The New Testament states that heaven is not anyone’s eternal destination unless one does something life-changing to secure it and avert the dreaded default.

.

MANKIND’S INHERENT NATURE

It appears as though the majority of people who believe in an afterlife have the mistaken notion that pretty much everyone will end up in the good place regardless of anything in their lives which would warrant such a profound celestial gift. Yet it also appears apparent that most people go through life doing what they will and whatever life calls for without thinking too much about eternity as if one’s eternal destination has already somehow been taken care of by providence, which means they understand providence to be both benevolent and also no stickler for one’s behavior or intentions.

Consequently, the concept of sin doesn’t come up too often. How do we know this? For the simple reason that many people if not most (likely most) do not possess any objective moral checklist to indicate right from wrong except in a general sense or that which is dictated by their culture. Even though most people have a working conscience early in life that clearly delineates the good from the bad, humans are notorious for making exceptions and overriding their conscience when it suits them, usually when they want to engage in something for their own selfish pleasure or gain something through nefarious means. This proves one will generally break the rules and violate their conscience when it serves his or her own interests and believes such decisions should be no one else’s business, which has a tendency to subvert societal mores (understatement alert).

Now, if pretty much everyone has this attitude, which present and historical evidence certainly seems to strongly suggest, then it means human societies demand some method of restricting such an attitude and it’s pernicious fruits or else there will be utmost chaos and debauchery and the very antithesis of a cohesive culture and society, which is supposed to exist for the benefit of the members thereof and not so everyone can run amok in the engagement of vice. We call this restriction of human will that is naturally bent toward personal licentious outcomes Law. And we have law so there can be Order. Thus, the establishment of law and order which the majority has always been in favor of in the good societies in this world proves that humanity has a serious problem that must be not only addressed but addressed at all times, meaning law and order is a 24 hours a day and 365 days a year proposition.

No matter how one may look at this it proves absolutely that human beings are basically and inherently degenerate, otherwise we wouldn’t need massive skyscraper level libraries of laws and restrictions spelling out every human offense there is down to the minutest level. And we wouldn’t need scads and scads and scads of those who make their living in this medium of secular ultra-casuistry called Lawyers, some of which to defend innocent parties hurt/harmed/damaged/injured by the bad guys and some to prosecute said bad guys for their bad guy behavior. Such a process has a tendency to draw sharp contrasts between the harmed and the harmers (the good guys and bad guys) as if the harmed are not and cannot be the harmers. Yet, since all human beings have the same problem regarding what the Word of God calls sin, such a good guy/bad guy scenario must be based on another set of laws because God’s Law says everyone is a sinner on their way to you know where.

SOCIETAL CONDUCT CONTROLS

In other words, if one does fairly well obeying societal or cultural mores and behaviors then they are considered good “law-abiding” citizens. This means they score well on what are essentially watered-down tests of morality in that they manage to keep themselves from committing major behavioral aberrations and crimes to the point that their lesser indiscretions are either not counted, are unseen or unknown, OR there are no laws on the books for their particular immoral miscues. But since the more enlightened societies and cultures of the world doing well to illustrate a high level of civilization are also often the ones with the most laws and lawyers it indicates that something is simply not on the up and up, which proves that even the best human societies/cultures DEMAND endless laws ad infinitum and veritable armies of lawyers simply to stay intact and maintain some semblance of order.

What then happens to lesser societies/cultures? Obviously, things are worse in such places and are far worse in the worst of such places. If they somehow manage to stay intact it is only through greater degrees as required of brute force. This means their laws are essentially worthless since most don’t obey them and law enforcement can only go after the very worst offenders while everyone else gets away with their “lesser” crimes. One might call this grading on the curve.

This raises an interesting question: Why are some societies and cultures better than others? Why are some people better at regulating their behavior than others? Why are some cultures made up primarily of people who cannot or will not control themselves and do whatever they want to fulfill their evil desires? Regardless of whatever it may be that causes some populations of people to possess little or no morality whatsoever and simply cannot or will not control themselves, while other populations do a relatively very good job at such, it stands to reason that there must be something beyond the human beings comprising such better societies that keeps them in line if it exists and is applied.

Again, even the best societies and cultures of this world demand multitudinous laws and lawyers which means human beings have a serious problem with inherent human behavior. Thus, the only reason good societies exist is because the people thereof are well aware of their condition and work extremely hard at regulating it. They teach their young from the very beginning what is right and what is wrong. They reward good behavior but pay special attention to nipping bad behavior in the bud and make great demands of themselves and their charges to be upstanding citizens and strive to create and possess good reputations.

Now, that being said, most children have good natures and usually only need set boundaries. Their freedom must be limited in such a way that they are not so aware of it and then increased as they can handle it. If they prove worthy they get the recompense of slightly more freedom and rewards for good behavior. In this way they have a much better chance of learning right from wrong in a manner that agrees with their conscience which confirms they are being taught correctly which in turn establishes trust in and respect for authority. Some kids need relatively less strict discipline to keep them on track while other kids demand much more.

Hence, the good behavior required to be good kids and future good upstanding citizens must be learned and the rewards for fulling such must be earned.

© 2025 by RJ Dawson. All Rights Reserved. [To Be Continued…]