(I am only posting my question here because it relates to religion, otherwise I would think GQ would be more appropiate.)
I am an atheist. My mother is a lapsed Catholic. My father comes from a Christian background, but is an atheist himself. I have had little exposure to the teachings of Christianity or the bible, but am curious to learn more about it.
To illustrate the question that I have, I will use an hypothesis:
A man commits a henious murder and rape when he is 18. He gets away with the crime, but is torn up with guilt. He is spirituly lost, without any purpose in life. A friend tells him about Jesus and the Lord. He finds Jesus and sees the light. Now, Jesus forgives all sins, correct? So he is absolved of his sins. He leads the rest of his life in accordance with the bible. He dies of old age.
Another man lives a clean living life, never commits a crime, never sins (OK it’s far fetched but bear with me), marries and has kids. He dies of old age. The only sin he has committed is in NOT finding Jesus, as he is an atheist.
The first man goes to heaven, whilst the second man is cast into purgatory.
Can someone explain to me the justice in this, as it doesn’t seem to be morally compatible with the teachings of the Bible.
First, it’s not about justice but about love – God’s love for mankind, and whether we respond to it. Second, the second man has sinned – it’s a guarantee, given the world we live in. If nothing else, ignoring someone witnessing to him about Jesus would be considered sinful by many. Third, according to the schema you’ve set up taking evangelical doctrine as your guideline, he goes to Hell, not Purgatory. Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the first guy, if he hasn’t finished with “the temporal atonement for the forgiven sins” by the time of his death, will go to Purgatory, and if he has, will go to Heaven.
The point to all of this, however, is that God is not morally obliged to do anything in particular with us at our deaths – leaving us “dead all over” with soul and spirit perishing along with body would be totally legitimate for Him in the absence of promises to the contrary.
If you love someone, spending eternity in intimate association with that person is a pleasure – if you don’t, consider how that would feel. God loves all people, and wants all of them to love Him in return, and turn to Him. But His love is not eros – possessive love – but agapé – self-sacrificial love, caritas. To force an atheist to go to Heaven would be Hell for him.
On the other hand, it’s my firm belief that God doesn’t give up on us at any point – that so long as we’re able to make a choice, He will keep loving us and encouraging us to choose Him. And that death has absolutely nothing to do with that. God’s love is, as Scripture says, stronger than death.
I was raised as a Christian (Baptist), though I’m not religious today, so I’ll give your question consideration from the viewpoint with which I was taught.
“All things shall be forgiven unto men, except blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.”
In your example, the rapist/murder had guilt and anguish over what he had done. He was truly sorry, and when he asked for forgiveness, it was granted, and was saved. As of the moment of forgiveness, his past is utterly forgotten, and he is a new person. Only what he does after that moment counts.
The second man may have been a nice guy, but without being washed by the Blood of the Lamb, it’s not enough. The man may have been a guy who always paid his taxes, and never kicked any puppies, he was not cleansed of original sin through salvation. Without submitting to Jesus and acceoting him as your personal savior, you’re doomed no matter how good of a person you are.
Why single out atheists? It’s not as though they hate God. It’s not even as though they necessarily don’t love God- they just do not believe God to be a conscious entity. I imagine that many atheists, upon finding out that all they hold dear is embodied in a conscious entity, might love it just as much after as they did before.
OTOH, plenty of self-proclaimed Christians arguably do not love God, such as Phelps. You are no doubt already aware of this, but I found it odd that you would single out atheists as being people who don’t love God.
And what about Muslims?
What happens to people who are dead, but haven’t turned to God yet?
And what do you make of Hebrews 6:4-6?
"4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[2] to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. "
Why would an atheist never commit a sin? It’s not like he cares about christian sinning.
Anyway, yes, I believe the first man would definetly go to heaven. He feels terribly sorry for what he has done.
As for the atheist, I suppose it is possible that he could go to heaven, as long as he isn’t so arrogant about his atheism that he is consumed by pride. Every atheist I’ve met though, seems to be pretty arrogant about it, so I don’t know.
Justice is a human concept. God is greater than this. His love can reach across the gulf between these two men, and give healing to both spirits. There is only one thing that can remove you from the love of God, and that is the denial of that love itself.
I am not speaking of rhetoric, and theological argument against the love of a theoretical being of great power. I am speaking of refusing the love of God, when it comes to you, from Him. I believe it shall, and if you do not reject Him, He shall save you. There may not be the Day of Judgment that you are expecting. There might just be a day upon which the Lord comes to you and asks, “Will you set aside your earthly desires, and come with me into love eternal?” And I believe the choice is entirely free.
