Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A question to religious people only (obviously).

Most religions believe that people who worship other Gods or do not believe in God at all will go to hell. So my question is - is it possible for a nonbeliever to go to heaven?

For example, someone lives in some village. Never even heard of cellphones, let alone religions but is generally a very good person. Works hard, doent steal, kill etc. Maybe even saved many peoples lives etc. But he'll go to hell because he's never even heard of Christ or Allah?

i'll go with a yes and point out a Claus in the bible..

sin out of ignorance is forgiven.

aside from that if he knows nothing of the word of god he be pretty damn blameless.

but lets go further where do children go, new born or otherwise.

if their is any validity in the word of god and compassion shouldnt they also go to heaven?

Which religion and which denomination are the biggest qualifying factors. The answer could easily be yes or no depending on your particular belief system. I'm much less interested in what individuals think than I would be in what denominations of Christianity believe the answer is yes/no, because it would be an interesting cultural yardstick to measure how progressive they are.

Because, frankly, what King Castle thinks about this matter is of no import to me. What, for example, Baptists as a whole think on it is much more relevant.

I've thought about this before and decided it doesn't matter.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a god and being a good person is not what qualifies me to go to heaven I don't want to go to heaven because god is obviously malevolent.

From the perspective of religion I think that when a faith accepts this it also reduces its own specialness. It become little more than a philosophy of ethics. A religion concerned with increasing its number of adherents almost has to say that god sends good people to hell if they're the wrong faith.

I don't know if my opinion here is what you're looking for, since Jehovah's Witness doctrine regarding "heaven" is radically different from most other Religion's standpoints on heaven. But, whatevs. shrug

JW's believe that access to Heaven is, regardless of your faith or loyalty to Jehovah, limited to a select few. Specifically, out of Jehovah's faithful humans, 144,000 of them will be chosen to help Jesus Christ govern the Earth, while the rest of us remain here to live forever.

What I always found odd about that, is that you aren't "chosen" to become anointed by members of the congregation. Rather, it's believed that if you are anointed, Jehovah will send you a... message or vision, stating that you've been chosen. If you tell the congregation that you've received a message from Jehovah saying that you are of the chosen, they'll believe you. That process seems ripe for abusement, buuuut, I guess the people in charge realize that too because they're not allowed to treat someone who is anointed any differently from someone who is not.

Aside from that... the JW "heaven" that's more akin to the main stream version of heaven is on Earth, as I said above. When Armageddon happens, Jehovah will destroy the world as it is now, sparing only the faithful, and will then recreate it, turning it into a paradise, and, making people essentially immortal. They don't age, don't get sick, even dangerous animals won't hurt people. Aside from being faithful at the time that Armageddon occurs, if you die before Armageddon happens, you will be resurrected, and live in Paradise. This is because death is the ultimate repayment for sin, that's why Jesus sacrificed himself for us. So it doesn't really matter who you are or what you did, if you died before Armageddon you will be resurrected, if you die during it you will not. The people who are destroyed during Armageddon don't go to "hell" though. JW's believe that your "soul" is tied to your body, and if your body is destroyed, your soul ceases to be. So if you die you are simply dead; there is no conciseness afterlife, no torture.

Originally posted by Digi
Which religion and which denomination are the biggest qualifying factors. The answer could easily be yes or no depending on your particular belief system. I'm much less interested in what individuals think than I would be in what denominations of Christianity believe the answer is yes/no, because it would be an interesting cultural yardstick to measure how progressive they are.

Because, frankly, what King Castle thinks about this matter is of no import to me. What, for example, Baptists as a whole think on it is much more relevant. Digi, I'm sure most baptists believe that the Bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I live by these verses in the Bible myself. They are out of Matthew chapter 22.


But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If this is gospel truth then people who have never been preached to about any religion can be worthy of heaven as the Bible also states that your love for God whom you cannot see is reflected by your love for your brother whom you see every day.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a god and being a good person is not what qualifies me to go to heaven I don't want to go to heaven because god is obviously malevolent.

Cosigned. It's not really hard to come to a similar conclusion once you're removed from religious trappings.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Digi, I'm sure most baptists believe that the Bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I live by these verses in the Bible myself. They are out of Matthew chapter 22.


But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If this is gospel truth then people who have never been preached to about any religion can be worthy of heaven as the Bible also states that your love for God whom you cannot see is reflected by your love for your brother whom you see every day.

That....doesn't really address my point at all, and Biblical verses are subject to interpretation so they mean none removed from their interpreter. But ok.

Originally posted by Digi
That....doesn't really address my point at all, and Biblical verses are subject to interpretation so they mean none removed from their interpreter. But ok. Sorry Digi. I didn't know that you were trying to make a point with your earlier post. I thought you were saying that you were interested in what baptists or other denominations of christianity thought. Since the Bible is the source of all that they believe any answer one might give would be based on some verse or another.

Try as I might I can't think of a way to misinterpret "Love thy neighbor as thyself"

Originally posted by Digi
That....doesn't really address my point at all, and Biblical verses are subject to interpretation so they mean none removed from their interpreter. But ok.

I think he is a Baptist, his denomination's interpretation is at the bottom.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think he is a Baptist, his denomination's interpretation is at the bottom. I don't claim any denomination. I was raised in a baptist church though. A house divided will surely fall. I don't believe that any denomination has something over another. To me denominations are something that gives people a feeling of superiority over others. If a baptist is somebody who believes that unless you are physically splashed with or dunked in water, you go to hell, then I agree that their interpretation seems the least valid.

Originally posted by King Castle
i'll go with a yes and point out a Claus in the bible..

sin out of ignorance is forgiven.

aside from that if he knows nothing of the word of god he be pretty damn blameless.

but lets go further where do children go, new born or otherwise.

if their is any validity in the word of god and compassion shouldnt they also go to heaven?

The Bible explicitly states that a person should not be baptized until they are of mature mind, this would exclude unborn children and any others that are unaware of sin. No matter what hole you crawl into, or what rock you hide under, if you are aware of the wrongs that you have done and remain unrepentant that person may deserve to go to the biblical Hell.

Originally posted by SamZED
A question to religious people only (obviously).

Most religions believe that people who worship other Gods or do not believe in God at all will go to hell. So my question is - is it possible for a nonbeliever to go to heaven?

For example, someone lives in some village. Never even heard of cellphones, let alone religions but is generally a very good person. Works hard, doent steal, kill etc. Maybe even saved many peoples lives etc. But he'll go to hell because he's never even heard of Christ or Allah?

According to the Bible, it states that unless a person is baptized that they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. It also says that no person (man) may come to the Father unless through me (Christ). Can an intelligent person, be ignorant to right and wrong, even if they have never known society, and been introduced to right and wrong by someone else? I for one believe so.

