How Do You Know for Sure?
Published on January 29, 2007 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion
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.









"

Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Feb 03, 2007
ok, but don't your beliefs change over time if you're basing it on what makes sense to you now? What you believe when you're 20 is not the same belief you'll have at 40. Isn't that sort of like shifting sand? It's not something you can in all reality hang onto for the rest of your life is it?

What I'm saying is isn't it better to investigate what the truth really is; something that has stood the test of time and is outside of us? Something that is firm and unchanging that you can believe at 20 and 40 and 80 and doesn't change?

It's sort of like believing and knowing that 1+1=2. You've found it to be true. It's the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. Something you can feel comfortable with and know it's the truth?

Usually what makes sense to me is not always the truth. And that's the truth!!!



on Feb 03, 2007
Is this based on anything substantial or is it "just your belief?"


What else is there? Peer pressure? If you accept the Bible as the literal truth you do so simply because you believe it to be so. Because most people accept the beliefs as valid? That doesn't really fit with the whole 'strait is the gate' thing.

So, I'd be interested in knowing what there is in terms of 'substance' to base it on.
on Feb 03, 2007
ok, but don't your beliefs change over time if you're basing it on what makes sense to you now? What you believe when you're 20 is not the same belief you'll have at 40. Isn't that sort of like shifting sand? It's not something you can in all reality hang onto for the rest of your life is it?

What I'm saying is isn't it better to investigate what the truth really is; something that has stood the test of time and is outside of us? Something that is firm and unchanging that you can believe at 20 and 40 and 80 and doesn't change?

It's sort of like believing and knowing that 1+1=2. You've found it to be true. It's the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. Something you can feel comfortable with and know it's the truth?

Usually what makes sense to me is not always the truth. And that's the truth!!!


Whose truth? Yours?

To me, what i believe *is* the truth. I believe in a truth, my truth: God is real. Jesus died for my sins. God is kind, gentle, and stern. I don't believe he plays with the world, i.e. he's "hands off." I believe that he created humans, and that evolution is a natural thing. (one of his many tools)

That's my truth. That is what i believe. I'm still open to learning and growing, and accept the fact that as i learn more, and grow more, my beliefs (what makes sense) may change. I accept the fact that is "firm and unchanging," may not be, on down the road. However, as of this moment, i have faith that I am living the right way, following God, and will go to heaven when i die.

No one knows *the* truth, because the truth for each individual is different. I can only live life. (and hope)

Hope that makes sense.
on Feb 03, 2007
Is this based on anything substantial or is it "just your belief?"[/quote]

What else is there? Peer pressure?


com'on Baker, now I'm shocked at your questions....*mouth open wide, hands on forehead*

What else is there?

So I can say the sky is neon pink cuz I believe it to be so? What else is there? Well...... hello? How about the truth? The truth is what else is out there.

Jesus said we can know the truth and the truth sets us free. He also said,

"I no longer call you servants because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead I have called you friends for everything I learned from my Father I have made known to you. " John 15:15

My choice is I can accept what he said as truth or I can disregard it for my own truth. My truth is not my own. It's his truth I base mine on because he's proved himself to me in more ways than one.

No one knows *the* truth, because the truth for each individual is different. I can only live life. (and hope)


[quote]Hope that makes sense.


no, this doesn't make sense. So you're saying 1+1=2 is only for some people who believe it to be true because we can't know for sure. It's not for everyone. We can only hope so.

Truth is relative is what you're saying. I'm saying truth is absolute. Truth is truth. Regardless if you believe it to be or not. You may believe the sky is neon pink....doesn't make it so. You may believe 1+1=5. Hey, it's what you believe right?

I talked about this "hope so" attitude right here in this article. Did you read it?





on Feb 03, 2007
"My choice is I can accept what he said as truth or I can disregard it for my own truth. My truth is not my own. It's his truth I base mine on because he's proved himself to me in more ways than one."


No, you BELIEVE that what is written in the Bible is what he said. It's still belief, no different than Lucas,
on Feb 03, 2007
No, you BELIEVE that what is written in the Bible


well you have said you not only read the bible but it's close by you. If it's not truth then why bother having it so close by? Why bother with it at all? I'm not much of a fiction reader so if I thought the bible was fiction I wouldn't bother either.

