Can atheists go to Heaven?

[Geniasis]

Then why did you question my source in the first place?
You'll have either to stick to some English translation, or to learn Latin and Ancient Greek.

I do stick to English translations. None of mine said what you quoted, so I asked a question. I fail to see where the problem is.

The Bible is the Word of God according to Christians. When God quotes himself, you should take him literally - or stop being a Christian.

Why literally? Why should I not take Revelation the same as I would take any prophetic literature? Which is to say, a figurative work full of evocative imagery meant to underscore an essential truth and not a literal playbook of the End of the World. Unless you mean to say that the only correct way to interpret Revelation is to believe that an actual ten-headed beast is going to show up.

Incidentally, whether my interpretation means that I "should stop being a Christian" is none of your goddamn business, frankly.

[South Lorenya]

On a side note, it's entirely possible for someone to believe in jesus, believe that they're christian, and yet believe that large parts of the bible were edited or completely fabricated by humans. After all, if god is perfect, then logically most if not all of the hate in the bible comes from humans and other imperfect beings.

[Yenke-Bin]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble but the bible doesn't actually preach that if your good you go to heaven or if you bad you go to hell. It actually teaches in the book of revelation of a second coming of Christ, who will cast Satan into an abyss and will set of a kingdom of god on a paradise earth. The bible also teaches in the book of revelation only between 100,000 and 150,000 people go to heaven to be part of a governing body for a paradise earth.

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Revelation does teach that Jesus will come back, and will judge the earth. Those sinners that reject Jesus will be cast into the lake of fire with Satan , and those sinners that accept Christ will be allowed into Paradise. (Revelation 19:6-8; 20:11-15)

The part of Jesus having a physical kingdom on Earth is called the Millennium Rule, because it will be 1000 years of Christ's rule, and Satan will make one last attempt to overthrow Christ, but as mentioned before, he will be forever cast into fire (Revelation 20:7-10). 1000 is a number used to denote some sort of perfection. So the thousand year rule on earth is simply a symbolic showing of Christ's reign being perfect.

Also the number of people in heaven, that you point to is 144,000, which again is one of those biblical numbers which isn't literal, but a symbol. In this case, it refers to all the believers of Christ, because they are the new heirs of Abraham. Abraham had 12 sons which formed 12 tribes, and the total number of the people in those tribes when reaching the promised land was 144,000. So it is in reference to that. See the book of Hebrews for references to that.

Now, if you want to read more on Revelation, I suggest the book Revelation's Rhapsody by Dr. Robert Lowery

[Yenke-Bin]

On a side note, it's entirely possible for someone to believe in jesus, believe that they're christian, and yet believe that large parts of the bible were edited or completely fabricated by humans. After all, if god is perfect, then logically most if not all of the hate in the bible comes from humans and other imperfect beings.

What "hate' do you refer to? I am serious. Post some things. I have a point for this.

[Risottia]

Then why did you question my source in the first place?
You'll have either to stick to some English translation, or to learn Latin and Ancient Greek.

I do stick to English translations. None of mine said what you quoted, so I asked a question. I fail to see where the problem is.

Could please you point me to the translation you use, then?

The Bible is the Word of God according to Christians. When God quotes himself, you should take him literally - or stop being a Christian.

Why literally? Why should I not take Revelation the same as I would take any prophetic literature?

I was more specifically addressing to my original Genesis issue; God (as the author of the Bible) quotes himself. Through explicit quotation marks.

Incidentally, whether my interpretation means that I "should stop being a Christian" is none of your goddamn business, frankly.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I was trying to point out (rather unpolitely, I have to acknowledge, and I apologise for that) that being Christian means accepting some dogmas - the most fundamental of it being that the Bible is the Word of God.

[Geniasis]

Could please you point me to the translation you use, then?

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (NASB)

As you can see, it makes no mention of them dying the same day, but it does use the word "when".

Whether that changes the interpretation, or whether they did indeed "start to die" once they ate the fruit, you still end up with the idea that God didn't share the whole story, which while technically true was still pretty misleading. Which isn't something I've denied.

I was more specifically addressing to my original Genesis issue; God (as the author of the Bible) quotes himself. Through explicit quotation marks.

'

Ah, on that point I was addressing another poster on the Book of Revelation. That's an entirely different discussion/rant, though.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I was trying to point out (rather unpolitely, I have to acknowledge, and I apologise for that)

No worries. My response comes off as fairly intense, but it's actually not an angry response. Just a forceful one.

