A few weeks ago I saw a bible humper on the Phil Donahue show. He was saying that Hitler, Goebbels, and assorted other nazi’s could be in heaven right now, providing they had repented their sins and accepted the lord jesus christ. Well, not so good for their concentration camp victims though. Mr bible humper said they could not ascend into heaven because they were heathens who did not accept christ. Needless to say this did not sit well with Phil’s audience.
But isnt that the point the people here are tying to make? That if you dont believe in Jesus and the christian god then you are going to go to hell? If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me. My question is what about all of the Hindus,Jews,Muslims and Buddihsts? Do they still go to hell for not believeing in christ or do they go to the heaven set up by their own gods?
When Jesus teaches that God gives the Spirit without limit, it directly applies to the question in the opening post. The assumption that an atheist will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven has no basis in the teachings of Jesus. Atheism, as a limitation, is no obstacle to God’s grace.
Samarm wrote:
He communicates through His Holy Spirit.
I am afraid those who I quoted first have it pegged. The love of God is absolute and unstinted. He does not divide or reduce or dole it out grudgingly.
Everyone who receives it, receives it all. Infinitely.
Everyone.
Regards,
Shodan
I suppose it all depends on a person’s interpretation of the bible. For the most part I think that acceptance of Jesus is a requirement, but IIRC their are a few verses that seem to indicate that all will be accepted by God (I think, I could be wrong).
No. You, among several others here, are conflating several schools of Christian Thought. Jesus never particularly gave us the exact mechanicas of the situation, so we sort of have to figure it out on our own. That means not every one of us agrees on everything. Here are a few shools of thought:
Early Christian - A catch-all category, as all the metaphysical discussions had not yet collected.
Gnostics and associated schools: These tended to believe in a perfectly transcendant God, revealed to those who had “secret knowledge” (Gnosis) of Him. They excluded much of Jesus’ teaching and Peter entirely because he was not a mystically wise teacher with secret revelations. Actually, they were rather elitist bastards.
D-soemthing or other-ists: believed in a purely spirirtual god. Jesus body was simply and illusion, since he didn’t need to have a real one.
These last two were overthrown by other teachings. They are considered outright lies by most modern Christians. However, it proves a point. Hee are some modern divisions.
[Roman] Catholic: Believes in the primacy of action over thought, and accepts that those who keep God’s word, regardless of belief, may enter the grace of Heaven. Rather likes Buddhist philosophy.
Oeastern Orthodox: Well, they are really just like Catholics, but they don’t accept the primacy of the Pope.
Protestant: a wide array of beliefs, offering varying only mildly. General Protestant beliefs in most sects includes the primacy of faith over good works in life. Some groups take this so far as to exclude all those who believe differently from Heaven. These are rather unpopular, and often include what are called “born-again Christians”. Still, labels differ.
Calvinism: A very unpopular sect, and mostly dead now. Its tenets held that since God created all and knew what would happen beforehand, you have no real choice. If you were bound to heaven, it would be so. You could show it via being a member of the “elect”, but it couldn’t change you fate.
The reason this group thrived only in isolation and died out is that they have very logically inconsistant and counter-intuitive beliefs, which additionally ignore certain possibilities arbitrarily. They did have a short flourishing in the 16th through 18th Centuries.
Sorry, should have added: which group are you talking about? Taking a few inconsistant beliefs from different sects is not a fair debate.
Isn’ t Southern Baptist theology based at least partially in Calvinism? It would seem like a bit of a stretch to claim that they’re dying out.
This may sound odd from someone living in Tennessee, but I’m not all that knowldedgable about them. However, I think Calvinism has not had an enormous influence upon the Baptist faith. Certainly, there is no pure Calvinism in it.
Or, how about this: If someone steals my stuff, repents, and gets forgiveness from Jesus, but I still don’t have my stuff back, and I don’t have my stuff back, doesn’t it suck to be me? Especially if the bit of my stuff that I refer to happens to be, say, my life?
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Part of the repenting should involve an admittance of guilt to the police and turning over the stolen merchandise for them to try and return. Even murder can be forgiven, though the price to pay may be terrible.
Jesus never said life was fair - in fact, the Book of Job pretty much says otherwise. He just said that all things we do will be remembered on His Day of Judgement.
Ben – two quick points: (1) I used ‘atheist’ because the OP had made the second, acting-morally-by-his-own-lights man an atheist, not out of any interest in singling them out beyond what the OP had. Sorry if my post sounded hostile to atheism as a result. (2) I’m not defending the “God judges and condemns you at your death” school of thought – and tried to express as much in the last paragraph of my first post above. In general, I tend to agree with you and Erigena (for those of you interested in him, he’s usually listed as John Scotus Erigena or Eriugena – transliteration of the final name varies – and well worth reading.)
I really like what Shodan and royjwood had to say here, particularly Roy’s:
There are some of us who believe that the final answer to the question of who will live in spirit with the Lord (That’s “Going to Heaven”, if you need the physical methaphor) and who shall perish forever (That’s not “Going to Hell” by the way, but rather just having exactly what atheists think is going to happen to you actually happen after all) is something that will happen between each of us, and the Lord Himself, and not according to a schedule predicted by others.
