On Piety and the Right to go to Heaven

[finsternis]

For this post I will assume that god(s) exists. I will also be changing from gods to god through the post, so do not get confuse; when I say gods that means gods and god (mono and poly) and vice versa.



There is one thing that always bothers me about how people see good, evil and piety. We define piety to be doing what is morally good; however we also define piety as doing what the gods (or god) tell us. But there is a problem here, for as Socrates points out "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In either way we still say that the pious deserve to go to heaven. Let us see what is the fundamental structure of a pious person.



Let us take the second part of Socrates' question since is the most popular idea of piety: "...or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" If this is the true definition of piety then people who follow god (or gods) are pious and deserve good things (like heaven), that is a very simple answer, but now I would like to ask a question: if the pious is pious because he or she does what the gods love, then what is it that the gods love? What is the gods' morality based on? Is it based on some higher morality? Did they invented it. I do not see how you can create a moral system from scratch. You need something to base on what is good and evil for it is kind of arrogant and tyrannical to say that what you say is good. For example, in Genesis god says that what he created is "good": how does he know this? Well, he has knowledge of good and evil, duh. But that means that there is already the idea of goodness and evilness in god's mind (he did not created it, it already existed). Personally, I think that the morals must be higher than any entity (that might exist). In a way, I mean that the morals are fundamental (which makes sense if you notice that all humans throughout history and cultures and religions have had very similar moral systems) but that is a post of its own.



Now, lets take the first part: Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious...? This idea is less popular than the other, why? Maybe because people think that it is the same as the other (what the gods love is what is pious), but it is not. In the other one, piety was directly linked to the gods, in this one, piety is independent of the gods. The problem with this idea (which is not really a problem) is that being religious losses it meaning if you adopt this idea. If the gods love what is pious (what is moral) because it is pious, then that means that people can be pious without believing in the gods since morality is then above the gods themselves. That means that if you are a good atheist, you deserve just as many good things as a good religious person. Actually, you might deserve more and I will tell you why now.



If you are to ask someone on the street, who is more likely to go to heaven? A morally good Atheist or a morally good Christian (lets say)? If you are religious you are more incline to say that the Christian does (for he is good and believes. And believing is the first commandment). Well I will tell you that the Atheist is more likely (or at least should be more likely) to go to heaven. If god does indeed follow a set of fundamental laws (as we saw in the previous paragraph. And the paragraph before the previous ended up giving us the same answer) that are above him (nothing wrong with that) and he is a just god (as he claims to be) then he should give the good Atheist more moral credit than the good Christian because of the slogan that all religions have (including Christianity): "you can only attain salvation through X" (X being some god or gods). That means that most Christians (not all, I must say) are only morally good because they want salvation, on the other hand, a good Atheist would not be good for salvation (he/she does not believe in salvation); then he/she must be good because it is good. Thus, he/she is more pious. Now, like Christians, this is not true for all Atheists (selfish people exist in every group of people) however I think that an good Atheist should be more likely to go to heaven than a good Christian for a good Christian is more likely to be good because of necessary than because of goodness (now that might not be true. Maybe god decided that he does not want to be all just and decided to ignore some of the fundamental laws, which is possible).



Well, there it is.

[Vladimir Lenin]

For this post I will assume that god(s) exists. I will also be changing from gods to god through the post, so do not get confuse; when I say gods that means gods and god (mono and poly) and vice versa.



There is one thing that always bothers me about how people see good, evil and piety. We define piety to be doing what is morally good; however we also define piety as doing what the gods (or god) tell us. But there is a problem here, for as Socrates points out "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In either way we still say that the pious deserve to go to heaven. Let us see what is the fundamental structure of a pious person.



Let us take the second part of Socrates' question since is the most popular idea of piety: "...or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" If this is the true definition of piety then people who follow god (or gods) are pious and deserve good things (like heaven), that is a very simple answer, but now I would like to ask a question: if the pious is pious because he or she does what the gods love, then what is it that the gods love? What is the gods' morality based on? Is it based on some higher morality? Did they invented it. I do not see how you can create a moral system from scratch. You need something to base on what is good and evil for it is kind of arrogant and tyrannical to say that what you say is good. For example, in Genesis god says that what he created is "good": how does he know this? Well, he has knowledge of good and evil, duh. But that means that there is already the idea of goodness and evilness in god's mind (he did not created it, it already existed). Personally, I think that the morals must be higher than any entity (that might exist). In a way, I mean that the morals are fundamental (which makes sense if you notice that all humans throughout history and cultures and religions have had very similar moral systems) but that is a post of its own.



