Can atheists go to Heaven?

[Yenke-Bin]

For me to accept and follow Christ now is out of desire. If at death you lived a horrible life but could accept Christ and get into heaven, then its only really done out of convenience and out of fear of going to hell. Most Christians I know accept Christ out of love, and desire to live for Him because they want to be in paradise to be eternally in His presence praising Him for how great He is.

That really doesn't answer my question at all, but whatever.

Sure it does. You asked why we can't accept Christ after death. Because after death then we accept Christ out of fear and self preservation, while doing it in life is out of love and faith. Christ wants those who love him, not those who use him for fire insurance.

[Unhealthy2]

After witnessing numerous theological pissing contests, I've come to the conclusion that the bible pretty much means whatever the person reading it happens to want it to mean. Never have I seen so much blatant sophistry or outright confirmation bias employed in interpreting the meaning of a book. Even postmodern interpretations of poetry require less significant applications of mental gymnastics.

[Stochania]

Really
and pray tell what makes you an expert?

I've encountered my fair share of "Militant" Atheists
Who for them it is not enough to not believe, but to insist on the lack of, and insist that everyone should believe as they do
They make the claim that religion is the greatest evil ever devised by man, and that in order to move forward as a society, we must abolish and remove this evil, even if this means we need to purge those who won't let go.

If this isn't "Fundamentalism" then pray tell what is.

militant and fundamentalist are 2 different things.

you might want to study up on that.

and "strident" might be a better word for those who arent blowing things up in the name of atheism.

Is lack of belief and insisting others follow this train of thought not in itself a belief? Has atheism not come into being as a religion in itself, rejecting the belief in all others?

[Nort Eurasia]

No. The Bible clearly states that anyone, of any moral standard, cannot enter Heaven unless they accept Jesus as their savior and show unconditional, relentless servitude and devotion to God and his Commandments.

No, it doesn't.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE way,
the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Sorry, but these passages seem to, somehow, suggest that accepting Jesus gets you into that big ol place in the sky.

[Grave_n_idle]

That really doesn't answer my question at all, but whatever.

Sure it does. You asked why we can't accept Christ after death. Because after death then we accept Christ out of fear and self preservation, while doing it in life is out of love and faith. Christ wants those who love him, not those who use him for fire insurance.

You might want to explain that to everyone who tries to use Pascal's Wager as a preaching tool.

[Ashmoria]

that was always my understanding.

not that there is a PLACE for the soul but religion ignores that part.

The first line and second seemingly contradict each other.

so?

its not like i believe in the soul. but i have a small understanding of where it is supposed to be based on my catholic upbringing.

[Ashmoria]

militant and fundamentalist are 2 different things.

you might want to study up on that.

and "strident" might be a better word for those who arent blowing things up in the name of atheism.

Is lack of belief and insisting others follow this train of thought not in itself a belief? Has atheism not come into being as a religion in itself, rejecting the belief in all others?

no

but the insistence that believers are stupid and only atheists understand things is very often obnoxious.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, it doesn't.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE way,
the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Sorry, but these passages seem to, somehow, suggest that accepting Jesus gets you into that big ol place in the sky.

What you said was "anyone, of any moral standard, cannot enter Heaven unless they accept Jesus as their savior and show unconditional, relentless servitude and devotion to God and his Commandments". Your verses don't back that claim.

Romans 10:9 says you have to proselytize Jesus, and believe he was resurrected by an external force - and that, if you do, your reward will be salvation. It does not say that's the only way.

John 14:6 says that 'by' (or 'through') Jesus is the way to the Father - but doesn't say that belief is required, or even desired.

[Stochania]

After witnessing numerous theological pissing contests, I've come to the conclusion that the bible pretty much means whatever the person reading it happens to want it to mean. Never have I seen so much blatant sophistry or outright confirmation bias employed in interpreting the meaning of a book. Even postmodern interpretations of poetry require less significant applications of mental gymnastics.

I agree that there are numerous people interpreting the bible as they wish, subjecting it to their world views, but that in itself is one of the first things that we should heed against. As a question, do you believe that there may be something such as the absolute truth or is everything relative?