People in my opinion aquire knowledge of right and wrong concepts simply by knowing how they would be treated by another. My opinion, is that unless a person is stricken with a mental illness or are too immature within their minds, that they can absolutely go to Hell, and will go to Hell according to the Bible.

We all have our own beliefs though.

Happy Holidays everyone .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've thought about this before and decided it doesn't matter.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a god and being a good person is not what qualifies me to go to heaven I don't want to go to heaven because god is obviously malevolent.

From the perspective of religion I think that when a faith accepts this it also reduces its own specialness. It become little more than a philosophy of ethics. A religion concerned with increasing its number of adherents almost has to say that god sends good people to hell if they're the wrong faith.

Well first you have to define what "good" is. And since "good" is totally subjective, a group of people can sit at a table all day long trying to hammer out what is "good", and still not decide on anything. But if you're a theist, then "good" has already been defined for you and is presumed to be objective and applicable to everyone. Furthermore, it rises above human definitions regardless of what some random person decides what is or isn't good.

So essentially, assuming god exists and being "good" (whatever that word might mean to you) doesn't get you into Heaven, you're throwing in the towel and giving god the finger all at the same time, just to make a statement. "If he doesn't want me for who I am, then I don't want him!". That's something a rebellious, delinquent teenager would say about their parents. And then--ironically--years later realize that the parent was right all along.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well first you have to define what "good" is. And since "good" is totally subjective, a group of people can sit at a table all day long trying to hammer out what is "good", and still not decide on anything. But if you're a theist, then "good" has already been defined for you and is presumed to be objective and applicable to everyone. Furthermore, it rises above human definitions regardless of what some random person decides what is or isn't good.

So essentially, assuming god exists and being "good" (whatever that word might mean to you) doesn't get you into Heaven, you're throwing in the towel and giving god the finger all at the same time, just to make a statement. "If he doesn't want me for who I am, then I don't want him!". That's something a rebellious, delinquent teenager would say about their parents. And then--ironically--years later realize that the parent was right all along.


If that were the case, would it be considered good or evil if someone walked into your house, defiled your mother, wife, children (terms; sexually), beat you nearly to death, and left? Would that be a good or an evil act? The Bible stated that if the blind should lead the blind, that they would fall into a ditch. Which one are you? Can you see, or are you blind?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well first you have to define what "good" is. And since "good" is totally subjective, a group of people can sit at a table all day long trying to hammer out what is "good", and still not decide on anything. But if you're a theist, then "good" has already been defined for you and is presumed to be objective and applicable to everyone. Furthermore, it rises above human definitions regardless of what some random person decides what is or isn't good.

If we assume good is subjective then god's decision of what is good is no better than mine. If we assume good is objective then god's decision of what's good can be defended by argument. In practice the divine command theory cannot be defended in argument and god has never spoken to me directly to defend his particular ethics.

So in this case the difference between objective ethics vs subjective ethics is a red herring.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So essentially, assuming god exists and being "good" (whatever that word might mean to you) doesn't get you into Heaven, you're throwing in the towel and giving god the finger all at the same time, just to make a statement. "If he doesn't want me for who I am, then I don't want him!". That's something a rebellious, delinquent teenager would say about their parents.

If he's willing to subject me to unimaginable torture because a few of his ethical claims don't make any sense to me then... I guess god is Ayn Rand? (after all I'm being declared "wholly evil" despite possibly following all but one of God's commands) I think getting past Ayn Rand is a classic sign of growing up, not being rebellious.

Or I guess you could present me with an argument that support the idea that not believing in god is a crime deserving of unimaginable torture no matter what else you do in life.

Originally posted by Stoic
If that were the case, would it be considered good or evil if someone walked into your house, defiled your mother, wife, children (terms; sexually), beat you nearly to death, and left? Would that be a good or an evil act? The Bible stated that if the blind should lead the blind, that they would fall into a ditch. Which one are you? Can you see, or are you blind?

Biblical condemnations of rape: Deuteronomy 22:25-27 and breaking and entering: Timothy 3:1-6.

It would be an evil act.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Biblical condemnations of rape: Deuteronomy 22:25-27 and breaking and entering: Timothy 3:1-6.

It would be an evil act.

So then I guess you know the difference between good and evil then. Not to sound doomy, and gloomy, but I do believe that a time is coming that people will not be able to differentiate good and evil, and I believe that, that time is nearly upon us. The moral fiber of society as we speak is eroding like the California coastline.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So essentially, assuming god exists and being "good" (whatever that word might mean to you) doesn't get you into Heaven, you're throwing in the towel and giving god the finger all at the same time, just to make a statement. "If he doesn't want me for who I am, then I don't want him!". That's something a rebellious, delinquent teenager would say about their parents. And then--ironically--years later realize that the parent was right all along.
Except that there are tons of cases where the teenagers actually were correct. My grandparents were complete douchebags and my mother disagreed with them about everything. They were just plain wrong and being an adult hasn't changed her opinion of them.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Sorry Digi. I didn't know that you were trying to make a point with your earlier post. I thought you were saying that you were interested in what baptists or other denominations of christianity thought. Since the Bible is the source of all that they believe any answer one might give would be based on some verse or another.

Try as I might I can't think of a way to misinterpret "Love thy neighbor as thyself"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think he is a Baptist, his denomination's interpretation is at the bottom.

Somehow I missed it at the bottom there, my apologies. You're good, Mister, and thanks. Though, interpretation aside, I don't know that those verses directly speak about the acceptance into heaven of non-believers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If we assume good is subjective then god's decision of what is good is no better than mine. If we assume good is objective then god's decision of what's good can be defended by argument. In practice the divine command theory cannot be defended in argument and god has never spoken to me directly to defend his particular ethics.

So in this case the difference between objective ethics vs subjective ethics is a red herring.


Well, I believe in objective, pre-ordained morality, so you're speaking with the wrong person.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

If he's willing to subject me to unimaginable torture because a few of his ethical claims don't make any sense to me then... I guess god is Ayn Rand? (after all I'm being declared "wholly evil" despite possibly following all but one of God's commands) I think getting past Ayn Rand is a classic sign of growing up, not being rebellious.

Or I guess you could present me with an argument that support the idea that not believing in god is a crime deserving of unimaginable torture no matter what else you do in life.

So then you're taking the Atheist's Wager, which assumes that god rewards merit and altruistic behavior, rather than his laws or acceptance of his existence.

But that also has an in-built false dilemma. It also disregards objective morality, and allows the individual to craft their own definition of "good".

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then you're taking the Atheist's Wager, which assumes that god rewards merit and altruistic behavior, rather than his laws or acceptance of his existence.

We can extend it to all different kinds of behaviors for god.

