I hope that every person will be saved, obviously, but the Church has said that there are some who will spend eternity in hell, through their own choice. Given any individual person, there are so many factors about their life, their state of mind, their circumstances I don’t know about, that there really is no way to say. Speculating on it is as pointless as speculating about the interior of a black hole (and if we ever find out what exactly it’s like on the inside of a black hole, I suppose I’ll have to come up with a different analogy). There’s a reason why the Bible says “Judge not”.
“In the case of the repentant serial killer, who did not have time to cleanse his soul with works in this life, he will have the opportunity to do so in the next, as long as that grain of repentance is there.”
I do find it interesting that, while you will not venture even a guess as to the nature of salvation and forgiveness in this life, you will stick your neck out and state facts about something you have absolutely no experience in-the afterlife. BTW, you keep using the term “The Church”. Could you please clarify?
Since you didn’t get it last time I did state that one was an atheist. In case you don’t know, that includes not accepting Jesus as the son of God.
And the other case was a serial killer who repented on his death bed. Did you not understand that includes accepting Jesus and God?
So now can yBeayf say who’s going to Hell?
So it’s all right with God to be a mass murderer, provided you repent?
As for your confident assertion about Protestant Christianity, you are including (for example) Anglicans, Baptists, Congregationalists, fundamentalists, Wee Frees, Christian Scientists, Lutherans and 7th day Adventists, aren’t you?
I’m confused–you ask for “opinions and hopes” and then you find it “interesting” that he talks about something he doesn’t have personal experience in? 
Many Christian thinkers state categorically that these stories are the will of God and give us a valuable lesson in how to behave.
As for mentioning Jewish thinkers, are you not aware they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God?
So you quote them in support of your view of theology, but presumably think they are completely wrong on the fundamental tenet of your religion?
And you think I have a ‘kindergarten-level’ of understanding? 
By “The Church”, I mean the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, and the teachings she has expressed in her scriptures, councils, patristic writings, etc. The Church has taught that there will be a period of purification after death; this is the only reason I believe it, not having any personal experience in the matter. The Church has not ruled on the fate of non-Orthodox (with the exception of a very few individuals such as Arius), so I will not do so either.
Yes, but if I were to ask you whether it is snowing right now on the second moon of the planet Finglefanglein in the Andromeda galaxy, you might rightly answer that you have no idea, and that there is no way by which might even conceivably have access to data that would allow you make an educated guess, and that “right now” isn’t even a coherent concept in a relativistic universe. If I said, “Well then I guess you think the odds are 50/50, right?” I would be committing a logical fallacy, which I’m sure you can understand. Otherwise, when you gave the same answer about the third moon, we could conclude that there was at least a 75% chance that at least one of Finglefanglein’s moons is experiencing snow!
I don’t think it’s “alright” with God. If you forgive somebody an offense against you, that doesn’t make it alright. If it was such a non-issue that you could dismiss it so easily, it wouldn’t require forgiveness. Forgiveness just means that you won’t hold it against them anymore.
Of course, IANAG, but there is plenty of scripture to back up the preceeding paragraph.
Joh 8:24 That is why I said you will die with your sins unforgiven. If you don’t have faith in me for who I am, you will die, and your sins will not be forgiven."
Even the Greek word used in the New Testament, aphiemi, usually translated as “forgive,” means to let go or send away.
I don’t know much about Christian Scientists or Wee Frees, but the Webster’s definition of protestantism is:
a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church
The idea that salvation is based solely on an acknowledgement and acceptance of Jesus is what defines Protestantism, so I would feel pretty confident including all the groups you listed in there.
Oh please. Why don’t you discuss the opinions of the Christians who are actually here? I do think that those stories are valuable and reveal something about God, but not at all in the way you seem to suppose.
And as for your second point: Although you seem to find it hard to understand, I am able to respect and learn from people with whom I disagree. I was refering to Jewish thinkers specifically in reference to your mention of stories from the Hebrew Bible/OT. But yes, I’ve learned a great deal by studying Jewish (and atheist and Buddhist) thinkers and am happy to credit them where they’ve informed my theology.
Ok, here are a couple of points you could clear up:
- In response to glee: Assume an atheist behaves perfectly well in society during his lifetime, but dies while still not believing in God. What happens to him?
-
Kniz: He goes directly to hell, without passing GO. You do not go to heaven because of your works.
-
Metacom: I think that (the atheist) will achieve some kind of grace. I don’t think that faith and belief are choices, so I don’t think the atheist should be punished at all.
-
yBeayf: Well, not knowing anything about the atheist except that he didn’t believe in God and that he behaved decently in society, I have no idea what his ultimate fate would be.
So who is right? Is the atheist’s fate Heaven, Hell or ‘don’t know’?