So what you're quoting most of the time you don't really believe? Really?

I believe the bible is what it says it is. It's been more scruntized than any other work of literature ever. The gospels were proven to be written by eyewittnesses and written during the time when most of the players were still alive and well able to refute what was written. While some of the later letters of scripture written by Paul were argued over, I've not heard of any discrepancy about the writers of the gospel and in which most of the sayings of Christ were recorded.

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.

Here are some very early first and second century writers you can read up on if you would like to get closer to the real time period....unless you'd like to stick to the revisionists POV.

Some of the more important ones are Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Tertullian, and Josephus who wrote "Antiquities of the Jews." Josephus wasn't even a Christian but was a Jewish Historian living in the first Century. He saw Jerusalem burn in 70 AD.


So, yes, I do take Christ saying HE is the truth to be truth. I believe the OT words we have today are the same words Jesus held in his hands as much as I believe when I read Homer's Iliad it also has been preserved over the years for us.

And I have something to believe outside of myself. And by doing so, my belief is well founded on the rock, not shifting sand.
on Feb 03, 2007
"well you have said you not only read the bible but it's close by you. If it's not truth then why bother having it so close by? Why bother with it at all? I'm not much of a fiction reader so if I thought the bible was fiction I wouldn't bother either."


Nice diversion, but what you said to Lucas was that there needed to be more 'substantial' than just belief. I pointed out that belief is all you have, as well. When you hear me claiming that I have some sort of standard higher than belief for what I, well, believe, then you can make that point.

You *believe* that the OT is as reliable textually as Homer. You *believe* that what Jesus says in the Bible is what Jesus really said. I don't see anything more "substantial" there than belief.
on Feb 03, 2007
no, this doesn't make sense. So you're saying 1+1=2 is only for some people who believe it to be true because we can't know for sure. It's not for everyone. We can only hope so.

Truth is relative is what you're saying. I'm saying truth is absolute. Truth is truth. Regardless if you believe it to be or not. You may believe the sky is neon pink....doesn't make it so. You may believe 1+1=5. Hey, it's what you believe right?

I talked about this "hope so" attitude right here in this article. Did you read it?


What I am saying, is...

(and I'm talking about truth, as in 'the way to god', i.e. choice of religion/faith)

You can't say that "your truth," is fact. So, how can you say that it is "the truth," when you can't.

on Feb 04, 2007
You *believe* that the OT is as reliable textually as Homer. You *believe* that what Jesus says in the Bible is what Jesus really said. I don't see anything more "substantial" there than belief.




Yes Baker, you're absolutely right. But this belief is based on something. It's based on something outside of ...."well I just feel it to be true." or "I'm just hoping I'm right." There is a diff. I was there I know. It's not like that now.

My belief is based on a man that said he was the truth. He said and demonstrated he was God in front of many witnesses. Would I just believe that about anybody? No. He's made himself known to me in such a way, I have absolutely no doubt that not only does he exist but that he has a love for me that is unexplainable in this realm.

Besides, it's not just me that believes this. He has the power to change lives and lives have been changed as a result of hearing the word regardless of race, color, religion or nationality.

Homer isn't doubted and yet his manuscipt evidence is not nearly what we have of the Holy Writings. Not nearly. I bet you have no problems with Homer. Why the bible? It's been tested more than any other yet you seem to rather believe your doubts than believe the truth. My guess? You don't want to adhere to it. You'd much rather be a lone ranger. I know that.

I've tested His word. I've studied it and plan on continuing and will not be done in this lifetime. I can count on it. It's a book unlike anything else I've ever read. It's the only book that author is present with you while you read it. I know you don't understand that Baker. I wish you did.

Just like Thomas, he couldn't believe until he saw with his own eyes. it took an encounter with Jesus for him to see...it's like that with all of us. Only we don't have to "physically" see Jesus to believe. He's made himself known to us...thru his word. Paul said this in Romans 10: (Paul was a real historical figure and this was a letter to Rome.)

