Can suicides go to Heaven?

Someone wrote:

I want to keep my cool while saying this. But the Sermon on the Mount is worthless here. Ask any English teacher.

It says,“Thou shalt not kill”…there’s no object here. Grammatically, it could mean anything. Kill what? your cat? Bugs? Murderers? your sister? yourself?

The fact is, there is absolutely NO commandment specifically against suicide in the Bible. In fact, there are several incidents of suicide in the Bible, with not one word of condemnation. For example, there’s a verse saying that “Saul fell on his sword” and an incident in the Old Testament where some king died in a fire that he “lit himself”…

Judas did indeed kill himself. But, once again, it says he went to “his own place”…that could mean anything…

One historical note. I don’t have the proof here, but I could find it in a few days.

At the Council of Nicea suicide was specifically condemned. But before that, it appears not to have been mentioned at all.

If one takes their life then are instantly reicarnated to begin a new life because they broke their contract with God-from the teachings of Depaak Chopra, the Dalai Lama, Sylvia Browne, and many other enlightened individuals.
I am sure the Christians will hate reading this- I am Lutheran but I have expanded my beliefs through educating myself beyond what just the “church” feels you should know

lintz:

This explanation ignores the medical fact that almost all suicides (one study found over 95%) suffer from a deficiency of a neurotransmitter called seratonin. In fact, they have induced suicidal monkeys in laboratories with reserpine–which artificially depletes the seratonin in the brain.

You all think God must be some kind of monster! How could a person be held accountable for a seratonin deficiency?

One and a half quibbles, here.

The commandment in the original Hebrew is “You shall not murder.” and murder is generally given enough definition within any culture to not need an object.

Jesus is not recorded as having repeated the commandments while delivering the Sermon on the Mount.

Aargh! I’m getting so sick of arguing about this, since you seem incapable of anything but evasion and quibbling over words. Here’s my argument in nice, easy, numbered steps. If you wish to disagree, please state which number you disagree with.

  1. Many Christians have differing opinions on various issues, including, but not limited to:
    salvation
    baptism
    backsliding
    hell
    universalism
    slavery
    abortion
    the death penalty
    public prayer
    democracy
    inerrancy
    homosexuality
    evolution
    suicide
    alcohol

  2. For the most part, Christians who take a particular stance on an issue are honest, well intentioned, and sincere. They believe that their understanding of the Bible is correct and that others are wrong.

  3. If the Bible were clearer, such disagreement would be less, or perhaps even nonexistent.

  4. Therefore, the Bible is not clear with regard to these specific issues.

Point 1 is indisputable. Point 2 is pretty indisputable, unless you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is doing so solely for their personal gain, which is pretty silly. Point 4 is the conclusion. The only real wiggle room is on point 3. One could argue that human nature being as it is, even God could not write a book so clear as to avoid any sort of misinterpretation. But I think that this is wrong. Read any political book (or even a newspaper editorial), and you’ll see that lots of people have no difficulty expressing exactly what they believe. I defy anyone to read something by Jerry Falwell that could be construed in any way as supporting abortion. Why can’t the Bible be as clear as Jerry Falwell?

Yeah, but it is the exact same word, even in the Greek. And I was able to understand that fact even though I was unaware of that truly being the case. I’m not exactly “off the reservation” just because I disagree with some translators and not others and some translators decide to change how they translate a word into English completely arbitrarily (although I’m not surprised that a Protestant might “translate away” a passage where Jesus says anyone who has faith does works).

But thanks for your input. I’ll get this argument right next time. :smiley:

OK.

Considering that anyone can call themselves a Christian, that is not surprising.

Again, a local issue here in New England regarding Tom Alcier, a republican, who, though IMHO he is being railroaded, apparently said killing cops is OK. He is a Republican. Thus, Republicans disagree as to whether or not it is OK to kill cops. A true statement. Not a fair statement, really, and in fact the GOP is considering excommunicating him.

Various people who call themselves Christians consider themselves to be right and others to be wrong. There is no central way of controlling the message.

The founder provides a solution to the mess, of course. He warns about false teachers. He says his followers would be doing the works which he did. He promises access to source of truth more universal than the Bible, called the Holy Spirit, but insists you must keep his teachings before you can have access to this spirit.

Now, some might say you need this spirit in the first place before you can understand what his commandments are such that you can enter into life and receive this spirit. That is the whole “through a glass darkly” problem. A lot of people will just listen to a teacher who tells them what they want to hear, and will not seek out someone who is doing the works which Jesus did and might therefore be a true teacher. In any case Jesus’s commandments are clear enough.