'Sides, I'd be lying if I said I'd never done that before.

that being Christian means accepting some dogmas - the most fundamental of it being that the Bible is the Word of God.

To what degree, though? Inspired by God? Dictated by God? Written by God? How ineffable is it, or is it in fact somewhat effable?

[ThoseWhoAreGood]

Of course Atheists can go to heaven. We do not have the power or authority to make judgements about who will go where for eternity. There are just a few "unforgivable" sins: Murder, denying the holy ghost. As long as you don't do one of those, there is always hope.

[Yenke-Bin]

Of course Atheists can go to heaven. We do not have the power or authority to make judgements about who will go where for eternity. There are just a few "unforgivable" sins: Murder, denying the holy ghost. As long as you don't do one of those, there is always hope.

I don know where you got that murder is an unforgivable sin, but you are wrong. Mark 3:28-29 "Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

People can be forgiven of murder, of saying Jesus is a phony, of adultery, lust, lying, etc. What they cannot be forgiven of is continued, unrepentant sin, because as long as they don't repent, they deny the work of the Holy Spirit, which is the conviction of Sins and leads us to Christ as savior. So when one dies they will be given a list of sins they did. Jesus said we'd all have to give an account before. Those who repented in this life and followed Christ will be allowed in Paradise to live forever. Those who remained unrepentant at their death or the second coming will be cast into Hell, to be faced with eternal death.

[GeneralHaNor]

If you use it to ride down your enemies and destroy them
Yes.

And that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

I wonder, General, if you set out to provide a perfect glowing example of the ways that religious training destroys the capacity for rational thought, or if this is purely accidental?

Considering I'm an Atheist with a staunch distaste for the asshats that inhabit my ideology and give me a bad name
Yeah, I would say it's an accident

[Risottia]

Could please you point me to the translation you use, then?

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (NASB)

As you can see, it makes no mention of them dying the same day, but it does use the word "when".

Whether that changes the interpretation, or whether they did indeed "start to die" once they ate the fruit, you still end up with the idea that God didn't share the whole story, which while technically true was still pretty misleading. Which isn't something I've denied.

Oy. Ok, then.

that being Christian means accepting some dogmas - the most fundamental of it being that the Bible is the Word of God.

To what degree, though? Inspired by God? Dictated by God? Written by God?

Well, at least the first five books are held as canon and holy scripture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon) by all Christian denominations - and the Tanakh is considered, through Jewish tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture#In_Judaism), to be "authored by God through the writings of men".

How ineffable is it, or is it in fact somewhat effable?

Well, the fact that it has been written in human language and that it is a testament (that is, a "legacy" given to men) make it necessarily effable (latin: ex + fari: outwards + speak).

[Unhealthy2]

Well, the fact that it has been written in human language and that it is a testament (that is, a "legacy" given to men) make it necessarily effable (latin: ex + fari: outwards + speak).

As an atheist, I'm quite happy effing pretty much the whole tome.

[Whole Conviction]

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (NASB)

As you can see, it makes no mention of them dying the same day, but it does use the word "when".

Whether that changes the interpretation, or whether they did indeed "start to die" once they ate the fruit, you still end up with the idea that God didn't share the whole story, which while technically true was still pretty misleading. Which isn't something I've denied.

Tht's something I've heard before -- that there was no death in Eden. Where's the support for that? There quite clearly was death, albeit of animals, since both Adam and Eve ate meat (or at least were commanded to eat meat, so they probably did). The fact that Adam and Eve didn't die until they left is no indication of immortality. I haven't died yet, so am I immortal, or have I just not been alive long enough?

Further, it conflicts with the idea that they weren't allowed to eat from the fruit of the tree of eternal life, which would allow them to live forever. Therefore they didn't live forever, therefore they'd eventually die, just like every other animal.

The whole idea of 'no death in the Garden' is a construct of Christian religion, with no scriptural basis. But then, it's in good company. The Trinity isn't really supportable and is in fact repeatedly denied in the Bible.

[Geniasis]

Tht's something I've heard before -- that there was no death in Eden. Where's the support for that? There quite clearly was death, albeit of animals, since both Adam and Eve ate meat (or at least were commanded to eat meat, so they probably did). The fact that Adam and Eve didn't die until they left is no indication of immortality. I haven't died yet, so am I immortal, or have I just not been alive long enough?