God sends everyone to hell. both suffer
God sends only believers to hell. theists suffer
God sends only atheists to hell. atheists suffer
God sends only people who are "good" to hell. good atheists and good theists suffer
God sends only people who are "bad" to hell. bad atheists and bad theist suffer
God sends no one to hell. both do not suffer

By adding in a malevolent god (or alternately "a nice guy who only tortures most of humanity" neither side comes out ahead in terms of total potential for suffering. One option here is to accept nihilism. In practice nihilism is stupid and rarely practiced by people older than 15.

We are left with evaluate atheism and theism on merits other than their ability to let you avoid hell.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But that also has an in-built false dilemma. It also disregards objective morality, and allows the individual to craft their own definition of "good".

I'm not concerned with morality in this case. We can even remove God from the equation.

A man says he will torture you for no reason he can explain. You cannot forcibly stop him. Now, do you decide that you're fine with that or tell him to **** off?


Also, objective morality doesn't mean your morals aren't crafted. It just usually means that someone else crafted them for you. Or, more generously, that you "really super extra special sure" that you're right.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God sends only believers to hell. theists suffer


What would be the point of that? After all, they believe. That would be like sending everyone Not Guilty to prison, and letting all the convicts run around free.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

God sends everyone to hell. both suffer

God sends no one to hell. both do not suffer


And what would be the point of either one of those? These two are the worst of your six examples.

The first one is inane because then there's no way of escaping Hell. So really, what's the whole aim there?

The second makes no sense either, because then God would be rewarding the disobedient for their wicked behavior, while simultaneously disregarding the deeds of the righteous.

In both scenarios there's no point in issuing Commandments. Everyone's going to Hell anyways, or they'll never be enforced, so Hitler and Dahmer are now in Heaven.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

A man says he will torture you for no reason he can explain. You cannot forcibly stop him. Now, do you decide that you're fine with that or tell him to **** off?


First off, why can't that puto explain it?

Do I have a fighting chance of breaking free? Or will telling him to "**** off" only make him madder? Because then there's no pointing in escalating a doomed situation. I'd shut up and put up with it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also, objective morality doesn't mean your morals aren't crafted. It just usually means that someone else crafted them for you. Or, more generously, that you "really super extra special sure" that you're right.

Well, it kind of does imply that, because then they can't be objective if some random guy made them up.

I personally believe that morality was pre-ordained, and therefore trumps the opinions of mere mortals who decide they don't like it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What would be the point of that? After all, they believe. That would be like sending everyone Not Guilty to prison, and letting all the convicts run around free.

And what would be the point of either one of those? These two are the worst of your six examples.

The first one is inane because then there's no way of escaping Hell. So really, what's the whole aim there?

The second makes no sense either, because then God would be rewarding the disobedient for their wicked behavior, while simultaneously disregarding the deeds of the righteous.

In both scenarios there's no point in issuing Commandments. Everyone's going to Hell anyways, or they'll never be enforced, so Hitler and Dahmer are now in Heaven.

I'm covering all possible attitudes of a god. We can throw in "owns exactly 36 grams of cheese at the time of death" as the sole qualifier for going to heaven just as reasonably as anything else. But I'm limiting it to atheism/theism as the only thing that matter.

You can't cherry pick the ones you want for this thought experiment. We don't know anything about God for sure, because we have no way of testing anything about him (unless you have a testable god, in which case I can bring my challenges in an empirical form rather than a rational form).

But explanations for the first one might be that God is a rationalist who will punish those who believed in him without good reason.

Everyone goes to hell is simply a malevolent God (which people believe in). Everyone goes to heaven is a totally benevolent God (which people believe in). They can be subsumed under the heading of pre-ordainment in the Calvinist sense, nothing you do has any effect on your afterlife.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
First off, why can't that puto explain it?

He says that he know better than you and that from his better knowledge he has decided that the torture is moral. I assume that you don't take people's word on their impeccable moral sense.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do I have a fighting chance of breaking free? Or will telling him to "**** off" only make him madder? Because then there's no pointing in escalating a doomed situation. I'd shut up and put up with it.

No, your torture is infinite and unending. It cannot possibly be made worse.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I personally believe that morality was pre-ordained, and therefore trumps the opinions of mere mortals who decide they don't like it.

So? Randroids believe that morality is objective, absolute and pre-ordained but they probably disagree with you about everything. Saying that your morals are objective gives them no special place since there are debates about what the objective moral truth is to begin with. You have all the same problems that subjectivists do, you're just super extra special infinity mega confident that you've got it right.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm covering all possible attitudes of a god. We can throw in "owns exactly 36 grams of cheese at the time of death" as the sole qualifier for going to heaven just as reasonably as anything else. But I'm limiting it to atheism/theism as the only thing that matter.

You can't cherry pick the ones you want for this thought experiment. We don't know anything about God for sure, because we have no way of testing anything about him (unless you have a testable god, in which case I can bring my challenges in an empirical form rather than a rational form).

But explanations for the first one might be that God is a rationalist who will punish those who believed in him without good reason.

Everyone goes to hell is simply a malevolent God (which people believe in). Everyone goes to heaven is a totally benevolent God (which people believe in). They can be subsumed under the heading of pre-ordainment in the Calvinist sense, nothing you do has any effect on your afterlife.


I wasn't cherry-picking arbitrarily; I was highlighting the ones that made the least sense. Basically, you were coming up with "What If" scenarios, and I was responding accordingly.

Just because God is benevolent, doesn't mean He can't be just and administer the proper judgment. If justice is the confluence of law and morality, then in a perfect universe, the wicked will get their just desserts.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

He says that he know better than you and that from his better knowledge he has decided that the torture is moral. I assume that you don't take people's word on their impeccable moral sense.


Is he Mexican, or a whiteboy?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

No, your torture is infinite and unending. It cannot possibly be made worse.


Well, then it sucks to be me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

So? Randroids believe that morality is objective, absolute and pre-ordained but they probably disagree with you about everything. Saying that your morals are objective gives them no special place since there are debates about what the objective moral truth is to begin with. You have all the same problems that subjectivists do, you're just super extra special infinity mega confident that you've got it right.

No actually, I don't have the same problems that subjectivists do. When a person says that they get their morality from the Bible or the Koran, you know exactly what their morals are. And if you don't, you can read a piece of paper (literally) and then understand where they're coming from. But the same can't be said for Atheists, Humanists, Secularists and so on. They have no text that can be referenced, and it differs from person to person, because as Digi pointed out in the other thread; there is no central creed that binds Atheists. They might retain some morals from the religion they were raised in, or they will simply decide what is right and wrong, by their own terms, by their own standards.

He wasn't creating What If scenarios, he was outlining all possibilities in that particular thought experiment, in order to make a point about the futility of belief based on the goal of getting to heaven.

In other words, not being able to know if there's a God, which God it is, and what criteria defines entrance into said God's heaven, a believer is just as likely to be damned as an atheist. This makes belief on the grounds of Pascal's Wager (or a similar wager) illogical, or at least not any safer.