Then my question to you is, is the bible the complete truth, the Word of God?
If your answer to this is No I ask you, is that absolutely true?

[Grave_n_idle]

After witnessing numerous theological pissing contests, I've come to the conclusion that the bible pretty much means whatever the person reading it happens to want it to mean. Never have I seen so much blatant sophistry or outright confirmation bias employed in interpreting the meaning of a book. Even postmodern interpretations of poetry require less significant applications of mental gymnastics.

I agree that there are numerous people interpreting the bible as they wish, subjecting it to their world views, but that in itself is one of the first things that we should heed against. As a question, do you believe that there may be something such as the absolute truth or is everything relative?

Then my question to you is, is the bible the complete truth, the Word of God?

Given that there are hundreds of different Bibles, many of which have such different interpretations that they are almost irreconcilable, I'm going to have to argue it's very unlikely.

[Nort Eurasia]

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE way,
the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Sorry, but these passages seem to, somehow, suggest that accepting Jesus gets you into that big ol place in the sky.

What you said was "anyone, of any moral standard, cannot enter Heaven unless they accept Jesus as their savior and show unconditional, relentless servitude and devotion to God and his Commandments". Your verses don't back that claim.

Romans 10:9 says you have to proselytize Jesus, and believe he was resurrected by an external force - and that, if you do, your reward will be salvation. It does not say that's the only way.

John 14:6 says that 'by' (or 'through') Jesus is the way to the Father - but doesn't say that belief is required, or even desired.

Err... Look again. It says that NO MAN cometh unto the father but by me. Saying "No man", from my perspective and possibly a few others, means just that; No man. So, it kind of suggests that nobody can enter heaven unless they accept Jesus. It's not a suggestion or anything it's just, you know, required.

[Grave_n_idle]

What you said was "anyone, of any moral standard, cannot enter Heaven unless they accept Jesus as their savior and show unconditional, relentless servitude and devotion to God and his Commandments". Your verses don't back that claim.

Romans 10:9 says you have to proselytize Jesus, and believe he was resurrected by an external force - and that, if you do, your reward will be salvation. It does not say that's the only way.

John 14:6 says that 'by' (or 'through') Jesus is the way to the Father - but doesn't say that belief is required, or even desired.

Err... Look again. It says that NO MAN cometh unto the father but by me. Saying "No man", from my perspective and possibly a few others, means just that; No man. So, it kind of suggests that nobody can enter heaven unless they accept Jesus. It's not a suggestion or anything it's just, you know, required.

Picked up the wrong part there - 'but by me' can simply mean 'but BECAUSE of me'. As in, salvation is granted to ALL men, because of the Blood of Calvary.

[Unhealthy2]

Sure it does. You asked why we can't accept Christ after death. Because after death then we accept Christ out of fear and self preservation, while doing it in life is out of love and faith. Christ wants those who love him, not those who use him for fire insurance.

Then why doesn't he make his existence obvious? Why is the one test in the entire life so arbitrary? The entire test of this life is "Can you believe these incoherent and absurd metaphysical tenets without a shred of evidence?" That's the test. It's not a test of kindness, intellect, accomplishment, generosity, honor, honesty, or anything else that any sane person would consider a remotely meaningful test of character. It's simply a test about whether you can accept a set of extremely absurd and unfalsifiable claims without any evidence. Furthermore, you must not only accept A set of extremely absurd and unfalsifiable claims without evidence. You must accept the right one. There's thousands to choose from, and if you happen to pick the wrong one, you face a punishment beyond all comprehension. Add to this the fact that the lack of evidence means that you have no reason to choose one over any other, and we're left with what amounts to a guessing game, except this guessing game has infinite consequences.

That's incredibly bizarre.

Also, how is doing it in life out of love and faith? I'm pretty sure you're just believing in Jesus because you don't want to go to hell. Do you really expect me to believe that you don't fear that whole "hell" thing at all and your belief is out of entirely noble intentions without the slightest hint of self-interest? Yeah, I'm not that naive, sorry.

