the unsustainable explosion in world population get in to heaven ?

philologos

^^ This certain dictator's religious views are heavily disputed. It is not clear as to whether or not this dictator really believed in God.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

Some woulsd ask would world religous leaders who helped contribute to the unsustainable explosion in world population get in to heaven ?

How very odd.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Really?

Lol, sorry not everyone, It was late last night.
There are probably some people who do evil and know it's evil, but these a quite possibly a minority. The majority who commit the unspeakable acts usually have themselves and others convinced that they are doing the right thing and they usually believe their intentions to be good. Or they have rationalised their evil acts away for some greater good e.g stealing money to pay medical bills of your daughter.

It's all very well for a person to think they might be better than Pol Pot or some other apparently evil dude/dudette. However, to do that do you need to see the evil dude as "sub human" first? In which case I think you've committed at least one of the mistakes they did.

gigino wrote:

Ironically some of the people in power , who have striven the hardest in their eyes to make the world a better place, may have done the most damage. ( say a certain dictator of the early to mid 20th century, who thought "Gott" was on his side and had progoganda posters to that effect. Consider also those who could have helped limit the explosion in world population , through contraception, from one billion to 8 billion in the space of less than 200 years, with the catasthrophic damage done to the environment, climate change, world poverty etc ). Some woulsd ask would world religous leaders who helped contribute to the unsustainable explosion in world population get in to heaven ?

I am yet to be convinced there will a huge population problem. Climate Change is a serious issue, but again there is decision to be made over whether adaptation or mitigation is best. Both are costly and will probably lead to reductions in standards of living. Use of contraception is considered mass murder by some. Others see lack of it as a form of murder. I personally see no problem with contraception, but that's because I don't regard the zygote as human. See? I rightly or wrongly, sub humanised it. Yet I, or else those who disagree with me, could be advocating mass murder and be ignorant to it.

super_furry

I'd say that I'd lived a life where I tried to be a good person and that I don't believe I'd committed any crime that would warrant spending eternity being tortured by his enemy.

adamski8

id say i dont want to be in his presence anyway considering all the awful things he has allowed happen. and that i should be judging him rather than the other way around

antiskeptic

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Why ?

I have tried to understand and follow Christ and his teachings and seek forgiveness for any wrong I may have done.

That's not really an answer for why it is you should be allowed into heaven. It would better fit the question "why should you be considered for entry to heaven".

I mean, if entry to heaven depends on your trying in these various dept's then the obvious question follows:

"How hard did you try".

For if it were merely a matter of trying then anyone who lifted a finger in the 'trying' dept would be able to make the same case as you.

philologos

adamski8 wrote: »

id say i dont want to be in his presence anyway considering all the awful things he has allowed happen. and that i should be judging him rather than the other way around

Explain your reasoning.

Onesimus

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Note : The mod FANNY CRADDOCK has allowed this new thread. The last one had to be closed because of trolling


If you died tonight and God asked you the big question ;

“Why should you get into heaven ?”

What would you honestly say ?

Please, no trolling this time, I'm genuinely interested in your honest answer.

I don't mind what your particular belief is or none. But please bear and mind that this is a Christian forum and try to be respectful of that.

E.g.

I'd answer by jumping straight into purgatory.

gigino

Snip!

antiskeptic

Malty_T wrote: »

I am yet to be convinced there will a huge population problem.

I take it you agree that the current model of consumption is headed towards a brick wall (by current model I mean unsustainable consumption by ca. 1 billion in the West rendered really, really unsustainable by the active intent of 2 more billion in China and India who want to climb aboard 'our' gravy train).

We could picture it as an already depleted bucket, leaking at a rate of knots .. with more holes being drilled in it every day.