Originally posted by Digi
He wasn't creating What If scenarios, he was outlining all possibilities in that particular thought experiment, in order to make a point about the futility of belief based on the goal of getting to heaven.

In other words, not being able to know if there's a God, which God it is, and what criteria defines entrance into said God's heaven, a believer is just as likely to be damned as an atheist. This makes belief on the grounds of Pascal's Wager (or a similar wager) illogical, or at least not any safer.

And the "other possibilities" are rendered void if you're a Believer, because the criteria for getting into Heaven has already been laid out for you.

Disagreement only occurs between people of different faiths, or between people of faith and Atheist philosophers who decide they are dissatisfied with established criteria and want to discuss every single exception they can possibly think of.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And the "other possibilities" are rendered void if you're a Believer, because the criteria for getting into Heaven has already been laid out for you.

Disagreement only occurs between people of different faiths, or between people of faith and Atheist philosophers who decide they are dissatisfied with established criteria and want to discuss every single exception they can possibly think of.
Not at all. When making Pascal's wager, a Christian assumes there are only two options: The christian god, or no god. Actually, there are an infinite number of gods that could be true, so it's not like you're making it a choice between "christian and get into heaven" and "atheist and get into hell" with that bet.

The idea of heaven seems too complex to understand or try to understand. Eternal life as a spirit would likely be more than our current minds can grasp. Also you have to presume that if a person does the right thing for self-serving reasons, it may be perceived as having been a selfish act. That's where the real dilemma lies. If being good isn't enough as "good" is subject to perspective. Why should people frustrate themselves gambling on heaven or hell? If there is no heaven or hell then the world is still improved by people who treat others with respect and sincerity. I would think any teachings that promoted sincere positivity towards the world are worth investigation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Except that there are tons of cases where the teenagers actually were correct. My grandparents were complete douchebags and my mother disagreed with them about everything. They were just plain wrong and being an adult hasn't changed her opinion of them.


Cosigned. Some parents are wrong and are really screwed up. There are several things my parents did or said that are still wrong, to this day.

However, that's really missing his point. He was speaking more in a general sense and it goes more with a colloquial saying: you think I'm wrong now, but in 20 years, you'll see that I was right (I have hear various versions of that from tons of 'adults'.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We can extend it to all different kinds of behaviors for god.

God sends everyone to hell. both suffer
God sends only believers to hell. theists suffer
God sends only atheists to hell. atheists suffer
God sends only people who are "good" to hell. good atheists and good theists suffer
God sends only people who are "bad" to hell. bad atheists and bad theist suffer
God sends no one to hell. both do not suffer

By adding in a malevolent god (or alternately "a nice guy who only tortures most of humanity" neither side comes out ahead in terms of total potential for suffering. One option here is to accept nihilism. In practice nihilism is stupid and rarely practiced by people older than 15.

We are left with evaluate atheism and theism on merits other than their ability to let you avoid hell.

Excellent points.

Mormonism fits the your very last point, almost perfectly:

"God sends no one to hell. both do not suffer."

By being born, you are already guaranteed a place in heaven. That's it: just be born and you go to heaven.

This includes people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung.


The only people who go to "hell" are those that obtain a perfect knowledge of God and his laws. This would be people like Judas Iscariot, or other prophets, that turn completely away from God to spite him. This is more of a decision to go to hell than it is God casting them to hell. So, really, the only people that go to hell are those that chose to do so. And, it's not really hell: they still will have a perfect immortal body for an infinite of amount of time: they just want being in a version of heaven.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have all the same problems that subjectivists do, you're just super extra special infinity mega confident that you've got it right.

crylaugh

I also liked the comment about 36 grams of cheese.





How I see it: if we have souls that are eternal and they were formed from some sort of God, then there is an afterlife to obtain.

Mormons believe that pretty much every last one of us goes to heaven. Those that go to the "best" heaven are those that got all of the ordinances done (baptism, marriage for eternity) and were a good person. What is unique about Mormonism is that the ordinances, while absolutely required, do not have to be done while you are living: they can be done while you are dead, waiting in the spirit afterlife, but before "judgment day". This means that no matter what, every last person has the chance to go to heaven.

However, one is still judged but what moral good and evil they lived by. Again, the ignorance exception works.

Some in the Mormon church say that it is much harder for a spirit to repent than it is a spirit in a body: something about the body and the spirit creating a much more conducive 'repentance' combination. I think that makes sense: as a spirit, supposedly, we will have a perfect memory of all our deeds: good or evil. So, as a spirit, we will remember that bad things we did perfectly, making it much harder to "get over our misdeeds" than when we are mortals because we can "get over" or bad deeds more easily because pain can usually fade. This works because with repentance, our sorrows and pain are "loosened" or forgotten by our spirits and God which culminates the point of repentance and one of the reasons Jesus Christ's atonement was necessary: to "get over it" basically.

But why do we "suffer" from our misdeeds? Because, as spirits, we have a perfect knowledge of the gospel, know perfectly what we did wrong, and have difficulty getting over the those thoughts.

Again, this goes back to the "all go to heaven except those that chose to turn away from God, on purpose."

So, there will probably be some prideful atheists that would rather doom themselves for eternity than go to heaven, but I think those will be very few and far between. Most of the people that go to hell will be those that were very righteous people that had a sure knowledge of God (People that saw angels or things on the level of that type of "sure knowledge"...in other words, it is a 100% ordeal because they have actual proof) but rejected God and all he represents for various evil reasons. The best example of that is Lucifer, one of the greatest spirits in heaven before the Creation. He rejected God and his teachings and took 1/3 of all the "people" from heaven with him: he obviously had some pull.

Anyway, to sum up: yes, everyone WILL get a chance to hear the gospel, either here on earth or in heaven. They WILL get ordinances done for them so that the strange ritualistic rules of baptism and eternal marriage can be fulfilled, and almost every last person WILL go to heaven with various degrees of paradise assigned to them, based on what they've accepted and how they lived. That's the Mormon faith: every last person accounted for.


What makes me happy about that belief is that most of my atheists friends (which comprises the majority of my friends, strangely) will not go to hell. The gloomy Christian religions which send people to hell left and right seems to fly against the nature of a 'good' God. That's my opinion, at least.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Mormons believe that pretty much every last one of us goes to heaven.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/ScienceFair.jpg

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/ScienceFair.jpg

I think I understand what that dude is talking about: some Mormons incorrectly believe that skin color is correlated to curses. That's not correct doctrine and, in fact, is taught as being incorrect in our Sunday School classes. Their incorrect logic follows that because their skin is dark due to curses, when they are resurrected into their "perfect bodies" their skin will not be dark because their is no curse.



This probably comes from an incorrect interpretation of things from the Book of Mormon about "Lamanites" being a dark people: this refers to their mixing with the natives and their 'dark evil' spirits...not actually their skin color making them bad. This is because by the end of the BoM, all of the people look the same due to mixing with the natives.