- SusanStoHelit: Salvation under Protestant Christianity has nothing to do with your actions.
yBeayf: In Orthodox Christianity, salvation is contingent on both faith and works; either is useless without the other.
Again, who is right?
You don’t seem to respect my views!
As for Judaism, obviously I’m making the point that you are comfortable accepting their views on part of the Old Testament, but completely disagree with them over the fundamental point of New Testament. Surely this is a serious problem?
Some movie reviewers think The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie is clever fun for the whole family. Others think it’s annoying drek. Who’s right?
Some philosophers think existence is a predicate which can be attatched to objects in the same sense that qualities can. Others think existence is a quantifier, not a true predicate. Who’s right?
Some scientists think protons decay. Other don’t. Who’s right?
Are you asking my opinion on these questions or trying to make a point?
Are you claiming this in good faith or just being a shmuck?
No. It isn’t a problem at all. I don’t understand why you think it would be! I accept Qadgop’s opinion of many things, but we disagee on the relative superiority of Marmite to Vegemite, about as fundamental a disagreement as there could be. It’s all cool, though.
I have been hesitant to get involved in debates here because (1) I live in an inconvenient time zone and (2) I have lousy internet access. I have to compose replies offline. So, I’m sorry I’m unable to do more of a real-time interaction.
I’d like to address the hypothetical about the good unbeliever and the last-minute repentant murderer. In life I try to avoid hypotheticals, but this is a common one and raises good questions.
One common misconception is that “heaven” (immortality, eternal life, a pleasant afterlife) is the default destination for people; they only miss it if they mess up somehow. From a biblical, Christian perspective, however, this is not the default. Salvation is a positive gift from God. It does not happen automatically, only if God graciously grants it.
Regarding the “good” unbeliever: it is biblical Christian teaching that no one is really “good.” “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10) and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). All have sinned, everyone of us, if we are honest with ourselves. Some have done worse than others, but none have lived completely righteously.
Salvation yielding eternal life is a gift of God’s grace for those who believe on Jesus Christ. For those who do not believe, God does not (as far as the revelation we have) give them eternal life. As best as I can reason from Scripture, they will at the End return to life, face God, receive a just and proportionate punishment for their sins (Luke 12:47-48, 59). After that, they will pass out of existence, for human beings are not immortal.
I realize this view is still difficult for many to accept; that is not denied. It is a tragedy and sorrow for any human life to end. However, for the atheist, except for the part about the glorious vision and the punishment, the passing out of existence was expected.
Regarding the last-minute, repentant murderer: theoretically, yes, he (or she) could repent at the last moment and receive salvation. However, this is not the easy cop-out for a life of heinous sin that many perceive it to be. Repentance itself is a gift of God (Acts 11:18), and it is perilous to assume that it will always be available whenever we want it, at our convenience. The one who willfully plots such a thing should not be certain of pulling it off. (And I am saying this as someone who is not a Calvinist.)
Philip Yancy, in his book, What’s So Amazing about Grace? tells of a disturbing incident. A professing Christian friend asked him, “Do you think God will forgive me after I do what I plan to do?” He planned on running off with another woman, divorcing his wife, getting remarried, repenting, then getting back involved in church/the spiritual life as before. To make a long story short, Yancy warned him, “Are you so sure you will repent? After you’ve hardened your heart to willfully commit the sin, are you sure you will be able to/want to turn back?” The man did not heed the warning and carried out his plan–except the part about repenting. He didn’t show any interest in turning back to God after he willfully committed the sins. Of course, none of us know the ultimate end of the story, but it does illustrate how repentance is not automatically available at our convenience.
Heb. 10:26-31 say, "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (ESV).
The interpretation of this passage is contested, but I do think most would agree that it applies to a situation such as this. God is graciously working on all of us, even the worst sinner (who is, after all, the first among equals) and we are not competent to judge the spiritual state or destiny of another. That said, we should not make presumptions about his grace.
Re the repentant murderer, I ask glee and others:
Supose your child or loved one was murdered. The person who did it tells you that he is sorry. Do you forgive him?
Of course not! One little appology can’t make up for that! It’s probably just a manipulative ploy anyway.
But supose that through your magical psychic powers I’ve just granted you by the power of the hypothetical that you are able to perform a Vulcan mind meld with the person, to truely peer into their soul, and you discover that this person truely is sorry, that the pain and regret he feels over this act is greater than you could have imagined, that he really would make it up, at any cost, if only it were possible. Now would you forgive him?
If so, why shouldn’t God? If not, I humbly suggest that you, not God, are the monster.
If you’re going to answer a question, please don’t answer it for me.