We call ourselves Christians too, although it pisses off a few others who feel that they get to decide who the Christians are. Oh well.
We may only be me; I don’t know. We aren’t a well organized sect.
The Old Testament is the story of some people who came to know God. God became Jesus and said that loving, and knowing Him was what mattered. He said He was the Word.
So, we wrote a new book.
Sigh. So close, and, yet, so far.
OK, I will move away from theology, and toward understanding, and sharing how this view of infinite love is not unjust.
Hitler was a murdering, hate mongering man, totally dedicated to his own desire for power. He was as close to a personification of hatred as we have seen in recent history. No doubt about it, if there are “bad guys” out there, he is one of them. Mohandas Gandhi was another sort of person entirely. He was not a Christian. He was (or was reported to be) entirely unwilling to harm other people to advance his own desire for power.
Now, human views of justice would require consequences for the choices made in life. Since human justice rests entirely inside the limits of the physical world, and sequential time, it must be expressed in terms of reward, and punishment for deeds done, and time spent enduring or enjoying those same consequences. It fails, of course because Gandhi doesn’t deserve infinite reward for his goodness, and Hitler doesn’t deserve infinite punishment for his evil.
But divine love doesn’t operate within those limits. If Gandhi will receive the love of God, and from his heart, return that love, to God, and to man, he will experience the immortality that is an inherent capability of his spirit. What I know of Gandhi makes me think that it is possible that he will joyously receive the Holy Spirit, the person of Jesus, and the true revealed glory of God. He seems unlikely to refuse love, or to refuse to return love. That seems so much in natural alignment with the spirit of Gandhi that I apprehend from his works, that it really isn’t all that much a miracle, except perhaps from his point of view.
Hitler is another story, of course. He will find the Holy Spirit, and the person of Jesus, and the revealed glory of God to be much different than his expectations. For the Lord is already embracing Hitler’s enemies, and his victims, and all those that Hitler despised. It may well be that Hitler will decide to cling to his hatred. Without the Lord, that which is Hitler will not achieve immortality. It will parish, because it is mortal, and of the world. It will have no part that can be nourished by the infinite spirit of Love. But I might be wrong about Hitler. I might not see the way to Hitler’s heart. But Jesus is human, and He is God. He will know Hitler’s heart. And it may be that there is a way to turn even so decadent, and hate ravaged a heart as this to love.
Imagine it, for a moment. “The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.” The least worthy among us shall serve the greatest. Hitler can spend eternal live giving back what he took. He gave hatred, and death. He might well have it within his spirit to turn that same zeal to giving love, and life. Is that not glorious? Hitler, Caligula, and ten thousand other saved sinners turned around, not out of fear, or to curry favor, but because they have come to know, and want love above all other things. Not Hitler forgiven, but Hitler saved. Hitler turned into a being as devoted to love as he was to hate.
It isn’t unjust. Justice is a human limit. God is greater than this.
Tris
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” ~ Mohandas K. Gandhi ~
Thank you, sincerely and from the bottom of my heart, for saying that, Tris.
…uhhh did your mom lapse into catholicism or out of it?
IANG, but if I played God for a week and this case happens, I would allow both men into heaven. As the smiling Bandit posted, as a Roman Catholic, I believe in the primacy of action rather than beliefs. In which case, a corrupt tele-evangelist gets the eternal flame while a humble buddhist monk gets a reserve spot in heaven.
Yeah, the Particular Baptists (which the modern Baptist churches all come from) were Calvinist. The Prebytarians are Calvinist, and so is the Dutch Reformed Church. Calvinism also influenced the Anglican Episcopalian churches. So, I wouldn’t say Calvinism died out. In fact, in the English speaking world, Calvinism was probably the most succesful Protestant school of thought.
But it isn’t really like the pure Calvinism. John Calvin himself would probably not agree with the modern churches in a great many respects.
Probably not, but it’s been 500 years, and beliefs change. I’d imagine Luther would have problems with modern Lutheranism, Henry VIII or Elizabeth with modern Episcopalianism, and the bishops at the Council of Trent with modern Catholicism. I think Calvin would still be able to recognize them as churches based on his ideas, even though he might disagree with some of the particulars.
Um…
Considering that the OP is a self-professed atheist, doesn’t think Jesus was divine, and doesn’t think Heaven exists, he sure seems to spend an inordinate amount of time fretting about whether Jesus is going to let atheists into Heaven, don’t you think?
Does he lie awake wondering whether the Tooth Fairy is going to ditribute those quarters fairly? Does he create threads decrying the unfairness of the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? It would make as much sense as criticizing a god he don’t believe in shutting him out of a place that doesn’t exist!
Like most Christians, I don’t pretend to know who’s going where, after we die. I trust God to sort things out correctly and fairly in the end. I won’t be surprised or horrified to meet non-Christians in Heaven (assuming I make it there myself- and that’s a rather large assumption).