Edit - So, if you ever come across a Mormon spouting that BS, tell them that that line of reasoning has no place in his or her actual religion and to stop being racist f***s.

Of course a non-believer can be accepted into the conceptionalisation of Heaven.

Bill Hicks once said "I communicate with God everyday! I don't need a middleman to do it".

Wise is Wise, Intelligence is not an issue. If you have the Intent to be a good and knowledgeable person who opens himself to anything without fundementally abiding by Superstition the all the better.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Of course a non-believer can be accepted into the conceptionalisation of Heaven.

Bill Hicks once said "I communicate with God everyday! I don't need a middleman to do it".

Wise is Wise, Intelligence is not an issue. If you have the Intent to be a good and knowledgeable person who opens himself to anything without fundementally abiding by Superstition the all the better.

If you're defacto open to everything then you are abiding by superstition. The common description of the needed balance is "keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're defacto open to everything then you are abiding by superstition. The common description of the needed balance is "keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out".

Hey I'm not perfect.
Your explanation of Enlightenment is all good but leaving yourself open to ideas and meddling with it is what I like to do. I like Superstitions they're fun.
But I don't believe them.
That's the beauty of free will and creativity.

Being open doesn't mean believing. Just curious. Filter out the crap. Experiment and see where it takes you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cosigned. Some parents are wrong and are really screwed up. There are several things my parents did or said that are still wrong, to this day.

However, that's really missing his point. He was speaking more in a general sense and it goes more with a colloquial saying: you think I'm wrong now, but in 20 years, you'll see that I was right (I have hear various versions of that from tons of 'adults'.)
But I don't think that's a true generalization; it may be a colloquial saying (i'd say a way of thinking, that tradition is best), but I seriously doubt it correlates to reality. Maybe it's skewed but in my community of old hippies, i'd say 90% of the adults I meet have views diametrically opposed to their parents of a more conservative generation.

I mean, we know for a fact that attitudes on social issues change over time; that alone should be proof positive that people adopt views contrary to their parents.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The idea of heaven seems too complex to understand or try to understand.
Why?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Eternal life as a spirit would likely be more than our current minds can grasp.
Why is that likely?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why should people frustrate themselves gambling on heaven or hell? If there is no heaven or hell then the world is still improved by people who treat others with respect and sincerity. I would think any teachings that promoted sincere positivity towards the world are worth investigation.
And now you see why atheists care about morality, even without an afterlife.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a god and being a good person is not what qualifies me to go to heaven I don't want to go to heaven because god is obviously malevolent.



I personally don't see how that logically follows. If entry requirements aren't based on how good you are then why does that make God malevolent? In fact Christian doctrine teaches the opposite, that people who go to Heaven aren't those who are good, rather they get in because they accept what God has done for them. If anything they get in not because they are good but because God is good.

Originally posted by willRules
I personally don't see how that logically follows. If entry requirements aren't based on how good you are then why does that make God malevolent? In fact Christian doctrine teaches the opposite, that people who go to Heaven aren't those who are good, rather they get in because they accept what God has done for them. If anything they get in not because they are good but because God is good.
He would say, that proves that god isn't good.

Originally posted by willRules
I personally don't see how that logically follows. If entry requirements aren't based on how good you are then why does that make God malevolent? In fact Christian doctrine teaches the opposite, that people who go to Heaven aren't those who are good, rather they get in because they accept what God has done for them. If anything they get in not because they are good but because God is good.

But I don't consider the title of god to confer any special authority to decide what is and is not good. So to me the situation is a guy is going to torture me unless I surrender my freedom of choice to him and swear my undying loyalty. And, in this particular example, I know that the only thing I've done to offend him is not declare this person I've never met to be the greatest being in the universe.

To me that is a god that is truly malevolent. I want no part in its version of heaven, though I guess the torturing might break me one day.

Well, speaking on behalf of Christianity, the answer is this: absolutely not.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." - Jesus.

No Jesus, no Heaven.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He would say, that proves that god isn't good.

God is righteous. Being 'good' or 'bad' is merely a person's perception.

Forgot to add the part that you have to die without believing Christ.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Well, speaking on behalf of Christianity, the answer is this: absolutely not.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." - Jesus.

No Jesus, no Heaven.



God is righteous. Being 'good' or 'bad' is merely a person's perception.

orrrr. that could simply mean that jesusis the judge while god is the implementer. i.e. jesus shall be the one to decide, reguardless of whether you beleived him or not, basedon your actions.

its best not to put credulance in human compilations of bronze age myths though.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
orrrr. that could simply mean that jesusis the judge while god is the implementer. i.e. jesus shall be the one to decide, reguardless of whether you beleived him or not, basedon your actions.

its best not to put credulance in human compilations of bronze age myths though.

No, that is ridiculous. The Bible is very clear that it is imperative that you must believe on Christ in order to receive salvation. Actions (aka works) are the proof of your profession. Faith without works is dead, after all.

Not sure what you are trying to say with the bottom part.

the bible is anything but clear. its biased, incomplete compilations of unoriginal source material with often faulty translations.

you are trying to give it a narrow meaning in a worldvew that fits with ur thinking.

all jesus seems to say is that no1 can reach salvation until they go through him. u consider that to mean, follow him, while others can see it as passing his judgment and having him decide{metaphorically} that u deserve to enter the heavenly kingsom/salvation

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the bible is anything but clear. its biased, incomplete compilations of unoriginal source material with often faulty translations.

you are trying to give it a narrow meaning in a worldvew that fits with ur thinking.

all jesus seems to say is that no1 can reach salvation until they go through him. u consider that to mean, follow him, while others can see it as passing his judgment and having him decide{metaphorically} that u deserve to enter the heavenly kingsom/salvation

You are not familiar enough with the subject to know what you are talking about. I'll agree that 99% of translations are corrupt. I believe that there is no universal way to heaven. There is one way. One religion is right, therefore, the rest must be wrong.

The entire theme about getting to heaven in the Bible is that the way is narrow. you have heard too much 'God is love and that's all' nonsense from other people.

Familiarize yourself with the teachings of the apostles (those guys that actually lived with Jesus) and you will see that it is made clear that it is only by belief in Him that on can be saved. Works are meaningless without that. Here is some scriptural proof:

Matt. 7:22-23
"22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Originally posted by LLLLLink
You are not familiar enough with the subject to know what you are talking about. I'll agree that 99% of translations are corrupt. I believe that there is no universal way to heaven. There is one way. One religion is right, therefore, the rest must be wrong.

The entire theme about getting to heaven in the Bible is that the way is narrow. you have heard too much 'God is love and that's all' nonsense from other people.