Further, it conflicts with the idea that they weren't allowed to eat from the fruit of the tree of eternal life, which would allow them to live forever. Therefore they didn't live forever, therefore they'd eventually die, just like every other animal.

Don't ask me. I see the Eden myth as essentially a parable, to set up the running theme of man disobeying God and fucking up his plans.

The whole idea of 'no death in the Garden' is a construct of Christian religion, with no scriptural basis. But then, it's in good company. The Trinity isn't really supportable and is in fact repeatedly denied in the Bible.

Then please, provide a better explanation. Preferably one that reconciles all three entities in a way consistent with the text.

I'll be waiting.

[Whole Conviction]

The whole idea of 'no death in the Garden' is a construct of Christian religion, with no scriptural basis. But then, it's in good company. The Trinity isn't really supportable and is in fact repeatedly denied in the Bible.

Then please, provide a better explanation. Preferably one that reconciles all three entities in a way consistent with the text.

I'll be waiting.

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.

[Yenke-Bin]

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (NASB)

As you can see, it makes no mention of them dying the same day, but it does use the word "when".

Whether that changes the interpretation, or whether they did indeed "start to die" once they ate the fruit, you still end up with the idea that God didn't share the whole story, which while technically true was still pretty misleading. Which isn't something I've denied.

Tht's something I've heard before -- that there was no death in Eden. Where's the support for that? There quite clearly was death, albeit of animals, since both Adam and Eve ate meat (or at least were commanded to eat meat, so they probably did). The fact that Adam and Eve didn't die until they left is no indication of immortality. I haven't died yet, so am I immortal, or have I just not been alive long enough?

Further, it conflicts with the idea that they weren't allowed to eat from the fruit of the tree of eternal life, which would allow them to live forever. Therefore they didn't live forever, therefore they'd eventually die, just like every other animal.

The whole idea of 'no death in the Garden' is a construct of Christian religion, with no scriptural basis. But then, it's in good company. The Trinity isn't really supportable and is in fact repeatedly denied in the Bible.

Genesis 4:19 (this is God speaking the judgement to Adam after doing so for Eve, and the Serpent) By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground for out of it you were taken; for you are dust and to dust you shall return.

Now this is important because the word used earlier where it said "You shall surely die", die in that case could mean physical and/or spiritual death. The only way to find out is to read what happens further, and you get the answer in chapter 4, where God says that man will now have to return to the dust that he was made out of, meaning a physical death.

-edit- God also says that he didn't want man to have eternal life with the knowledge that he now has, meaning God didn't want us to be able to have eternal life in sin, which is the sinner will be in Hell fire. Fire is used to purify.

And also I laugh at your claim that the trinity is repeatedly denied in the Bible. [citation needed] for that.

[The Sentenial Empire]

Biblicly no...Personally I believe that God would accept an atheist who spent their lives living morally in some way or another.

[Antarsia]

bump

[Sucrati]

All Religions have their heaven and hell, its just takes different ways to get to the same place, similar to a road map... take one wrong turn, you wind up down the wrong road...

[The Chelbrusitan]

Nah, according to the Bible, those who don't accept Jesus as their Savior wind up in the other spot... which is not a place someone would be willing to spend an eternity in!

Well, some people might...

[Gratislavia]

As a devout Roman Catholic i must say.....YES GOD FORGIVES THE RIGHTEOUS OF HEART

[Komoras]

Nah, according to the Bible, those who don't accept Jesus as their Savior wind up in the other spot... which is not a place someone would be willing to spend an eternity in!

Well, some people might...

Well If god is all forgiving he would forgive you for not believing. Since you know he didnt leave any proof.
If god is there he should be forgiving about it because all that we had to go with was a guy who said "Trust me.Im God's son it will work out. Just trust me on this .... kay! Bai!"

[Ashmoria]

Tht's something I've heard before -- that there was no death in Eden. Where's the support for that? There quite clearly was death, albeit of animals, since both Adam and Eve ate meat (or at least were commanded to eat meat, so they probably did). The fact that Adam and Eve didn't die until they left is no indication of immortality. I haven't died yet, so am I immortal, or have I just not been alive long enough?

Further, it conflicts with the idea that they weren't allowed to eat from the fruit of the tree of eternal life, which would allow them to live forever. Therefore they didn't live forever, therefore they'd eventually die, just like every other animal.