I sincerely believe anyone who truly wishes to be saved can understand the truth from Jesus’s teachings.

You are so fond of quoting John 3:16-18, perhaps the next few verses may shed more light: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

People who call themselves Christians but do not keep Jesus’s teachings are not “honest, well intentioned, and sincere.” They do not live by truth.

Jesus’s commandments are clear. By keeping those and hooking into the Holy Spirit, a person may know the truth. Find me two people who keep Jesus’s commandments and tell me where they disagree, and then I will concur you have a valid point. Until then, you are merely speculating.

For anyone who has the Holy Spirit, this is a moot point. You claim such disagreements exist. Find me two people who truly follow Christ’s teachings who disagree (or even consider some of the issues you’ve given important). You don’t need to bring them on-line, I will believe your testimony. I hate to put you to such extraordinary effort, but you are making extraordinary claims.

To jmullaney:

I just can’t do this anymore. Look up “One true Scotsman” and then I might consider continuing the debate.

Sorry, Opus, but I’m not using a fallacy here.

You are the one using a fallacy. I am not changing my definition of Christian midstream.

I have chosen to define a Christian as someone who keeps Jesus’s commandments for Jesus’s sake. (There are people who may be saved because they happen to keep those teaching’s though they have never heard of Jesus, though they may have a different world view) Such a thing is not impossible, and many such people exist.

Your fallacy is you have chosen to define a Christian as just about anyone you choose. This is convenient since it supports your argument.

Suppose we found a parrot in a pet shop which squawks out “I’m a scotsman.”

Your fallacy is assuming this is true. Thus you can legitimately say “some scotsmen have feathers – and you furthermore can’t determine whether a person is scottish or not based upon their plummage or lack thereof. Some scotspersons apparently are really into crackers as well.”

I consider a scotsman to be a human being born in Scotland, and point out that the parrot seems to lack these qualifications.

You accuse me of using a fallacy by making an overly narrow definition. However, I believe you are using a fallacy by being overly broad.

Okay, jmullaney, here we go again.

I believe that John Shelby Spong is a Christian. I also believe that Jerry Falwell is a Christian. I also believe that they disagree on almost every issue imaginable. If you don’t like these two, I have a thousand more examples of Christians who can’t agree on things.

Defining a Christian as “one who keeps Jesus’ commandments” is B.S., because many Christians can’t agree on what Jesus’ commandments are! Does John 7:53-8:11 indicate that Jesus opposed the death penalty? Or just in the case of adultery? Or just hypocrisy? Did Jesus say that he was the son of God? Did he mean it like most people think he meant it, or in a different context? When Jesus said to the rich young man that he should give away all of his possessions, does that apply to everyone, or just that individual? Should Christians be evangelical, or was that commandment just to the original apostles? Should we take sinners and whores into our homes, like Jesus said, or avoid them, like Paul said? Did Jesus think that all rich people are going to Hell, or must we take into account the context of the era, where rich meant that you were a collaborator with the Romans? What about baptism? Child, adult, or both? You never answered that one. People who think that baptism is necessary for salvation baptize children so they don’t go to Hell. Others point out that only adults, never children, were baptized in the Bible, so we shouldn’t baptize children!

Why can’t you just admit that large numbers of people, all looking at the same book, can reach radically different conclusions, without any of them being intentionally dishonest? Do you think that the people at http://www.tentmaker.org aren’t real Christians? How about the people at http://www.tencommandments.org?

Our parrot friend wouldn’t seem to agree what a scotsman is either. That hardly precluded anyone with a little wisdom discovering that the parrot is not an oracle of truth.

In a vacuum? I’m sure the point could be argued. But he also said do not kill, do not hate, do not judge, do good to those who do evil, forgive people their wrongdoings, do not resist an evil person. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is one piece in a much bigger puzzle.

Surely if your mythical perfectly clear political platform said all those things, you would be able to make certain wise conclusions regarding the proper action, according to the document, to be taken upon meeting someone who has done something wrong, and I reasonably believe killing them (or, paying someone else to kill them on your behalf) would not be the proscribed action.

But you know: to him that has, more will be given. To him who has not, even that which he has will be taken away.

Yes, repeatedly. I would like adress your second question, but I do not understand it.