Familiarize yourself with the teachings of the apostles (those guys that actually lived with Jesus) and you will see that it is made clear that it is only by belief in Him that on can be saved. Works are meaningless without that. Here is some scriptural proof:

Matt. 7:22-23
"22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

rude much? you dont even know me, yet you think u know enough about me to claim that im not familiar with the subject, and then go on to tell me why i beleive what i do.

your approach to relegion is zealous and cultlike and you are going by your own rather selective interpretation. i ave read more gospel and indeed more gospelS than you have. i study theology and history, two things which you seem to have no interest in. the bible is an imperfect compilation, as such, it describes a wide variety of different and often contradictory dogmas and ideas. there is no one truth in it. and there is no SCRIPTURAL PROOF, thats an oxymoron, scriptures are about myths/aspirations/dogma and a reflection of the niches in socity at the time. it doesnt offer any supernatural authority.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But I don't think that's a true generalization; it may be a colloquial saying (i'd say a way of thinking, that tradition is best), but I seriously doubt it correlates to reality. Maybe it's skewed but in my community of old hippies, i'd say 90% of the adults I meet have views diametrically opposed to their parents of a more conservative generation.

I mean, we know for a fact that attitudes on social issues change over time; that alone should be proof positive that people adopt views contrary to their parents.


I disagree there, as well: many baby boomers did very "bad" things when growing up and they directly oppose those very same things they did. I do not want to call it hypocrisy but it is similar to it.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Forgot to add the part that you have to die without believing Christ.

What a horrible God to believe in. That's very depressing to even contemplate a God like that. How is that fair to those that have no possible way to ever get "Jesus" in their lives? That's like...what...millions or even billions of people? Why would anyone believe in a God like that, you know?

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Matt. 7:22-23
"22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

You're taking those verses way out of context.

He's referring to, on the most literal level, televangelists (for example) that make millions "casting" out "demons" and "healing" people when they are doing no such thing and desire money more than they are believers in Christ. He's referencing the "hypocrites" that profess a semblance of righteousness but "...their hearts are far from..." Him.

Imagine the chagrin of a money hungry evangelist that actually opens an "exorcism" or "healing" with "lord, lord!!!!"...the thought of which makes me laugh and makes me sad, at the same time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But I don't consider the title of god to confer any special authority to decide what is and is not good. So to me the situation is a guy is going to torture me unless I surrender my freedom of choice to him and swear my undying loyalty. And, in this particular example, I know that the only thing I've done to offend him is not declare this person I've never met to be the greatest being in the universe.

To me that is a god that is truly malevolent. I want no part in its version of heaven, though I guess the torturing might break me one day.

Just so I understand, your reasoning for him being wrong is that if he exists then he's malevolent? But if he exists, by definition he IS the moral authority, how could he be wrong and you right (if we are operating under the assumption he exists)???? Of course if he didn't exist he couldn't be malevolent, but if he does exist, what grounds do you have to call yourself right and God wrong?

I think what you're trying to say is that if God exists you don't like the way he operates. You couldn't justify calling him evil or anything, being the moral authority, you're just not in line with his methods, which is unsurprising to God, really

Originally posted by willRules
Just so I understand, your reasoning for him being wrong is that if he exists then he's malevolent? But if he exists, by definition he IS the moral authority, how could he be wrong and you right (if we are operating under the assumption he exists)???? Of course if he didn't exist he couldn't be malevolent, but if he does exist, what grounds do you have to call yourself right and God wrong?

I think what you're trying to say is that if God exists you don't like the way he operates. You couldn't justify calling him evil or anything, being the moral authority, you're just not in line with his methods, which is unsurprising to God, really

You're making the a priori assumption that God is always right about everything. I am not. That is the key difference. If Jesus showed up tomorrow, proved his identity, and said to start killing all the world's women I wouldn't do it, while you would have to accept it as a moral act.

If there isn't there should be. It's borderline retarded to comdemn people to stay the **** out of paradise because they had the bad luck to have a creator deity position them in a place where they couldn't possibly worship him/her/it because the religion hasn't spread that far yet. Or hell, that hasn't even been invented yet. I've always been curious as to what Christians who believe non-believers go to hell justify the trillions of people who lived before Christianity. Unless said deity is just a massive prick.

As for SDA's, the answer would be no. Yet God is compassionate because you wouldn't go to Hell, you'd get annihilated, so there would be no suffering for eternity. God is nice, ehh?

This is why so many religious people really want to convert you. They honestly believe that you will spend eternity in Hell or annihilated. Though some do it for brownie points. Some of them honestly do care.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree there, as well: many baby boomers did very "bad" things when growing up and they directly oppose those very same things they did. I do not want to call it hypocrisy but it is similar to it.
No doubt some did; but, unless you have some kind of statistic, saying that "most" of them ended up like their parents, is a very sketchy claim.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're making the a priori assumption that God is always right about everything. I am not. That is the key difference. If Jesus showed up tomorrow, proved his identity, and said to start killing all the world's women I wouldn't do it, while you would have to accept it as a moral act.

I see what you mean but I'm not sure I'd class it as a priori assumption. Although in my case, I'm happy to make that assumption, in addition I think that we can logically deduce from a set of (what I would consider to be airtight) premises that God by his very nature is a wholly good and perfect being, that by his very nature of existence, is right. It would not be then an a priori assumption but a logical deduction. Therefore if he were to go round killing, I wouldn't accept it as moral because he clearly wouldn't be Jesus, the scenario would be logically impossible.

Originally posted by willRules
I see what you mean but I'm not sure I'd class it as a priori assumption. Although in my case, I'm happy to make that assumption, in addition I think that we can logically deduce from a set of (what I would consider to be airtight) premises that God by his very nature is a wholly good and perfect being, that by his very nature of existence, is right. It would not be then an a priori assumption but a logical deduction.

For it not to be an a priori assumption you'd have to have, at a minimum, positive evidence that God exists.

Originally posted by willRules
Therefore if he were to go round killing, I wouldn't accept it as moral because he clearly wouldn't be Jesus, the scenario would be logically impossible.

Then God and morality are independent in your system. What is moral is moral no matter what God says.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No doubt some did; but, unless you have some kind of statistic, saying that "most" of them ended up like their parents, is a very sketchy claim.

I'm lost.

I have no idea what we are talking about, anymore.

Seriously.


Edit - Wait, wasn't this over a colloquial saying based on QM's post? A statistic based on silly sayings from parents based on an entire behavior from a sub-culture? I mean, really?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm lost.

I have no idea what we are talking about, anymore.

Seriously.