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah said 'Lord who has believed our report?' So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

So based on this we are not saved without believing the message that is preached by those who are sent. First the Apostles and then the early church fathers and it's spread ever since. Those teaching or preaching are to base it on the bible which was given and preserved for just that purpose.









on Feb 04, 2007
Yes Baker, you're absolutely right. But this belief is based on something. It's based on something outside of ...."well I just feel it to be true." or "I'm just hoping I'm right." There is a diff. I was there I know. It's not like that now.

My belief is based on a man that said he was the truth. He said and demonstrated he was God in front of many witnesses. Would I just believe that about anybody? No. He's made himself known to me in such a way, I have absolutely no doubt that not only does he exist but that he has a love for me that is unexplainable in this realm."


Lol, again, you BELIEVE He said He was the truth. You have nothing substantive beyond hearsay.
on Feb 04, 2007
[/quote]oh no, I don't ignore any parts of scripture
[quote]

KFC, you know very well that there are a huge amount of "Human Input" in the Bible and that it was written decades after Jeusu was "Raied". So you really should be careful of what you take and what you ignore from the scripture. Any contradiction in these scriptures are due to human words not God's. You are not helping your cause by insisting that you "don't ignore Any parts of scripture".

the contradiction is according to the Hebrew a day was a 24 hr day

did God say that this is also the same "Day" duration that existed at the moment of creation?. He didnt say that, so why do you assume it? God resides outside our universe and no one knows what is His "Day"'s duration compared to our 24 hr day.The eveolution estimate of 4.5 billion years as the age of Earth could very well be true.

While I'm not sure who Meena was, yes, it fits


How does that fit? you ignoring my point completely. The time from Meenah, Egypt's first Pharoah to Cleopatra, Egypt's last Pharoah is about 4500 years.

Now, comparing Meenah's Egypt to Cleopatra's Egypt based on the documents and monuments they both left behind shows a degree of development insignificantly small compared to that betwen Adam's Earth and Meenah's Earth.

If it took 4500 years to go from Meenah to Cleopatra, going from Adam to Meenah needs much much longer than that. Adam's son didnt even know how to burry his brother, Meenah had armies, a capital for his nation, wears a crown with colors made from chemicals he extratcted from Earth, wears clothes that were "designer" quality and he designed an irrigation system that still works today based on hydraulics that is still being taught today.

Humans developed from that primitive state to that advanced one in 1450 years?

It took them 4500 years to just improve a little on what Meenah did and they would invent all that in one-third of the time?And that makes sense to you?

well, to each his/her own i guess. But that is not a logical thinking. God didnt command us to do that. you are not serving His cause by denying that when he created Adam He also Created the laws that govern his descendents' development.

Evolutions doesnt claim that Man "Developed" from water and not created, that is an extrapolation on the part of some but it is not the theory itslef. That stretch of the theory is just that, not a necessary conclusion.
on Feb 04, 2007
KFC, you know very well that there are a huge amount of "Human Input" in the Bible


I don't know how you get "huge" but I believe the human input was guided by the Holy Spirit. God always uses people to help people. He used men to write his words down just like Jesus used the servants to help turn the water into wine in John 2. He could have turned that water into wine without help. He didn't NEED theiir help. How about the loaves and the fishes? Didn't he use all 12 Apostles to help in that as well? On and on it goes.....I believe it's more HS than man's efforts in the writing of the gospels. I'm convinced of this because I've studied these writings at length. I don't say this lightly.

Adam's son didnt even know how to burry his brother,


where are you getting this from?

the contradiction is according to the Hebrew a day was a 24 hr daydid God say that this is also the same "Day" duration that existed at the moment of creation?. He didnt say that, so why do you assume it? God resides outside our universe and no one knows what is His "Day"'s duration compared to our 24 hr day.The eveolution estimate of 4.5 billion years as the age of Earth could very well be true.


Yes, he did. I'm not assuming. Day can be diff things. The word day in Genesis 1 means 24 hr day. Check the Hebrew yourself. Yom is the word you'd be looking for.

Humans developed from that primitive state to that advanced one in 1450 years?


Yes, they built the Tower of Babel even before what you're talking about. We see Caiin had built a city well before the first Pharaoh. The cities Sodom and Gomorroh were well built cities also before what you're talking of.

