To go off the Catholic theology, intelligent creatures are (presumably) a blank slate. Humans, however, all have original sin, and so from conception are in the negative. And because the smallest sin weighs as much as the heaviest in the eyes of God, original sin is enough to preclude you from heaven. I don't believe the Catholic theology really speaks to intelligent creatures who are not humans, but it's been explored in debates and literature, with a few different answers. For this discussion, I believe we're speaking ONLY of humans.

Within that, there is a period where someone can get back to that no-sin state; baptism. If you're an adult being baptised, obviously that's an act of faith, but for an infant, it's not. So an infant who has just been baptised can go to heaven by being 'good' (although this is still closely tied with faith, so it's sort of a cheap answer).

Again, according to Catholic theology, Mary was born without original sin, never felt tempted to commit sin, and never did commit any sins. She got to heaven by virtue of being good.

Adam and Eve were born without original sin, and had the option of getting to heaven, but obviously fell. While the bible implies Adam and Eve had no contemporaries, it doesn't say so explicitly, so it's feasible that other humans did not fall with A&E, and got to heaven by virtue of being good. The cop-out here is that it's not totally clear that the same rules applied at that time. Jesus opened the gates of heaven, and before that, all the good Jews would just sort of hang out outside and smoke cigarettes. We're never told what happened to good people before there were Judiasm. So maybe heaven was never an option for A&E in the first place; they'd just go to where-ever hairy proto-people go (Wal-Mart, by the looks of some customers there).

So with all of that, to me, TitL's comments seem broadly true, but technically inaccurate. It's like saying 'cars don't go faster than the speed of sound'. There are some exceptions to that rule, but they're hardly worth mentioning.

Also, TitL is likely coming from a more Protestant framework that would reject the idea that Mary was born without sin.

Also, a more conservative viewpoint which would reject the idea that Adam and Eve had contemporaries who could have maintained a sinless state.

So it would rule out a few of the caveats you've mentioned.

EDIT:  Interesting to note, even the most conservative folks seem to leave room for children of a certain age to gain salvation by default, which throws the whole thing into complete chaos ;)
This message was last edited by the player at 17:34, Thu 08 Nov 2012.

Just going by the bible here. Mary is not mentioned at being sinless, though Jesus mentions all have sinned.

So Mary, according to the bible would have sinned.

By Jesus's statement, he sinned too. If Jesus sinned, he can't be God and can't be in a place to help other sinners. How do you deal with that?

Two things, who is the only who didn't sin? And What sin did Jesus commit?

The first response would be God, who Jesus claimed to be. And we already know it says Jesus was sinless. More so, sin is something that goes against God's commands. How could Jesus goes against Himself.

1 Peter 2:22 “He committed no sin,
    and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

1 John 3: 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.

John 8:46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?

Most protestants do not agree that Jesus said he had sinned.

It makes no sense to continue the debate when you've lost.  You didn't explain the contradiction, you relied on Doulos to try and shift the goalposts for you.

Fact is, there are many people considered good in the bible who are not jesus.  Solomon, David, Ruth, Esther, Moses, the list goes on and on.  So, you continue to contradict yourself.

But good enough to go to heaven? Also, all of those people were followers of God :) That's sort of TitL's point. "You cured cancer? Oh, sorry, you're still a filthy sinner. Oh, you trust God will care for you? Okay, everything's forgiven, welcome to heaven!"

Actually, that's the opposite of what he's been saying recently.

I don't know why you're getting that interpretation. I was a little confused initially about what is a 'good person', but when I asked, TitL and TitL clarified how he was using that term; it's someone without sin. Sure there are people who are considered good in that they do nice things for other people, but they aren't good, i.e. sinless, which was the definition TitL has been using and explicitly stated.

If you prefer they were good, just not good enough.

Because the bible is full of people who were good enough to get to heaven while not being "saved".  Virtually everyone in the old testament, for example.  I can't recall if it was Elijah who actually went to heaven or if it was another prophet, but the point is that works are not just necessary, they are sufficient.  It's not just the main thing, it's the only thing.

Romans 4 is pointed to by Christians as evidence that folks in the OT were still saved by faith, and not by goodness.

Considering even the Jews don't believe they go straight to heaven after death, that would seem to be a stretch, don't you think?

You're actually somewhat wrong on that one.  Jews have no concept of hell, that's a pagan add on.  Heaven was visited and described by one of the prophets (I want to say Elijah) while watching another prophet go there.

I'm not sure of the nuances that you are getting at Grandmaster, but my understanding is that Katisara is correct in that the bulk of the Jewish eschatological beliefs included a bodily resurrection in a 'world to come', but only after some time had passed.

So they would not go "immediately to heaven".

Even Classical Christianity does not teach that you go straight to heaven when you die, despite what popular evangelical fiction books would have you believe.

EDIT:  I read 'no concept of heaven' at first - oops.  Yeah they don't believe in hell as far as I understand it, but rather the idea of a punishment in the 'world to come' - though certainly not an eternal one.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:05, Fri 09 Nov 2012.

That's also incorrect, although it does depend heavily on what you consider "classical christianity" to be.  Catholicism teaches the concept of purgatory, but original christianity does not.

The Catholics would call themselves 'original christianity' ;)

I was referring to the more Protestant version though yes.  But again, purgatory and heaven are different things even in Cahtolicism.

Okay, Solomon was good, let's go over why you think he was good.

Let's go over them one at a time, and see what scripture has on this.

Why?  So you can weasel out of the contradiction?

They were sinners, and they were considered good.  I don't need any more proof than that.  You now need to prove that they were evil to counter the point.

Well, the why was because I thought you wanted to discuss them being good and sinners. If you don't, well, ok.

They were sinners, and considered good? Ok, pick anyone of the list then if you didn't like Solomon, and present why you think it says they are good.

I already shown no one was good according to Jesus earlier.

Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg # 185):

Gotta say, GMC, that it seems like you're arguing semantics, rather than substance.  What TitL meant is pretty clear at this point.  You're only trying to find a contradiction in what he said.  The very best 'result' you can get by keeping after this line of argument is that at the end TitL will say "okay, you're right, I should have said 'perfect' rather than 'good'".  You're not making any points about his beliefs or position, you're just attacking his diction.  Isn't it more interesting to pursue something a bit more substantive?

I'm trying to get him to a question of substance.  Rest assured, I'm leading up to something.  However, in the meanwhile, he keeps trying to weasel.

I guess I'm not seeing his 'weaseling' (just poor use of undefined terms). If your argument pins on holding him to what you think he said, rather than what he thinks he said, well, that may be a problem.

It pins on him actually holding to a position.  Which he isn't doing.

So what exactly are you trying to get TitL to say?  Maybe just come out and say the words he is supposed to say to you/admit or whatever because it seems some of us are confused on where the conversation is supposed to be headed.