Edit - Wait, wasn't this over a colloquial saying based on QM's post? A statistic based on silly sayings from parents based on an entire behavior from a sub-culture? I mean, really?
It seriously irritates me when people repeat that "well, you'll think the same thing once you're my age" line. Its just that kind of "tradition is always right" perspective that is preventing any serious changes towards the numerous problems in the world now. As far as i'm concerned, if you think most rebels eventually become traditionalists, you're going to have to show some numbers that actually give that a basis.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It seriously irritates me when people repeat that "well, you'll think the same thing once you're my age" line. Its just that kind of "tradition is always right" perspective that is preventing any serious changes towards the numerous problems in the world now. As far as i'm concerned, if you think most rebels eventually become traditionalists, you're going to have to show some numbers that actually give that a basis.

I do not know of a single parent that hasn't said something along of the lines of "you'll think the same when you're older."


I could take a poll and try and make it as scientific as possible. I'd ask 40 and older parents if they think that children, in general, come around or if they believe the statement "well, you'll think the same thing once you're my age" holds true for the majority of children, at one point.




Is that what I'm supposed to do.

Self sacrifice.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For it not to be an a priori assumption you'd have to have, at a minimum, positive evidence that God exists.

I think that if you wanted to, you can logically deduce God's existence from a set of valid premises. If you want I'd direct you to a number of youtube clips by William Lane Craig for a number of examples of this.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then God and morality are independent in your system. What is moral is moral no matter what God says.

I think we are getting to the modern version of the age old Euthyphro dilemma which asks are things moral because God says so or does God say so because it is moral? This suggests that either God is not absolute as he is subservient to morality and is therefore not God or that morality is merely an extension of his commands which means God is an oppressive dictator who could have done things differently e.g. make murder right and loving neighbours wrong.

Of course it's a false dilemma and neither of these are true. In fact a third proposition is available, things are moral, because God is moral or it is good because God is good. This doesn't make morality a command of God or a law God must obey. Rather it means that moral goodness is intrinsic to the very nature or being of God. It is part of who God is, the very opposite of your notion that morality is apart from God, I posit that morality is part of God's nature. Therefore the killing scenario you described God wouldn't ever do because someone who would do that wouldn't be God. It would be like saying "Think of a married bachelor" or "Try to imagine a square circle." Well it would no longer be a square or circle, would it?

Originally posted by willRules
I think that if you wanted to, you can logically deduce God's existence from a set of valid premises. Ontological arguments? They hint/suggest but are not direct experiential proof of (what is generally regarded as) Spirit. What one does directly experience with an ontological argument are premises and a conclusion.

Originally posted by SamZED
So my question is - is it possible for a nonbeliever to go to heaven?

Sure, if he repents and lives righteously before he dies.

Originally posted by SamZED
For example, someone lives in some village. Never even heard of cellphones, let alone religions but is generally a very good person. Works hard, doent steal, kill etc. Maybe even saved many peoples lives etc. But he'll go to hell because he's never even heard of Christ or Allah?

I don't believe any adult dies without some knowledge of God reaching him in some way.

Originally posted by MRasheed
I don't believe any adult dies without some knowledge of God reaching him in some way.

How about every human being born before Abraham?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How about every human being born before Abraham?

uhhh... you do recognize that I'm a Muslim, right? Muslims recognize that Adam was the first prophet of God as well as the first man.

You might want to alter your question. I certainly don't believe that Abraham "invented" God! lol

Originally posted by MRasheed
uhhh... you do recognize that I'm a Muslim, right? Muslims recognize that Adam was the first prophet of God as well as the first man.

You might want to alter your question. I certainly don't believe that Abraham "invented" God! lol

I see this devolving into a debate about the age of the universe...

That's up to you, I reckon.

If he or she finds God on there death bed then there is a chance that they will go to heaven.

This is the way I look at it. God is all knowing, and forgiving, he knows exactly what your situation is, and why you chose certain things, and he understands probably better than you do yourself your conflicts, and why you believe or don't believe. So, absolutely, people who don't believe can go to heaven.

God's mercy and forgiveness are reserved for those who turn their faces towards Him, menokokoro. You are playing very freely with God's rules which are quite definite in this regard. If you don't believe, your soul is in great peril.

I don't believe that at all. I believe his mercy and forgiveness is reserved for all of his children, why wouldn't it? He loves us more than anything else, he wants us to follow his commandments, but like I said, he understands each person's individual circumstances perfectly, so he knows why they believe, or don't, if the reason they don't believe is just, or at least in their eyes,then why would he punish them for it?

a non-believer wotn go to heaven because it doe not exist duh

you will be born again

Originally posted by kilasplice43897
a non-believer wotn go to heaven because it doe not exist duh

you will be born again This thread is under the assumption that there is a heaven. I know you are making a joke, or at least I am assuming you are, I just thought I would clarify...again though, I was assuming that was the fact.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I don't believe that at all. I believe his mercy and forgiveness is reserved for all of his children, why wouldn't it?

Because He told us who it was reserved for.

Originally posted by menokokoro
He loves us more than anything else, he wants us to follow his commandments, but like I said, he understands each person's individual circumstances perfectly, so he knows why they believe, or don't, if the reason they don't believe is just, or at least in their eyes,then why would he punish them for it?

Because God is the Author of what is just or not just, not us. He told us what He would reward, and what He would punish and why. He told us what He would forgive and what He wouldn't forgive and in what circumstances.

Why are you trying to reinvent this wheel?

Originally posted by MRasheed
Because He told us who it was reserved for.



Because God is the Author of what is just or not just, not us. He told us what He would reward, and what He would punish and why. He told us what He would forgive and what He wouldn't forgive and in what circumstances.

Why are you trying to reinvent this wheel? I'm not trying to reinvent anything. I am simply stating what I believe. How can you believe in a God who would damn so many people so easily?

Originally posted by menokokoro
How can you believe in a God who would damn so many people so easily?

Why are you so quick to side with a bunch of people who said, "F*ck you, God. I'll do what I want?"

God could JUST as easily grant them an eternal reward.

Originally posted by MRasheed
Why are you so quick to side with a bunch of people who said, "F*ck you, God. I'll do what I want?"

God could JUST as easily grant them an eternal reward. You aren't listening to what I am saying, besides that, you are making it sound like people don't believe in God out of spite or something, they don't believe because they believe that they see evidence stacking against him, or not enough in his favor, why is taht worth punishing? I simply do not understand how anyone can believe that our merciful, loving God would be so wrathful over simple disbelief. Now, if they did believe and they still sinned, then I could see that being punished.

Originally posted by menokokoro
You aren't listening to what I am saying...

Yes, I am. In your opinion, God should be easier on the people who have rejected Him and dedicate their lives to sin, and you think He should be harder on the people who believe in Him but make normal human mistakes and slip ups in their striving to please Him. It actually works in the opposite way, which makes significantly more sense to me. I'm having trouble understanding why you think the disbeliever could possibly deserve God's lenience when they've basically said "F*ck you, God."

Originally posted by menokokoro
...they don't believe because they believe that they see evidence stacking against him, or not enough in his favor, why is taht worth punishing?