Look back just 100 years for us and see how far we've come in just that short amount of time. Now multiply that by more than 14x. I don't see a problem here. We were still using outhouses for crying out loud.

How's that logic.?



That stretch of the theory is just that, not a necessary conclusion.


Exactly. Let's just say.....we agree here.



on Feb 04, 2007
you BELIEVE He said He was the truth. You have nothing substantive beyond hearsay.


not exactly. What part of he has demonstrated to me don't you understand? He's made himself very near and dear to me. I was religious before so I know the diff. It's not about religion.

Do you think all those that wrote of him, Christians, historians even atheists that by writing of him during the first century only helped in proving him true are liars?

Because that's what you're saying. Heresay. Yup, sounds like Thomas. His fellow Apostles were lying to him. Not gonna believe it, Nope. If you check that story out carefully you'd notice it was an act of the will. It wasn't that he COULDN"T believe it. He WOULD not believe it.

In John Chap 6 Jesus proved himself to the people. He provided for their physical needs with the fish and bread. We see from the text that there was a great many that were following him. Why? Because he was performing miracles.

So he just finishes, not only providing for them, but by doing so abundantly. They had 12 baskets left over. When all was said and done there was a discourse between Jesus and these same people. And this just gets me....it really does. What do they ask for? They ask in 6:30....."show us a sign so that we may see and believe you." EXCUSE ME? What did he just do?

He was trying to show them the contrast between the spiritual bread and the physical. They only wanted the physical. Because they could see it. He said plainly to them...."I am the bread of life." He that comes to me shall never hunger or thirst." He was providing himself to them spiritually like his father provided the manna in the Exodus for them physically.

They just didn't "get it." Neither do you evidently. So if Jesus after performing a miracle in front of their eyes wasn't enough of a "sign" for them, how do you suppose I could even come close to explaining the truth to you? You have to desire to want it first and you must hunger and thirst after it.

I know the diff from being hungry to being full both physically and spiritually. Like I've said before.....I'm just a begger that has found some bread and I want to show the other beggers where they can get it too. But if they're not hungry, there's no need right?





on Feb 04, 2007
"Do you think all those that wrote of him, Christians, historians even atheists that by writing of him during the first century only helped in proving him true are liars?

Because that's what you're saying. Heresay. Yup, sounds like Thomas. His fellow Apostles were lying to him. Not gonna believe it, Nope. If you check that story out carefully you'd notice it was an act of the will. It wasn't that he COULDN"T believe it. He WOULD not believe it. "


Now you're just being obtuse. The *existence* of Jesus doesn't offer substantive proof that your *beliefs* about him are true. People believe that Mark Twain said:

"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco."


...but he didn't. Is that reason to doubt that Mark Twain existed at all? What you fail to point out is that Josephus doesn't back up any of your doctrine, or quote anything that Jesus said. Period. A mention of Jesus just offers evidence of Jesus' existence, IF you believe we're talking about the same Jesus.

Hearsay is knowledge of something you gain from others without being a witness to it. Unless you are saying you were really there, and really witnessed Jesus' works and words, then you have NOTHING more substantial than belief. You're trying to pretend I am a "doubter" when I am just honest enough to admit it.

The sad part is you are degrading your own religious doctrine. "By Faith" is the cornerstone of your dogma. Period. You, though, paint this as something more substantive, as if you can just squint really hard view Calvary in person. You, yourself have said that things substantive, things worldly and tangible, are to be trusted LESS than what we acheive through faith.

Substance is what people ask of you all the time, for which you poo-poo them as not having faith... and then you poke someone like Lucas for not having something substantive. What you can't deal with is the idea that there was a Jesus, but one who differs with what you believe. Therefore when someone questions your beliefs, you HEAR that they are questioning the existence of Jesus.
on Feb 04, 2007
The most insane part is, if you HAD been witness to Jesus' life, it wouldn't help all that much in terms of validating Christian doctrine. Most of what we believe in terms of that comes from Paul, and various councils and Christian theologians over the 2000 years after His death. If you put all that Jesus said in a book, at least what we have quoted, it wouldn't have many pages at all.

So even more so, you have faith that all these men, like Paul, are actually interpreting Jesus' message correctly.
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5