I can’t say for sure what I would do, but I would try my hardest to forgive him regardless of the sincerity of his apology. I feel called to forgive all those who’ve harmed me–the Lord’s prayer isn’t “as we forgive those who’ve trespassed against us, and, in our opinion, have sincerely apologized for what they’ve done.”
Doh! “If you’re going to ask me a question, …”
I’m not sure who you are asserting maintains this kindergarten view. Since I haven’t expressed any of my own beliefs wrt God, I’ll just assume for now that it is not me.
Where does that leave Jesus, exactly? As I understood the New Testament, he was a person at least for a while.
If you aren’t a believer in Hellfire and eternal damnation, then none of my posts would apply to you. You seem to implying that I am naive for asking questions about Hell, as if “real” religious people have moved beyond them. If so, it must have been recently (or in a different part of the country). I find that I am faced with people with exactly the kind of kindergarten beliefs I have been questioning fairly regularly. All of my grandparents fell in to that group. And I spent quite a bit of time when I was a child in a fairly frantic state because of assurances from my elders that I was, in fact, going to hell for all eternity. As a result, the Hell issue is somewhat of a sore point with me–I don’t think any child should be frightened in that way for no good reason.
And then, of course, there are the geniuses who are trying to promote “intelligent design” as something scientific to be covered in science books.
If your views of God have moved beyone the silliness being pushed by the Churches, I am glad for you, but I am not convinced that the rest of the congregation has as well. And regardless of the subject, I like to ask questions in as simple and direct a way as possible. Helps me pick out the underlying assumptions in the answers I get.
-VM
Oh dear.
First you dive in, claiming that other posters have a ‘kindergarten level’ understanding of the subject.
Then you demand of me 'Why don’t you discuss the opinions of the Christians who are actually here? ’
When I do exactly that, you refuse to debate, but instead post a load of sneering questions. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you haven’t noticed this is a thread about Hell.
I ask a couple of questions about who would be sent there by God and other posters politely give their opinions.
What is your view on their (contradictory) statements?
Or are you so superior that you cannot share your understanding on this message board?
Once again you astonish me.
If Qadgop denies the existence of Marmite, wouldn’t that be a more fundamental difference?
Next you ask about the repentant murderer:
I don’t understand why you drag in psychic powers or magic. There is no evidence either exist. Neither does the Vulcan mind meld.
If you believe that God knows whether the murderer truly repents, just say so.
I personally would still have trouble forgiving him. Does that make me a monster? Would that make God send me to Hell?
Perhaps you could comment on the well-behaved atheist. If God is sending him to Hell (and I have had many Christians assure me that is absolutely guaranteed), is that monstrous?
Are devout Jews going to Hell?
This is the post I was responding to, with exerpts and response:
Let’s stop and look at these questions. (They’re really the same question, about the apparent absence of God in the universe.) They presuppose what I consider a naive understanding: that God is a being who does (or could) speak to us like any other person.
Instead consider this perspective: God is that (whatever it is) by which the universe can be understood morally, the source of the standard (or standards, or the ability to conceive of and choose among standards) by which we make moral judgements. If you have a concience, God speaks to you. If you have parents who taught you right from wrong, God speaks to you. If you have reason and the ability to see which actions cause suffering and which joy and you value joy not only for yourself but others, God speaks to you. For some, God is also a being who can speak verbally. For many, myself included, stories of God speaking are myths expressing the reality of what I just described. Those experiences I described are those in which we encounter God as God is, not as we imagine God to be.
Let skip ahead, because it’s late, and I want to sleep soon… 
I hope its clear how these questions take God as quite literally a big person. Someone who can feel insecure. Someone who may or may not care about things we do. Someone whose exhibits behavior, and whose behavior can be evaluated by standards such as parenthood.
Consider instead that God is that, whatever it may be, to which human life ought to be oriented. That which ought to be worshipped, in both the narrow praise-and-honor sense and even moreso in the looser sense in which people are said to worship money or love or rockstars or themselves.
For Christians that that-by-which-life-should-be-lived is best represented, most clearly seen, most completely present in reality, in the life of Jesus and in the community that surrounded and grew from him. Jesus was a person and his God-hood (as here described) was demonstrated and embodied in his relationships with people. God is personal. But behind this representation, this presence, this incarnation, is the deeper mystery of the ultimate, the ineffable, the infinite. That which is the ultimate source and judge of being for humans is infinite and transendant. Our own nature is transendant, able to conceive of that which is beyond ourselves, to abstract and to grasp all nature in the mind. Yet that by which we judge ourselves and recognize out own finitude, the idolotry of every object of worship, transends even us. (Sorry if that sounds like a lot of smaoke and handwaving. It’s hard to get mystical on a message board! If it’s too much, just ignore this paragraph, since I’m not sure it communicates what I want it to.)
Hopefully these have already been answered.