Now, lets take the first part: Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious...? This idea is less popular than the other, why? Maybe because people think that it is the same as the other (what the gods love is what is pious), but it is not. In the other one, piety was directly linked to the gods, in this one, piety is independent of the gods. The problem with this idea (which is not really a problem) is that being religious losses it meaning if you adopt this idea. If the gods love what is pious (what is moral) because it is pious, then that means that people can be pious without believing in the gods since morality is then above the gods themselves. That means that if you are a good atheist, you deserve just as many good things as a good religious person. Actually, you might deserve more and I will tell you why now.



If you are to ask someone on the street, who is more likely to go to heaven? A morally good Atheist or a morally good Christian (lets say)? If you are religious you are more incline to say that the Christian does (for he is good and believes. And believing is the first commandment). Well I will tell you that the Atheist is more likely (or at least should be more likely) to go to heaven. If god does indeed follow a set of fundamental laws (as we saw in the previous paragraph. And the paragraph before the previous ended up giving us the same answer) that are above him (nothing wrong with that) and he is a just god (as he claims to be) then he should give the good Atheist more moral credit than the good Christian because of the slogan that all religions have (including Christianity): "you can only attain salvation through X" (X being some god or gods). That means that most Christians (not all, I must say) are only morally good because they want salvation, on the other hand, a good Atheist would not be good for salvation (he/she does not believe in salvation); then he/she must be good because it is good. Thus, he/she is more pious. Now, like Christians, this is not true for all Atheists (selfish people exist in every group of people) however I think that an good Atheist should be more likely to go to heaven than a good Christian for a good Christian is more likely to be good because of necessary than because of goodness (now that might not be true. Maybe god decided that he does not want to be all just and decided to ignore some of the fundamental laws, which is possible).



Well, there it is.

We do not get to heaven through our actions. We get to heaven through the sacrifice Jesus, the spiritual son of god, made for us.

It does not matter how we act for God still loves us. Just as a good parent will always love his child. One doesn't have to act morally good to enter Heaven, for Jesus died for all.

[Ciabhán]

We do not get to heaven through our actions. We get to heaven through the sacrifice Jesus, the spiritual son of god, made for us.

It does not matter how we act for God still loves us. Just as a good parent will always love his child. One doesn't have to act morally good to enter Heaven, for Jesus died for all.

So all that debating about religious morals influencing things is moot then. I can be the worst bloody bastard to ever walk the earth and as long as I accept Jesus as the Saviour I win? Sounds fun where do I sign up for this version?

[Garrigan]

Extremely Good post.

I really cant encourage much debate, as I agree with it all. But I may try to play the Devil's Advocate.

Personally, I think that the morals must be higher than any entity (that might exist). In a way, I mean that the morals are fundamental (which makes sense if you notice that all humans throughout history and cultures and religions have had very similar moral systems) but that is a post of its own.

I dont think any theist could agree with this. As it points to something more than "God". Something that maybe created it. Plus, this Creator of the Creator, who gave it the fundamental morals to pass down to "The Creator"? Also something higher than God would mean that God was not omnipotenet or omnipresent.

That means that most Christians (not all, I must say) are only morally good because they want salvation, on the other hand, a good Atheist would not be good for salvation (he/she does not believe in salvation); then he/she must be good because it is good. Thus, he/she is more pious. Now, like Christians, this is not true for all Atheists (selfish people exist in every group of people) however I think that an good Atheist should be more likely to go to heaven than a good Christian for a good Christian is more likely to be good because of necessary than because of goodness (now that might not be true. Maybe god decided that he does not want to be all just and decided to ignore some of the fundamental laws, which is possible).

If the God did create his own moral code from scratch, couldnt believing in him be one of the fundamental morals of said code, thus an atheist is immoral, just for having no faith?

[Vladimir Lenin]

If the God did create his own moral code from scratch, couldnt believing in him be one of the fundamental morals of said code, thus an atheist is immoral, just for having no faith?