What is it that humans tend towards whenever push comes to shove in the 'we both want the same thing' dept? Or do you hold out hope that the god of All Comfort (science) will apply the brakes in good time?

philologos

gigino: Some interesting reading for you:

THE ANNUAL meeting of the Population Association of America (PAA) is one of the premier gatherings of the world’s demographers. Last April the global population explosion was not on the agenda. “The problem has become a bit passé,” Hervé Le Bras says. Demographers are generally confident that by the second half of this century we will be ending one unique era in history—the population explosion—and entering another, in which population will level out or even fall.

But will there be too many of us? At the PAA meeting, in the Dallas Hyatt Regency, I learned that the current population of the planet could fit into the state of Texas, if Texas were settled as densely as New York City. The comparison made me start thinking like Leeuwenhoek. If in 2045 there are nine billion people living on the six habitable continents, the world population density will be a little more than half that of France today. France is not usually considered a hellish place. Will the world be hellish then?

Some parts of the world are struggling with over population but the world as a whole isn't overpopulated.

Article here

Turtwig

I like this image.


Regarding the population issue. I don't think there is going to be a population problem. The reality is complicated and population is just an all too easy thing to blame more serious problems on. Philo already linked to Nat Geo. So I'll just link to NewScientist.

the human population is growing in absolute terms, the rate of growth is slowing - from a peak of 2 per cent in the early 1960s to around 1 per cent today. In Japan, Russia and many European countries, women are having so few children that populations are shrinking or will do so soon - an unprecedented state of affairs other than in times of war or plague (see "Days when the world has shrunk"). At the same time, the populations of many of the least developed nations are exploding, with women in some countries giving birth to more than five children on average.

Europe is projected to flatten out and even possibly go into negative growth. It's only really developing nations that are expected to become over saturated. For those nations the solution is now what is was then : raise their life expectancy, standards of living, status of women and quality of education.

As for consumption. That's a much more serious problem. This explanation by Newscientist is a staggering image.

Nowadays it is understood that the key population-related issue is the destructive pressure human activity is exerting on our life-support systems, posing a growing threat to the sustainability of civilisation. Of course, this is not all because of human numbers; it also has to do with how much each of us consumes. That's why, in our view, the US with its population of over 300 million and high per capita consumption should be seen as Earth's most overpopulated nation

The magazine goes further :

the world's richest half billion people - that's about 7 per cent of the global population - are responsible for 50 per cent of the world's emissions. Meanwhile, the poorest 50 per cent are responsible for just 7 per cent of emissions. One American or European is more often than not responsible for more emissions than an entire village of Africans.

I mentioned Europe going into negative growth, but that too brings problems.

On the face of it, fewer people seems like good news for the environment. The population of Germany, Europe's most populous country, will shrink by at least 8 million by 2050 and this trend is set to be replicated in many of its neighbours. Remote rural areas, mainly in central and eastern Europe, might become depopulated over time. This should benefit biodiversity as displaced plant and animal species recolonise their old terrain. Given that the world population is still growing by about 200,000 people a day, and the ecological footprint of the human race already lies beyond the limits of sustainability, fewer European mega-consumers will be a blessing for the health of the planet - and fewer North Americans would be even better.

But look a little deeper, and the picture becomes more complicated. Decreasing population does not necessarily promise environmental benefits. The cost per head of population for infrastructure such as sewage systems or electricity supply increases when population numbers go down, making clean water and non-polluting energy even more expensive than they are today.

So can Europe overcome its demographic and ecological challenges at the same time? The solution might be found in a rarely discussed concept: demographic sustainability.

High population growth, such as that now taking place in many African countries, is not sustainable. But very low fertility rates are unsustainable too. It will be hard for countries with persistently low fertility to remain competitive, creative and wealthy enough to keep ahead of their country's environmental challenges. What is needed is a middle ground.

Apologies for the thread hijack.:o

AhSureTisGrand

I'd ask God why he was asking me when he already knew what my reply would be

PDN

"Because you already told me I would get in."

Bob Cratchet

Of course there is one 'simple' answer to this . . .

"Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" - Acts 16:31

ISAW

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Of course there is one 'simple' answer to this . . .

"Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" - Acts 16:31

Is there much in just believing if you do nothing about it other than say you believe?

I don't want to throw in the hand grenade but...


(James 2:17, 20, 26) the word "dead faith" is used three times.17,20 and 26 The "useless" in verse 20 is "dead" in some manuscripts.

In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”e and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21).

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" (Mark 7:6).

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Titus 1:16).

James is not talking about a person being saved by doing good works…he is saying, that if we are saved, we will do good works. According to Ephesians, it is why God saved us.

(Eph 2:8-10) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: {9} Not of works, lest any man should boast. {10} For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

gimmebroadband

The Devil believes in God, and look where he is!!!

getz

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The Devil believes in God, and look where he is!!!

the only people in heaven are god jesus and a few angels,the rest of us have to wait untill the resurrection,thats what the bible tells us,and its wrong,when you die your spirit lives on,

eyescreamcone

God, if you know everything you already know the answer to this question.
Even if I try to change my answer at the last moment you know what I'm going to say.

So you know that my answer would be...
"Even heaven needs somebody to sweep the streets"

I hope she has the best sense of humour in the universe



Maybe we should start another thread with equal validity
If Santa asked you "why should you get a present at Xmas?"

My answer would be "because I'm greedy and I want better toys"
Same same???

Fanny Cradock

What are you blabbering on about, eyescreamcone? I tell you what, if you stop posting rubbish, I wont get the troll hammer out.

eyescreamcone

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What are you blabbering on about, eyescreamcone? I tell you what, if you stop posting rubbish, I wont get the troll hammer out.

Ah Fanny, you're too kind to me!

We want to go to heaven because we are greedy.
We want the good life, the house, the car, fancy holidays etc

Heaven is just an extension of this
We just want the good afterlife also.

Because we are greedy, and we don't want to spend the eternity in that hellish part of town, do we???

So when god asks you why do you really want to go to heaven?
The real truthful answer to her should be
"Because I'm greedy!!!"

Fanny Cradock

Great. Well done. That clears everything up.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Great. Well done. That clears everything up.

Why is God female? I'm still not getting that bit.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Why is God female? I'm still not getting that bit.

My remark is constructed of pure sarcasm. I have no idea what this eyescreamcone person is on about but they have a history of trolling this forum.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My remark is constructed of pure sarcasm. I have no idea what this eyescreamcone person is on about but they have a history of trolling this forum.

My sacrasm detecting skills suck

AhSureTisGrand

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What are you blabbering on about, eyescreamcone? I tell you what, if you stop posting rubbish, I wont get the troll hammer out.

In fairness the first bit made sense. Since God already knows what we're gonna say, does he really need to ask in the first place?

PDN

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

In fairness the first bit made sense. Since God already knows what we're gonna say, does he really need to ask in the first place?

Unfortunately the first part of a post making sense is insufficient for radioactive dinosaurs who are climbing the curtains.

georgieporgy

getz wrote: »

the only people in heaven are god jesus and a few angels,the rest of us have to wait untill the resurrection,thats what the bible tells us,and its wrong,when you die your spirit lives on,

"This day you will be with me in Paradise" said Jesus to the good thief on the cross (in the bible). So the good thief is where Jesus is. Where is that?

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

So the good thief is where Jesus is. Where is that?

Technically, of course, the good thief was where Jesus was on the evening of the crucifixion (Paradise).

dead one

PDN wrote: »

Technically, of course, the good thief was where Jesus was on the evening of the crucifixion (Paradise).

PDN, some people believe, another person was crucified at the place of Jesus..... What are your views about it?
forgive my English in advance.

PDN

dead one wrote: »

PDN, some people believe, another person was crucified at the place of Jesus..... What are your views about it?
forgive my English in advance.

My view is that there is zero historical support for that position.

It also seems pretty off-topic.