Furthermore, if god wants us to come to him out of love, then why did he arrange a system like this in the first place? Why does he place such a threat before us to begin with? That threat pretty much guarantees that almost everyone coming to him will be doing so out of fear, whether in this life or the next. He really didn't choose a very smart way to set things up if he wanted us to come to him out of love.

[Geniasis]

That God is God, Jesus is a human prophet with an insight into God's plan and the Holy Spirit is not an entity, but just a manifestation of God's power. Simple, and completely concordant with the text. As opposed to introducing odd concepts such as Jesus crying out that he has forsaken himself, or claiming that all men can become as he is. Nowhere in the bible is there any support for the trinitarian point of view, which only became common in the 2nd-3rd centuries and only became dominant in the 5th century.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19.

Right, there aren't three distinct entities.

The Gospel of John starts off by presenting Jesus as the Logos, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1), "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

The reason it took so long to create the doctrine wasn't because people were making shit up, it was because the idea that you could have three distinct persons who were actually the same essential being was kind of a new concept that we hadn't run into the West--although I understand Hindusim had something very similar?

[Ashmoria]

What you said was "anyone, of any moral standard, cannot enter Heaven unless they accept Jesus as their savior and show unconditional, relentless servitude and devotion to God and his Commandments". Your verses don't back that claim.

Romans 10:9 says you have to proselytize Jesus, and believe he was resurrected by an external force - and that, if you do, your reward will be salvation. It does not say that's the only way.

John 14:6 says that 'by' (or 'through') Jesus is the way to the Father - but doesn't say that belief is required, or even desired.

Err... Look again. It says that NO MAN cometh unto the father but by me. Saying "No man", from my perspective and possibly a few others, means just that; No man. So, it kind of suggests that nobody can enter heaven unless they accept Jesus. It's not a suggestion or anything it's just, you know, required.

no it doesnt. the word THROUGH or BY in no way implies any requirement of belief or moral character.

[Yenke-Bin]

-snip-

I think we might be arguing two different things here. I am saying that it is clear that Jesus makes the point that he is the only way to get to the Father. There is no other way about that, if you accept Christ's words. You seem to be arguing about what through means. We can talk about what it can and can't mean all we want, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Jesus said that he is the only way. Take further that those he appointed to be his trusted successors said things like "Believe in Jesus and you will be saved" (Acts 16;31) Jesus also said that anyone who believes in him will have everlasting life (John 3:16) but those who do not believe in Him will not see life, and the wrath of God will come upon him (John 3:36)

So again, I am arguing the concept that Jesus is the only way. I am not saying anything about "through" because as I mentioned before, it is just an attempt to get off the man point, which you proved quite true.

[Unhealthy2]

I agree that there are numerous people interpreting the bible as they wish, subjecting it to their world views, but that in itself is one of the first things that we should heed against. As a question, do you believe that there may be something such as the absolute truth or is everything relative?

Then my question to you is, is the bible the complete truth, the Word of God?
If your answer to this is No I ask you, is that absolutely true?

Of course absolute truth exists, that's logically necessary. The bible is not the word of god, however. I fail to see how not accepting the existence of god is equivalent to promoting self-defeating epistemic nihilism. That does not follow from logic whatsoever, and it is a very strange assumption that many theists make, probably out of some fear of atheism.

[Grave_n_idle]

That God is God, Jesus is a human prophet with an insight into God's plan and the Holy Spirit is not an entity, but just a manifestation of God's power. Simple, and completely concordant with the text. As opposed to introducing odd concepts such as Jesus crying out that he has forsaken himself, or claiming that all men can become as he is. Nowhere in the bible is there any support for the trinitarian point of view, which only became common in the 2nd-3rd centuries and only became dominant in the 5th century.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19.

Right, there aren't three distinct entities.

The Gospel of John starts off by presenting Jesus as the Logos, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1), "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

The reason it took so long to create the doctrine wasn't because people were making shit up, it was because the idea that you could have three distinct persons who were actually the same essential being was kind of a new concept...

Not even vaguely. First - not new. Even the 'trinity' concept isn't new - it's remarkably common in Egyptian theology, which is present in the immediate environs in which Christian theology first spread.

Second - we know that up until Constantine there was still massive debate about whether or not Jesus was mortal or godlike, or something other than either.