Again, taken in isolation, perhaps one could reach the understanding that this teaching was only for that individual. Jesus gives this same teaching (perhaps to no one, who can say?) in Luke as well. Elsewhere, he says not to pile up treasures upon the earth. He says you can not work for both God and money (or to gain possessions). He even says not to labor in order to get food. He said not to worry about the future, and (in some translations of the Bible I have read – everyone renders this passage differently) that being sufficient for a day is it’s own evil. He says money is not a thing of God’s. Paul tells Timothy to be content with food and clothing, for the love of money is a root of all evil. James says a rich man will perish before ever attaining the crown of life. John in Revelations says the saved have the mark of God on their foreheads, but those who buy and sell in the marketplace have the mark of “the Beast” on theirs.

Then there is also the parable of the wedding feast, wherein those who have worldly business to attend to are not invited. (In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus explains it’s meaning thus: “Buyers and merchants [will] not enter the places of my Father.”) And there are other parables as well, all open to interpretation of course but all add weight to what is plainly written.

Some will say this isn’t what it is. You can’t rob a strong man’s house unless you first tie up the strong man.

Everyone is rich in small ways at times, yet surely some may be saved despite this. Jesus was even accused of hypocrisy for eating and drinking. But wisdom shows the way.

As for the collaboration angle – a path in the woods can be come at from many directions. The prisons, economic slavery, and war machine of the Romans haven’t exactly perished with them, mind you. There is one family of Jesus, but there are various camps within it who speak the same language to each other, though they know how to talk to the others. Anyway: who can know the mind of God as to the why of this, or say these is but one answer?

I am not perfectly sure how you are using the word “evangelical.” (I am rather sure not all Christians are enjoined to go preach to the towns around Samaria, for example.) “Let your light shine before men” seems the important bit. Find a Christian and ask them.

Jesus did say your should avoid one who sins against you and does not repent after you have taken every reasonable step to show him the error of his ways. You are not a sinner if you are not sinning.

John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Clearly in Acts are described people who have the Spirit but have not been baptized. The Spirit seems to be trying to explain to Peter that the water part isn’t important. Again, I’m not of this spirit, but ask someone who is.

Is the parrot which says it is a scotsman being intentionally dishonest? No. We might presume that someone came and whispered in it’s ear to teach it this falsehood, although perhaps it merely says this because it heard another parrot say this. You could tell it a thousand times that it is not a scotsman, and it will turn around and insist you are not a scotsman!

People of the Spirit should agree on such issues if there is one Spirit. And I’m not saying should they disagree they are not of the same spirit, but it is not like there are major schisms among those who are true to the basics and certain understandings are not reached among the camps.

I don’t know what is in men’s hearts. Perhaps those people whose understanding differs radically are drunk in a way. It’s not like Jesus was whistling.

To jmullaney, once again:

Okay, here’s an analogy I thought of regarding the One True Scotsman.

Let’s say there’s a border dispute between Scotland and England. Scotland decides to have a referendum to decide the issue. The government says that only Scotsman can vote to decide the border. So, do people who live in the disputed regions get to vote, or not? In other words, one has to decide who’s a Scotsman in order to decide who’s a Scotsman!

This is the problem with defining a Christian as “one who follows Jesus’ teachings.” There are many people who all think that they are following Jesus’ teachings. Why do you get to decide whether they are or not? Why can’t they decide whether you’re a true Christan or not?

Do you see the difficulty here? Now, answer my original question, the one you conveniently skipped over. Is Rev. Jerry Falwell a Christian? Is Bishop John Shelby Spong? Is his Holiness, Pope John Paul II? Is Jimmy T. Roberts? Was Marcion? Was Bartolome de las Casas? Was Martin Luther? Was Torquemadas? Was C.T. Russell? Was David Koresh? Was Joseph Smith? Was Victor Wierwille?

I guarantee you that every single person listed above would call himself a Christian and truly believe it with all his heart. I would honestly appreciate it if you could tell me why you get to decide which of these individuals followed Christ’s teachings and which did not. I’m sure all of those who you labeled “non-Christians” would be very surprised. And I bet many of the people on the list would label you a “non-Christian.” So once again, we have a country whose boundaries are not defined trying to decide who’s a resident by having a vote. Fun, isn’t it?

P.S. Information about most of the above-mentioned individuals can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cf.htm

P.P.S. Perhaps we can simplify your task, jmullaney. Of the over two dozen groups listed on that site, could you tell me which are actual denominations of Christianity, and which are mistaken in thinking themselves Christian, when they are not?

Look, do you think there is no truth, or merely that if there is truth no one can know what it is?

What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, “Son, go and work today in the vineyard.”
“I will not,” he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, “I will, sir,” but he did not go.
Which of the two did what his father wanted?