Consider that our relationship with God is broken. That we experience a sense of “thrown-ness,” to quote the existentialists, a being-out-of-place in the universe. We don’t always hear God, even in the ways I described above, and when we hear, we don’t listen. We feel guilt and anxiety, we commit sins again and again, against our own better judgement. We feel ourselves incapable of being what we know we ought to be and at least occasionally want to be.
In the mytho-poetic imagery of Christianity, we feel separated from God and fear his anger. He are in need of forgiveness. But what does it mean to be forgiven or to forgive? If I tell you I forgive you, it is likely to be meaningless; it may even provoke anger! Who am I to forgive you? It seems to set me over you! When I genuinely forgive someone, I rarely tell them that. Instead, I tell them I am sorry. Sorry for my own role in the brokenness of the relationship, sorry not only for whatever I might have done, but also for the hurt that wasn’t my fault but that hurt nonetheless. If you are to truely feel my forgiveness, I must be willing to take on some of your pain, not to calculate which elements I’m responsable for, but to take responsability for as much of the pain and brokenness as I can bear. I don’t heal a broken relationship by raching down from my pedastal and granting pardon, but by coming humbly as a friend, as a brother, and as a fellow sufferer.
For God to forgive us, and for us to feel his forgiveness, it was necessary (not as an act, nor to fulfill some abstract sense of justice, but because that is what forgiveness is) for us to find or for God to provide some focal point, some place in history, by which we could understand God taking on our pain, suffering for and with us. In Jesus, we not only saw a perfect image of ourselves, of humanity lived in perfect community and obedience to that (whatever it is) which we feel ought to be obeyed (that mysterious source of right, the ultimate good), we also saw the ultimate good itself, in his willingness to die for us, to take on our burden, to bear our pain. Forgiveness is God, as love is God, and in his love, we saw God and felt ourselves forgiven. Pain is not good, but we were already in pain, and we needed someone else to feel our pain with us, to acknowledge it, to take it on himself, to be responsible for it and for the healing that we needed. Jesus had to suffer because he was God with us, who came to forgive, and forgiveness is, at least in part, the willingness to suffer with someone and to bear the brokenness that needs forgiving.
You’re right. The God you described is a God only children would buy. That’s why I called it a Kindergarten-level understanding. Many, perhaps most, adults never outgrow it. If you want to ask those people how they justify it, and why they believe it, go right ahead. I doubt the answer will be satidfying, becasue as you said, if there is an Answer (with a capital A), it isn’t that crap! If you want to know what I believe (at least on my best days) to be a faithful and mature alternative, I hope I’ve been able to help.
I genuinely wasn’t sure if you wanted my opinions, or were trying to make a point. If you are really interested in my opinions, I’m happy to give them.
I don’t believe in a literal afterlife. (I told you I was a heretic!) To the extent that we can use myths about an afterlife to give expression to our understanding of justice and the mystery underlying it, I would do so by saying that we are justified not by the good we actually manage to do, nor by the abstract philosophical and theological theories we hold true, but by the extent to which we embrace the good where we find it in ourselves and others. Since God is, by definition, the ultimate good, an atheist who strives for the good will find God, regardless of his metaphysical beliefs. I’m far more ambivalent about the fate of a Christian who embraces hate or fear or only wishes to avoid flames.
Good works are not necessary to salvation, but a refusal to perform good works where one might constitutes a rejection of the good. I think this is actually the point of both doctrines.
I’m sorry. I really don’t get what your point is. I wasn’t just being flippant.
I don’t believe in psychic powers either. The point was that we often refuse to forgive because we don’t know the true state of a person’s heart. The point is also not whether you would have difficulty forgiving someone who was genuinely repentant, but whether you agree that is morally good to do so. You seemed to imply earlier that a God who forgave a repentant murderer was morally lax or degenerate.
I don’t think goodness is identical with behavior. If a god were to send a good atheist to Hell, that god would be a monster (and therfore not, by my understanding, God in the Christian sense.) Those Christians are wrong.
No. St. Paul would agree with me.
Final comment for tonight–I didn’t mean to be insulting when I said Kindergarten-level. Many people don’t get past that level, not because they are stupid or unthoughtful, but because many churches don’t try to educate people past it, and some churches are stuck at that level themselves. Besides, most of us have a roughly kindergarten-level understanding of a lot of things outside our area of expertise.
I’m not even sure (if I haven’t made clear) that I can honestly call myself a Christian. I call myself atheist at least as often. But when people come along saying, “How can Christians believe X,Y, and Z. Those are ridiculous and evil ideas,” I feel it trivializes my struggle with what I see as a less ridiculous version of faith.
Let me put it this way. If your understanding of Christianity is one that by your own judgement only a child would reasonably accept, then you have a childish (or child-like) understanding of Christianity.