SO we KNOW why it 'took so long' - it's because there wasn't one unified belief, much less one unified belief as to the god/man dichotomy.

[Ashmoria]

Furthermore, if god wants us to come to him out of love, then why did he arrange a system like this in the first place? Why does he place such a threat before us to begin with? That threat pretty much guarantees that almost everyone coming to him will be doing so out of fear, whether in this life or the next. He really didn't choose a very smart way to set things up if he wanted us to come to him out of love.

why set up a system that automatically damns 99% of all humanity to hell?

[Galloism]

That God is God, Jesus is a human prophet with an insight into God's plan and the Holy Spirit is not an entity, but just a manifestation of God's power. Simple, and completely concordant with the text. As opposed to introducing odd concepts such as Jesus crying out that he has forsaken himself, or claiming that all men can become as he is. Nowhere in the bible is there any support for the trinitarian point of view, which only became common in the 2nd-3rd centuries and only became dominant in the 5th century.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19.

Right, there aren't three distinct entities.

The Gospel of John starts off by presenting Jesus as the Logos, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1), "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

The reason it took so long to create the doctrine wasn't because people were making shit up, it was because the idea that you could have three distinct persons who were actually the same essential being was kind of a new concept that we hadn't run into the West--although I understand Hindusim had something very similar?

Um, with regard to John 1:1, are you aware that the Greek language has no indefinite article "a"?

What's interesting that, in reference to almighty God, the Bible writers unequivocally used the phrase transliterated "Tho Theos" (literally meaning "The God") or an adjective which distinctly described almighty God.

In fact, a similar phrase occurs in Greek when Paul is shipwrecked, and gets bitten by a poisonous snake. In that case, however, the King James Bible writers inserted the word "a" in front of the word god, differentiating that they thought Paul was "a god" not "God." It seems logical that it should have been done in John 1:1 as well, and many translations and versions either insert the "a" or say that the word was "divine".

[Nort Eurasia]

Err... Look again. It says that NO MAN cometh unto the father but by me. Saying "No man", from my perspective and possibly a few others, means just that; No man. So, it kind of suggests that nobody can enter heaven unless they accept Jesus. It's not a suggestion or anything it's just, you know, required.

Picked up the wrong part there - 'but by me' can simply mean 'but BECAUSE of me'. As in, salvation is granted to ALL men, because of the Blood of Calvary.

Or it could simply mean just that; but by me.
*Yawn*
... Christian theology bores me, to be honest. Too many contradictions and obscured meanings. I mean, really, why can't people just be good for goodness sake? Just being good because you fear punishment from some deity isn't a logical excuse. You probably wouldn't murder someone if, hypothetically speaking, scientists proved that God doesn't exist. Haha...

[Buffett and Colbert]

The first line and second seemingly contradict each other.

so?

its not like i believe in the soul. but i have a small understanding of where it is supposed to be based on my catholic upbringing.

My Catholic upbringing never taught me that, but I had always assume the soul in the heart thing to be metaphorical.

I guess I was an atheist before I knew it.

[Geniasis]

Not even vaguely. First - not new. Even the 'trinity' concept isn't new - it's remarkably common in Egyptian theology, which is present in the immediate environs in which Christian theology first spread.

Second - we know that up until Constantine there was still massive debate about whether or not Jesus was mortal or godlike, or something other than either.

SO we KNOW why it 'took so long' - it's because there wasn't one unified belief, much less one unified belief as to the god/man dichotomy.

Meh, whatever.

Geez, even when I'm on your side I can't stand you.

[Unhealthy2]

why set up a system that automatically damns 99% of all humanity to hell?

The answer is probably going to be some nonsense about how free will is only possible if hell exists or something like that. Of course, that's not even close to true, but when has truth really mattered in this kind of debate?

[Ashmoria]

why set up a system that automatically damns 99% of all humanity to hell?

The answer is probably going to be some nonsense about how free will is only possible if hell exists or something like that. Of course, that's not even close to true, but when has truth really mattered in this kind of debate?

never

but we have the advantage of not having to follow any particular line of thought where our opponents are bound by the dogma of not just christianity but of the specific sect they belong to.