Don't ask me. I see the Eden myth as essentially a parable, to set up the running theme of man disobeying God and fucking up his plans.

yeah

reading too much into it is silly. the garden of eden isnt a true story its a religous myth meant to answer the questions "where did we (and everything else) come from?" and "why does it suck so much?"

im not happy with "its your own damned fault" as the answer but then i dont have to accept that answer either.

[Yenke-Bin]

As a devout Roman Catholic i must say.....YES GOD FORGIVES THE RIGHTEOUS OF HEART

And like most Catholics you must not know anything about your own faith, as it seems you don't read the Bible. Jesus said the was only ONE way to Heaven, and its not by just being a "good" person. You must have faith in Him, and if you faith is genuine you will be be kind, merciful, loving, patient, tolerant, help people out, feed the poor, heal the sick, visit the prisoner, etc.

And what is it with people and "good people will go to Heaven". What is good? Not killing someone? Not lying all the time? Giving a few bucks to charity? Sure, those are some nice things. No one can deny that. But God has such a high standard of goodness that if you try to follow it, you will fail. No one can achieve that perfect. That is why God came down and lived that perfect life for us, died for our sins and rose from death to give us eternal life. When we place that faith in Him, we become good in His eyes. And when we become good or righteous, then it will be noticeable through deeds. Trust me, there will be plenty of self proclaimed Christians in trouble one day, because they will claim to love christ, yet their faith was empty and false, because they had no fruit of the spirit.

[Grave_n_idle]

Tht's something I've heard before -- that there was no death in Eden. Where's the support for that? There quite clearly was death, albeit of animals, since both Adam and Eve ate meat (or at least were commanded to eat meat, so they probably did). The fact that Adam and Eve didn't die until they left is no indication of immortality. I haven't died yet, so am I immortal, or have I just not been alive long enough?

Further, it conflicts with the idea that they weren't allowed to eat from the fruit of the tree of eternal life, which would allow them to live forever. Therefore they didn't live forever, therefore they'd eventually die, just like every other animal.

The whole idea of 'no death in the Garden' is a construct of Christian religion, with no scriptural basis. But then, it's in good company. The Trinity isn't really supportable and is in fact repeatedly denied in the Bible.

Genesis 4:19 (this is God speaking the judgement to Adam after doing so for Eve, and the Serpent) By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground for out of it you were taken; for you are dust and to dust you shall return.

Now this is important because the word used earlier where it said "You shall surely die", die in that case could mean physical and/or spiritual death. The only way to find out is to read what happens further, and you get the answer in chapter 4, where God says that man will now have to return to the dust that he was made out of, meaning a physical death.

-edit- God also says that he didn't want man to have eternal life with the knowledge that he now has, meaning God didn't want us to be able to have eternal life in sin, which is the sinner will be in Hell fire. Fire is used to purify.

And also I laugh at your claim that the trinity is repeatedly denied in the Bible. [citation needed] for that.

There's no difference between 'spiritual' and 'physical' death in Genesis. The soul and spirit are the life in the blood and the air in your lungs - they do not survive after you die. That means all death is physical death, and physical death is all death.

[Gratislavia]

As a devout Roman Catholic i must say.....YES GOD FORGIVES THE RIGHTEOUS OF HEART

And like most Catholics you must not know anything about your own faith, as it seems you don't read the Bible. Jesus said the was only ONE way to Heaven, and its not by just being a "good" person. You must have faith in Him, and if you faith is genuine you will be be kind, merciful, loving, patient, tolerant, help people out, feed the poor, heal the sick, visit the prisoner, etc.

And what is it with people and "good people will go to Heaven". What is good? Not killing someone? Not lying all the time? Giving a few bucks to charity? Sure, those are some nice things. No one can deny that. But God has such a high standard of goodness that if you try to follow it, you will fail. No one can achieve that perfect. That is why God came down and lived that perfect life for us, died for our sins and rose from death to give us eternal life. When we place that faith in Him, we become good in His eyes. And when we become good or righteous, then it will be noticeable through deeds. Trust me, there will be plenty of self proclaimed Christians in trouble one day, because they will claim to love christ, yet their faith was empty and false, because they had no fruit of the spirit.

Actually i know quite a bit about my faith, however i treat it like i would treat my favorite form of government, it is my duty to question it and i do not feel i am entitled to embrace unjust aspects