Look, Opus – you don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing, do you? You have figured out that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. You know when clouds are coming it will rain. You are true to yourself in these matters, so why not be true to yourself here as well? Why do you not judge for yourself what the gospels say? Why can’t you judge for yourself what is right?

God gave you eyes, Opus, with which you might see. Perhaps God has blinded you such that you may not see. If someone tells you a tree has fruit, and another tells you it is withered, in your blindness you will simply never know whether the tree has fruit or not.

It isn’t my job to judge anyone for you. If you can see clearly then help others to do likewise. Let the dead bury their dead.

How can you make such a guarantee? Do you know men’s hearts? If you have such powers, tell me what is in my heart!

Again, what are you saying? That there is no truth, or that the truth can not be known? If I have a book, which scotsmen claim is the truth and this book says “scotsmen don’t have feathers” are you saying it is impossible for me to figure out what that means? On what basis must I plug my ears and close my eyes or accept some twisted interpretation?

And they would be wise in doing so.

If God has blinded you, Opus, I can’t undo his works.

Fuck it. I’m done casting pearls before swine. If you won’t answer my questions, and think that people who found their own denominations of Christianity might not be Christians, I’m not going to waste any more time with you.

Hi Badtz

I will make my opinionated answer to your question short.

God’s love is pure. We are His children and if we screw up, He isn’t going to condemn us to a life in that imaginary place called “Hell”. I believe He will just review our mistakes with us and send those of us back who need to learn over again. The original definition of “sin”, after all, simply means, “to miss the mark”. It’s the Father’s of the Early Churches that made sin an evil and fearful tool to create grief and oppression for the people to suppress them.

Unfortunately some churches claim that any deliberate turning away from God is a sin and will jeopardize your soul. That would imply God is so vindictive as to disallow normal human emotion such as anger, distress and pain. The fundamental nature of God is love, which implies forgiveness.

Sorry, Opus. I’m under no obligation to answer questions for you when you are mentally competant enough to answer them for yourself.

You know, this argument reminds me of the sorts of theological bull sessions that college freshmen have:

“If a deaf-mute baby is born in the desert and his mother dies in childbirth, and a tree falls in the nearby forest (and the baby being deaf does not hear it), and the baby then dies, what are the chance that he will be saved?”

To which my answer is, “Somewhat better than that of those who argue such questions.”

My reading of the Scriptures (and I keep in mind that if God gave the whole thing, He must have had a purpose in giving the whole thing) leads me to believe that we’re getting different perspectives on the Elephant of Salvation, leading us to conclude that it is very like a snake, a tree, a rope, etc.

Point 1: It is God’s grace that saves, and not anything any human can do.

Point 2: The consensus of opinion is that one ordinarily accepts such grace through “faith” in Him. (Arguments on what “faith” is, abound throughout GD; see any suitable thread mentioning God or Christianity for details.)

Point 3: Given a continued life as a relatively healthy non-disabled individual after having accepted said grace, one is obliged to do what one is commanded to do in Scripture, viz., be baptized if one is not already or if one believes in “believer’s baptism,” do good unto others, love God with all one’s self, love others as one loves oneself, receive Communion as your church practices it, etc.

Reflectively, only point 1 is necessary – but points 2 and 3 are expected if circumstances permit. Obviously a deathbed confession, a child below the age of reason, a quadraplegic, etc., are special cases.

One thing that truly concerns me is what exactly jmullaney is suggesting as doctrine. If I’m reading you correctly, Joel, it appears to me that you take the view that one passage calls for the doing of “greater things than these” and to “be perfect as My Father in Heaven is perfect” by all Christians, that you read these literally, and therefore have concluded that salvation is impossible, and somehow feel it your place to preach that Bad News to all who will listen (and many who won’t).

I would greatly appreciate your reading, clarifying and correcting my inferences from your posts as stated above. I think I disagree with you radically, but I’d at least like to argue with you on a shared set of assumptions, not incongruously based on misinterpreting what you have to say.

Opus said:
“One could argue that human nature being as it is, even God could not write a book so clear as to avoid any sort of misinterpretation.”

A more true thing has never been spoken, hahahaha. Can I pop that in my sig now and then?

To aynrandlover:

Well, I’m ambivalent about allowing you to use my line in your sig. You did see what I wrote right after it, didn’t you?

Yeah, well…I could also add you merely said it to taunt jmullaney…
But, hey, it’s your line. I don’t know that anyone reading my sig would take it seriously, but you never know with all these literalists out there :wink: