Who goes to heaven?

Remove all ads!

@Rally: Thanks for the sources. I guess the issue here is that the term "original sin" has been branded as a Christian idea (and interpreted crudely as well). If original sin necessitates the intervention of Christ, or if (in an extreme view that most Christians *don't* hold) mankind is so depraved in sin that it is impossible for them to be righteous without being Christian, of course it doesn't seem kosher. But this could be a matter of semantics: would it be more acceptable to refer to "mortal sin" in place of "original sin"? This would follow the story in Genesis, where the "sin" of Adam and Eve expose them to death, hard work, painful child birth, etc. We could then imagine "mortal sin" as a fallen state, an idea that exists in both Judaism and Christianity (and in Islam as well?), while "original sin" would add to that the idea of Christian "grace," and so be rejected by both Judaism and Islam. The original Genesis story suggests an idea of heaven and hell (Eden and Gehenna), whether as a judgment of God, or as a result of one's actions; to go to heaven is to return to that original state, whether through righteousness (Judaism) or salvation through Christ (Christianity). And Christianity has a long tradition of backpeddling away from the "those who don't accept Christ will go to hell" idea: Dante placed "virtuous pagans," who were righteous (generally Greek thinkers who had been incorporated into Christian theology) but did not have the opportunity etc to accept Christ, at the highest level of purgatory, and so at the very edge of heaven...

 

All dogs.

 

Strange. On one hand, many believers seem to espouse that no man can know the mind of God(and hence cannot pass judgements about things only God could know- assuming for teh sake of argument that such a thing exists) and yet ALL of these theists rely on rules, interpretations of man-written documents/scriptures, anecdotes of personal revelation etc.(or they would have no religion to be a part of).

In addition, most, if not all, of these rationalizations about people getting "a chance to believe" were born of a relatively recent realization of paradoxes within religious belief.

I have noticed lately that even conservative Christians/Catholics are starting to say something along the lines of "A righteous atheist will get into Heaven before [a particular type of christian/catholic]!".

@Rhetorical ?:

Listen, I would not even bother mentioning this except that you claimed to be a liberal/progressive christian right before saying the following:

1)Agnostics are not something exclusive of atheism or theism. An agnostic can be either an atheist(most are) or a theist(rare but they exist). All strong/positive atheists are agnostic and most weak/negative atheists as well. Theism/atheism pertains to whether one believes that God(s) exist(s). Agnosticism/gnosticism pertains to whether one has knowledge of God's existence.
Strong agnostics not only lack such knowledge but are convicned that it is impossible for ANYONE to have such knowledge since God is defined as 'transcendent'.

2)Atheism is not some character defect to be lamented. One does not lack faith the way someone lacks eyes or appendages due to soem tragic occurance. Spare us your pity and we will spare you ours.

 

Frankly, I'm amazed how everyone has been civil and respectful in this thread. God must have been showered his grace.

Back to topic, I really don't know who will go to heaven. Some believe that only via their way can one go to heaven. Some believe that that everyone will get there eventually because God loves all of us. The logic behind this is that it is strange that God would create people who He knows (He is God after all) from day one will go to hell.

Like others have mentioned, we will know when we go. Or we won't if there really is no God.

 

That may be Charlie but you have to imagine for a second that some atheist posted the following:

"You have to have a rational mind, otherwise you are just a theist/gnostic. Gnostics while, by far the most sensible of the two,nevertheless lack critical thinking skills."

If I had waltzed in and posted the above(not that I agree with the above or would post such a thing) then people here would waste no time letting me have it but when a theist posts the equivalent, it is just accepted as matter-of-fact that atheists and/or agnostics are, to some degree, "not sensible"(this is even more bizarre when we remember that most atheists tend towards skepticism/rationality as the highest principle!).

[ May 05, 2005, 19:19: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

@RuneQuester: Am I correct in assuming that you don't believe in any sort of an afterlife? That this life and this world is all that there is, and each person can make of it Heaven, Hell, or something else, as the individual chooses? That upon death of the body, the spirit/mind that had animated the body simply vanishes? If I'm off base as to your beliefs, please correct me.

@Bion: There isn't really a Hell in Jewish thought, either. Gehenna (in Hebrew, Gehinnom) is a place of redemption where a soul goes to atone for the sins committed during its life before it can enter Heaven (Gan Eden, or the Garden of Eden). How long a soul spends in Gehinnom depends on the gravity of its sins, but no soul stays longer than 12 months All of those sins stem from our own actions or inactions during life, not from some ancestral taint.

 

Interesting. It doesn't sound all that different from it's Christian equivalent - purgatory. Although I do not think there is any such 12 month limit to how long you can go there. I think you can be sent there for 30 or 40 eons if needed.

 

In Irish mythology we had 'Tír na nÓg'which was not quite like Christian heaven as it was a place on earth that easily accessable to the Sidhe (fairies) and certain human warriors such as the 'Tuatha de Danann'. Actually its an Island situated on the westcoast of Ireland.

Its a little like 'Asgård' only not as well known outside of Europe

 

Untrue. Sorry to break this to you DR, but your daddy only told you that to stop your blubbering...

 

You only got to heaven (or hell) if you believe in it.

 

That just about sums up my belief anyway.

 

@Rallymama, if:

...then what is the fate of all non-Jews ?

IMO time is completely relative in afterlife. And how to measure it ?

 

@Rallymamma:

You are correct that I have no positive beliefs in such things as an 'afterlife'. You are incorrect to assume that I believe in the existence of something like a "spirit" or "soul". MInd is a function of the physical brain(just as "walking" is a function of "legged" things). There is simply no rational reason to infer some immaterial spirit-force animating living things. Us skeptics rely on a principle known as Occam's Razor(after Sir William of Okham) which states that we do not unecessarily multiply entities for explanation. THat measn that, for example, while there is nothing to stop one from believing that flat tires that result from rusty nail puntures are caused by gremlins firing nail-guns, if you pull over and discover a rusty nail protruding from your flat tire, the "gremlin hypothesis" is unwarranted until you can rule out all of the mundane explanations(a tire fell off a flat-bed truck and you ran over it by chance etc.). THe gremlin hypothesis only invites a slew of unanwerable questions.

Likewise, the "spirit hypothesis" is also unwarranted and unecessarily multiplies entities for explanation.

 

@Runequester

I'm not sure if you're using a particular meaning of agnosticism relating to the gnostics and logos , but as far as I'm aware the current meaning is that there are two types of agnostic, both of which are relevant to my statement: those who believe it is impossible to know whether God exists and don't think it right to decide on a view (fine, since neither atheism nor theism is logically tenable in extremis), and those who simply have not decided or refuse to decide (but do believe it's possible to know). Neither of these are fully atheists - atheism is either to completely deny the existence of God as illogical, or to say that whether or not he exists, he cannot have any effect on the world (No-meaning atheism). Dostoevsky also wrote about protest atheism, where you reject God on the grounds of excessive suffering of innocents in the world, and salvation not being worth the cost.
But I don't think you can say someone is an a/theist and an agnostic - if you're a theist, your faith replaces any doubts, and you're on one side of the fence, not the middle anymore. Atheists flat out deny/reject God, and don't even allow the possibility that he exists (or is worthy of worship).

I'm sorry if my comment "just an atheist/agnostic" in my earlier post came over as pitiful... It wasn't intended as condescending at all, and I certainly don't feel sorry for atheists - I follow the 'I don't try to convert you, you don't deconvert me' line of thinking. I'm not normally very vocal about my beliefs except in religious threads

But the 'just' was a badly expressed way of saying, "...without faith, you're an atheist/agnostic, and so not relevant to this particular argument."


(I deliberately haven't replied to the "no rational reason to believe in a soul" post above, because I don't think a mind/body debate will get us anywhere. It's Rallymama's reply anyway )

 

@RQ: Thanks. I was just trying to understand where you were coming from, since you and I believe very different things. I guess I should have said "consciousness" as opposed to spirit, since I wasn't necessarily thinking of any kind of divine spark, just the awareness and personality, etc., that makes each walking bag of flesh different from the others.

@Arendil: As I said earlier

I know at least one Reform rabbi who holds that all religious paths lead to the same place. God is God, no matter how you choose to worship. As long as you're true to the principles of whatever religion is right for you, you'll get into Heaven. Well, there is that little technicality of being able to give acceptable answers to those four questions, but not being Jewish isn't an automatic strike against you. Heaven isn't selective that way.

 

@Rhetorical ?

Have to stop you there. First of all, Strong agnostics DO say that it is impossible for anyone to know of God's existence BUT you are adding something that has nothing to do with agnosticism with the "don't think it right to decide on a view"(your definition is akin to defining Christianity as "Those who believe in Jesus Christ AND hate gays." or somesuch).

Secondly, I do not understand what you are getting at with teh assertion that "neither atheism nor theism is logically tenable in extremis". What is "extremist atheism"?!? What is "extremist theism"?!? How do you even take the simple statement "I have a God/gods" or "I have no gods" to an extreme that is not logically tenable?! IS 'afairyism' also possible and non-tenable in extremis?

You are WAYYYY wrong here. Agnosticsm has absolutely NOTHING to do with "deciding" on the existence of god. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge adn knowledge only(regardless of whether you are a theist or atheist(or even 'undecided') on the question of whether you believe God exists. It is a common error to assume that agnosticism and gnosticism are rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty ranging from "I am certain that God exists!" to "I am certain that no gods exist!" but this is wrong. Agnosticism is NOT a synonym for "undecided".

When Huxley coined the term, it originally only had a "strong" definition("Impossible to know of God's existence") but now, like atheism, it comes in two varieties of 'strong' and 'weak'(or 'positive' and 'negative').

Again, the overwhelming majority of agnostics are atheists(most of them weak atheists) but there are theistic agnostics(often fideists and such).

Atheism also comes in strong ("God cannot exist (usuallyfor logical reasons)!"and weak(I have no conviction that any gods exist) flavors. But this also changes completely with context. When gods are divine emporers or natural objects(like the sun) I obviously aknowledge their existence but I am an atheist because I do not willingly worship things as worship is unwanted by any who deserve it and demeaning to teh worshipper.

This is a complete strawman. It is constructed or erected in order to paint atheism as something illogical/emotion-based and ridiculous and therefore easier to beat down. One may well despise organized religion or even theists in general for reasons of human suffering and such but finding someone who arrives at atheism because he hates things that other humans do or donot do is akin to finding someone who does not believe in Santa Claus because he got a crappy Christmas gift.

Again, WAYYY wrong on all counts. You should tuck these urban legends in the same place you disposed of the "Columbus discovered America" and "Wet heads cause colds" stuff we learned as children.

That's just the thing. Everytime someone does this and I get the same reply of "I did not mean anything insulting/disrespectful by it" but I never really see someone come to an understanding of WHY an atheist would take offense in the first place. DO as I suggested and pretend an "atheist extremist" (however you define that term) came and posted the equivalent about jews/christians here. Mods and regular posters alike(at most message boards) will come out in full force to tell the atheist(and rightfully so) that such behavior is uncalled for but when theists do this to atheists, not only does no one bat an eye but if someone like me even points out what has transpired, everyone reacts as if I were raising Hell over spilled milk!

Now THAT would not have bothered me in the least(except for the already noted misdefnition of atheism & agnosticism)!

That's fine. Why I directed it specifically to Rally'.

 

@RQ

I must admit that I know next to nothing about atheism or agnosticism. I really wouldn't be able to contribute there.

Well here's one theist who doesn't believe that.

There are some Catholic leaders who lean towards this line of thinking as well.

 

You can count me among those who react as if you were raising hell over spilled milk. I do not follow any type of organized religion. I do not consider myself to be either religious or spiritual. From what I can see, it seems the biggest crime Rhetorical Question committed was one of misidentification. As I see it, the main problem you had was RQ's statement of:

While I can see how one may find that offensive on the basis of that single statement, it is quite clear given the context and tenor of the rest of the post that insult was not the intent. Furthermore, he later spelled out in more detail what he meant by that, and you admit that you don't have a problem with his explanation, other than the way he defines agnostics and atheists. He was simply misinformed. I would react the same to RQ's comment as if someone referred to me as a Muslim. I wouldn't feel insulted, I'd just feel that they were wrong.

 

@Aldeth

I agree. I am not charging him with INTENT to insult .

Here is the thing you are missing though: He did NOT JUST misindentify entire groups of people. He misidentified two groups and then went on to charge both groups with some degree of 'senselessness' and one group to the degree of being logically untennable(a nice way of saying we are fools to think atheism is sensible/valid).

AGAIN, you have to try and replace "atheists" with "jews" or "blacks" or somesuch and imagine the equivalent being said about them.

 

I didn't read that in his comments, and I'm not likely to re-read everything in this thread to see if you're right or not. I'll just have to take your word for it. However, from the sentence I posted, I don't see how it could be interpreted that way. In fact, it seems like he's saying that agnostics are more sensible than theists. Nowhere do I see where he is saying anyone is senseless. By stating agnostics are most sensible, it implies that other grouping are not AS sensible, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he feels they possess some degree of "senselessness".