An athiest is one who does not believe in God, not one who hates God. We agree on this point.
However, if the athiest went to heaven, the athiest would be among a group of people who all pretty much think, in relation to God, similarly, and would be spendng eternity worshipping and praising God, with whom they are always in His presence.
So, with this in mind, the athiest really would be a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
But one final note…
Is there a difference between being good and not being bad?
You made me spill my tea! I was laughing at the thought of Peter sitting at the Pearly Gates (this is not a scriptural concept, though.) asking people, “And will that be the believing or non-believing section?” Although some may not be quite as amused as I was.
But some religious organizations / churches / denominations do teach that salvation can only be attained through their church or organization or denomination or whatever.
So maybe we should include Peter asking which denominational section which they would prefer to visit.
I once started a thread on another board with the premise; “If Hitler repented and accepted Jesus, etc, would he go to Heaven?” There were a few mugwumps who thought, “yes, but he wouldn’t get preferred seating” or something similar. But the overwhelming majority insisted that “Yes, he would be in Heaven,” which I find a bit hard to wrap my mind around. It would seem that the moral is that you can be the most vicious, murdering asshole that ever lived, but if you sign up with Jesus, COME ON IN!
I find it interesting that people are so bent on justifying insta-judgement at the moment of death that so many other, much more just possibilities are generally overlooked.
For example, believers and unbelievers alike could be punished in something like Dante’s Purgatory, where sinners gladly accept their punishment in order to be purified.
Personally, I like Erigena’s view. He believed that at the Second Coming, we would all be given the enlightenment to understand how our actions affected others, for good or for ill. Hitler, for example, would be made to really and truly understand the suffering he caused. After all, if people are dead, there’s no need for vengeance- only for reform. People talk about how sin cannot exist in the presence of God. Can ignorance?
But nonetheless I wonder: did Erigena believe that Christ’s grace would be needed for us to survive the crushing weight of such a revelation?
You know, I don’t think there would be a problem for the atheist to be surrounded by believers in Heaven.
There’s God, sitting there, greeting people and encouraging them to mingle. What’s the atheist going to do? Cover his eyes and ears and go, “I can’t see You! I can’t see You! You don’t exist! This isn’t real! I’m hallucinating!”
The actual existence of Heaven would be all the evidence needed to sway many atheists. At least, it might just sway us mild-mannered agnostics.
OK, then let us cease to exist and perish for all eternity. At least it’s over for us in a split-second that way. Isn’t that better than eternal torture? Continued existence is certainly better than anything short of eternal torture, but at some point it’s got to be more kindly to just let people fade into nothing. I’m not saying any deity owes me anything in terms of a postivite obligation, but how about refraining from being a nasty jerk by torturing me for millenia? Too much to ask?
If he’s an allpowerful being, and there were “souls”, then surely those souls’ continued existence is entirely reliant upon that god’s actions in maintaining said existence. He could just let them dissipate without even lifting a finger. No obligation to act in the affirmative required. Just ask this deity to abstain from acting malevolently by torturing people. It would take absolutely nothing to simply let that “soul” wither away. Why the reward vs. punishment scenario then, when you could just set it up as reward vs. nothing scenario?
<< Every atheist I’ve met though, seems to be pretty arrogant about it, so I don’t know. >>
Really? When you meet people do they make a point of saying to you “I’m an atheist, and if you don’t like it then bite me.”? How can you make assumptions like that? Not everyone I meet tells me their religious persuasion. I don’t assume people have a belief or not a belief, unless they tell me otherwise. Poplycarp said:
<< God loves all people, and wants all of them to love Him in return, and turn to Him. But His love is not eros – possessive love – but agapé – self-sacrificial love, caritas. To force an atheist to go to Heaven would be Hell for him. >>
God loves all people, until the day you die. Then you are in the custody of the devil. Why would atheists find going to heaven Hell? Rexdart said:
<< Just ask this deity to abstain from acting malevolently by torturing people. >>
This is not how it works though. If you believe in Jesus, then atheists are going to hell to burn, regardless of how nice a person you are. Libertarian said:
<< “For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.” — Jesus >>
I take it this is quoted from the Bible. This is a whole other debate, but how did Jesus communicate God’s word to the scholars that actually wrote the Bible originally? Stupid question, maybe, but this is something I have never really understood.