This assumes that God only loves us for making moral decisions,

Answer me this, Would a parent hate his child for acting immorally? Of course not, the parent would probably be extremely disappointed but they wouldn't hate their child.

The code of morality that God puts forth is to show love to others, as we would love ourselves. The Morality of here on earth is really only a guide on how to live on earth.

Not believing in God doesn't bar you from salvation or heaven.

So all that debating about religious morals influencing things is moot then. I can be the worst bloody bastard to ever walk the earth and as long as I accept Jesus as the Saviour I win? Sounds fun where do I sign up for this version?

You don't even have to accept Jesus as Saviour. God loves all of his creation.

[Garrigan]

This assumes that God only loves us for making moral decisions,

Answer me this, Would a parent hate his child for acting immorally? Of course not, the parent would probably be extremely disappointed but they wouldn't hate their child.

The code of morality that God puts forth is to show love to others, as we would love ourselves. The Morality of here on earth is really only a guide on how to live on earth.

Not believing in God doesn't bar you from salvation or heaven.

I was actually posting within fisternis' framework. So what you believe about god/s isnt that important for that, as I was talking hypothetically.

[Vladimir Lenin]

I was actually posting within fisternis' framework. So what you believe about god/s isnt that important for that, as I was talking hypothetically.

Hypothetically then:

Yes he could. Why he did or didn't doesn't really matter.

He's an omnipotent, omniscient being, he really doesn't need a reason or any reason he gave couldn't possibly be understood by us at all.

[Garrigan]

How convenient for him.

[Bovril]

The OP uses a false dichotomy, it assumes God and morality are somehow distinct. In any workable conception of God and goodness, Goodness is an aspect of God and God is the embodiment of goodness. What is good for a man to do is that which brings him closer to God. By bringing himself closer to God he also brings himself closer to the state of being with God (or reconciled to God, or becoming a part of God, or however you want to put) either in this life or after death, depending on individual beliefs.
The problem with Calvinist and certain other protestant thought is that man has no role in his own aspiration to be with God, since man is only sinful. The unfortunate result of this idea is the objectification of God, and the conception of God as entirely absent from man. The mistake of the OP is to anthropomorphise God, and to make goodness purely an abstraction to which actions are either more or less corelated. Goodness is not a measuring scale, it is a sort of transformative project man embarks upon.

[finsternis]

We do not get to heaven through our actions. We get to heaven through the sacrifice Jesus, the spiritual son of god, made for us. It does not matter how we act for God still loves us. Just as a good parent will always love his child. One doesn't have to act morally good to enter Heaven, for Jesus died for all.

So it matters not whether you believe in Christ and god or not? Or if you are good or not? So what is the point of hell (if everyone goes to heaven)? Now, maybe there is no hell and everyone does go to heaven: I'm fine with that.

I dont think any theist could agree with this. As it points to something more than "God". Something that maybe created it. Plus, this Creator of the Creator, who gave it the fundamental morals to pass down to "The Creator"? Also something higher than God would mean that God was not omnipotenet or omnipresent.

It is no a Creator of the Creator, it is a set of fundamental laws that for some reason end up in any body that has a mind (not physical body, necessarily).

If the God did create his own moral code from scratch, couldnt believing in him be one of the fundamental morals of said code, thus an atheist is immoral, just for having no faith?

Because it does not seem that god did create them. It looks like he just follows it (as I said, in Genesis god keeps referring to things as "good").

But lets take your side and assume that you are not talking about the biblical god (or any other god I know, for they all seem to follow these morals). If god (which ever) did create the fundamental morals, why would he make believing in him a moral? Isn't that the characteristic of a tyrant (follow me or you will suffer)? Now of course that could be the true god (nothing says that god has to be all-loving) but then come the question of whether it is moral to follow such a god/devil (and for you to even thing that, there has to be some kind of high morality).

See the problems that arise?

The OP uses a false dichotomy, it assumes God and morality are somehow distinct.

I did? I thought that I took the idea that gods and morals are the same (...or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?) and took it apart and showed that that raises a lot of moral questions.

In any workable conception of God and goodness, Goodness is an aspect of God and God is the embodiment of goodness.

This is the characteristic of an all-loving god, no problem there.

What is good for a man to do is that which brings him closer to God.

Why?

By bringing himself closer to God he also brings himself closer to the state of being with God (or reconciled to God, or becoming a part of God, or however you want to put) either in this life or after death, depending on individual beliefs.
The problem with Calvinist and certain other protestant thought is that man has no role in his own aspiration to be with God, since man is only sinful. The unfortunate result of this idea is the objectification of God, and the conception of God as entirely absent from man. The mistake of the OP is to anthropomorphise God, and to make goodness purely an abstraction to which actions are either more or less corelated. Goodness is not a measuring scale, it is a sort of transformative project man embarks upon.

The god that you are describing is the all-loving god, not the biblical god or any other god I have heard of. Nothing wrong with that god, but if you notice this god can only have that characteristic: all-loving. That means that this god cannot be jealous, vengeful, or any of the other characteristics that are given to gods by humans. I do no think that this god is even able to make a heaven and a hell (He would love everyone and everything. He would have no religion or favorites). He would kind of be a deistic god.

[Vladimir Lenin]

So it matters not whether you believe in Christ and god or not? Or if you are good or not? So what is the point of hell (if everyone goes to heaven)? Now, maybe there is no hell and everyone does go to heaven: I'm fine with that.

There is no Hell. Hell is only what we create on earth.

[finsternis]

There is no Hell. Hell is only what we create on earth.

So you are a believer of the all-loving god. Then what was the whole Jesus thing about? Do you think that the biblical god is an all-loving god?

[Vladimir Lenin]

So you are a believer of the all-loving god. Then what was the whole Jesus thing about? Do you think that the biblical god is an all-loving god?

Well, the "whole Jesus thing" was a symbol of God's love. If you are referring to the God that destroyed entire cities simply because of Sin, that is not my God.

EDIT: Ironically, this is my 2,666th post.

[Bovril]

The god that you are describing is the all-loving god, not the biblical god or any other god I have heard of. Nothing wrong with that god, but if you notice this god can only have that characteristic: all-loving. That means that this god cannot be jealous, vengeful, or any of the other characteristics that are given to gods by humans. I do no think that this god is even able to make a heaven and a hell (He would love everyone and everything. He would have no religion or favorites). He would kind of be a deistic god.

I agree that this is not the god of the Bible given a litteral interpretation of the Bible. It is also a God that is neither vengeful or jelous. My model of God does not really include attributes so much as aspects that form a unity. These aspects are ways of aproaching the ultimate, which is, if you like, the essence of God, and also include wisdom, goodness, understanding and so on.
He would not have hell, except in as much as hell is self seperation from God, or heaven except in as much as heaven is nearness to God (these are not unpopular definitions by the way). He would love everyone (not everthing, love is a relationship), and share loving relationships with all humans, varying in intensity depending on how they seek after and approach him. He would not be a Deistic God since he would be present in the world and intervene in it in as much as he is manifest in all of us and guides all of our righteous actions. However, he would not intervene in the world in ways external to us, and in this sense he would not be traditionally monotheistic either. He would have religion in as much as religions are communities who create ways of knowing him, and prophets, who are individuals who fulfill the same role.

I see no objection to this God, and no grounds for criticising such a faith, but in order to follow this path with awareness one must take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. And this is no easy task. Its not one I've achieved.

[Jams79]

@Arian the Heretic

Do you believe in Sin (as in something God shall punish us for)?

[Vladimir Lenin]

@Arian the Heretic

Do you believe in Sin (as in something God shall punish us for)?

I believe in Sin of course. I believe we all sin, I sin, you sin, we have all sinned.

That being said, we won't get punished for it. Why you may ask? Simply the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

[Jams79]

So what I do in this life has no bearing on my eternity? What about the Hitler's in life, not even a teensy bit of punishment?

[Vladimir Lenin]

So what I do in this life has no bearing on my eternity?

Exactly.

What about the Hitler's in life, not even a teensy bit of punishment?

None at all. He is with God now, cured of the mental illness he had.

[Jams79]

I think I find that even more depressing than a vengeful God. Although I think that says more about my personal state of mind than anything else.

[Vladimir Lenin]

I think I find that even more depressing than a vengeful God.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but God is entirely forgiving. If he didn't forgive Hitler, he wouldn't be an all forgiving God.