At 03:16 PM 1/24/2007 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > > At that time I think I said doing good deeds is meaningless in terms of > salvation, > > but that doing good deeds is still a commendable thing. Whether or not > > there is a God we should all try to do good deeds when we can. > > Well, uh... that's what makes them "good", right? > > To me it seems that you are waffling on the use of the term >'salvation'. I've always understood that the product of salvation was >entrance into Heaven, and that those who are not saved are destined >for an eternity of suffering. Is that correct? Or can you get into >Heaven without being saved?
I think the term we're having the problem with is "Good". I'm saying that no measure of "good" gets you into heaven. But doing good deeds from a purely humanistic, non-God existence, point of view, is still a commendable trait. But the definition of "good" could become a problem between believers and non-believers. For example, non-believers may think abortions are "good" because it can ease burdens on young people not ready for children. Believers may think abortion is "bad" because it ends a life that God created (and, of course non-believers don't think of it as "life" yet, and don't recognize God as having a role). So when we use phrases like "good" deeds, there will always be some discontinuity. To answer your last questions directly, it's my understanding that you must be saved to get into Heaven. And for those not saved, there would be eternal suffering. -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
