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

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.

gigino wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.