Most human beings can barely figure out their own lives, but I'm to get they can understand a being who is infinitely superior to them who's ways and motives will never be grasped by a human mind. Most humans get a little bit of info about a celebrity and then slander and abuse that celebrity until they find out the "whole story" of why the celebrity did what they did and realize how wrong they were for talking trash... how infinitely greater goes the same situation in this context, in which people, with a poor understanding of how life, spirit, and death functions anyway, think they have what it takes to judge an omniscient Being, who sees EVERY side of EVERY situation imaginable.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I simply do not understand how anyone can believe that our merciful, loving God would be so wrathful over simple disbelief.

Tell me this...

When the Most Knowledgable, Most Understanding being in all of existence says that truly the worst crime/sin is to disbelieve in the One who made you, but little menokokoro, who is not the most knowledgable, most understanding being in existence, and is still trying to figure out the little corner of life in his control, says that disbelief in the One who made me is a trivial matter...

...which one should I give the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are actually talking about?

Some people think by rejecting a character in a book means that you reject goodness and are going to some punishment just because you don't have a name for it. Soooooooo silly.

It's like telling someone that they don't have any morals because they don't believe that the Bible is true. lol

There are a whole lot of horrible religious people out there. And there are a whole lot of righteous non-believers.

Some people dream that the Creator made His debut in a book. Sooooooooooo silly. lol

True, true. No need for a book.

Repent, O Dreamer! Before you get in trouble.

Lol, nah not me. Trouble finds me. No need for repenting, been there, done that.

I'm good to go.

why would god create your personality, then fault you for F'ing up

LOL doesn't make any sense...

why would a all loving god let a baby die before even living his life ... or even being born yet for that matter ...

makes no sense lol

2011 & people still believing in a magic man in the sky...

these ideas come from a simple time from simple people just trying to explain things in the world

Originally posted by SamZED
A question to religious people only (obviously).

Most religions believe that people who worship other Gods or do not believe in God at all will go to hell. So my question is - is it possible for a nonbeliever to go to heaven?

For example, someone lives in some village. Never even heard of cellphones, let alone religions but is generally a very good person. Works hard, doent steal, kill etc. Maybe even saved many peoples lives etc. But he'll go to hell because he's never even heard of Christ or Allah? I see no reason why he wouldn't.

If he is a good person in life I see no reason he wouldn't be rewarded int he afterlife if there is one.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
why would god create your personality, then fault you for F'ing up

What does your personality have to do with choosing not to kill an old woman and rob her house?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
why would a all loving god let a baby die before even living his life ... or even being born yet for that matter ...

As a test for those who remain. If you get mad at God when it happens and denounce Him, you fail.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
these ideas come from a simple time from simple people just trying to explain things in the world

Humans have always been just as complex with the same choices. There's always been birth, death, love, marriage, community, charity, murder, theft, adultery, etc.

And God will always be God.

i have a feeling that if god really exists then he isnt such a control freak as most of his fans

he'll probably greet me when i die. he wont be insecure or insulted that i didn't believe he was real, he'll know that i was only making a guess based on the limited information at hand.

he'll say now you know da truth, and i'll say word up god so whats the deal with all these people who prophecize and preach in your name yet all have different versions of what you think and what you demand of humanity? he'll be like oh that? yea i had a bit of fun back in the dark ages

Originally posted by red g jacks
he'll know that i was only making a guess based on the limited information at hand.

Did you read the Qur'an?

There's no need to guess.

Originally posted by MRasheed
Yes, I am. In your opinion, God should be easier on the people who have rejected Him and dedicate their lives to sin, and you think He should be harder on the people who believe in Him but make normal human mistakes and slip ups in their striving to please Him. It actually works in the opposite way, which makes significantly more sense to me. I'm having trouble understanding why you think the disbeliever could possibly deserve God's lenience when they've basically said "F*ck you, God." It turns out, you do not understand me. I am saying that God understands PERFECTLY why you did things. I am saying that it is not black and white, it is impossible for us to simply say, he is going to hell because he doesn't believe in God, only God himself can make such a distinction.




Originally posted by MRasheed
Most human beings can barely figure out their own lives, but I'm to get they can understand a being who is infinitely superior to them who's ways and motives will never be grasped by a human mind. Most humans get a little bit of info about a celebrity and then slander and abuse that celebrity until they find out the "whole story" of why the celebrity did what they did and realize how wrong they were for talking trash... how infinitely greater goes the same situation in this context, in which people, with a poor understanding of how life, spirit, and death functions anyway, think they have what it takes to judge an omniscient Being, who sees EVERY side of EVERY situation imaginable. You are making too many assumptions. 1. that most (or all, since you believe all who don't believe are damned) that don't believe in God hate him (which in it'self makes no sense, how can they hate what they don't believe in), 2. They all say horrible things about God. 3. No one who doesn't believe in God is a GOOD person, who loves everyone and would do anything for anyone.

Quit making assumptions about a group, that by the definition of the group is only that they don't believe in God, absolutely nothing else.



Originally posted by MRasheed
Tell me this...

When the Most Knowledgable, Most Understanding being in all of existence says that truly the worst crime/sin is to disbelieve in the One who made you, but little menokokoro, who is not the most knowledgable, most understanding being in existence, and is still trying to figure out the little corner of life in his control, says that disbelief in the One who made me is a trivial matter...

...which one should I give the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are actually talking about? Show me where it says that it is the worst sin.

And I'm actually saying the opposite. I am saying that God knows all, and it is up to him, but it just doesn't make sense to damn one of his children, that he loves, that he does not discriminate against, to hell.

to the hebrew there is no heaven it's just death in sheol.

christian one is more convoluted taking from the jewish tradition adding jesus sermons and others who have no authority to speak on his behalf let alone god.. disciples, letters and dream interpretation.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i have a feeling that if god really exists then he isnt such a control freak as most of his fans

he'll probably greet me when i die. he wont be insecure or insulted that i didn't believe he was real, he'll know that i was only making a guess based on the limited information at hand.

he'll say now you know da truth, and i'll say word up god so whats the deal with all these people who prophecize and preach in your name yet all have different versions of what you think and what you demand of humanity? he'll be like oh that? yea i had a bit of fun back in the dark ages That is pretty much exactly how I think about it.

Originally posted by MRasheed
Did you read the Qur'an?

There's no need to guess. the whole thing? no...

but i also haven't read the entire bible. nor the entire torah. nor the rig veda. etc...

Originally posted by menokokoro
It turns out, you do not understand me.

That was the paraphrased version of what you said.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I am saying that God understands PERFECTLY why you did things.

That doesn't have anything to do with what you chose to do.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I am saying that it is not black and white...

It is black & white though.

Originally posted by menokokoro
...it is impossible for us to simply say, he is going to hell because he doesn't believe in God, only God himself can make such a distinction.

He said in His Book that if you die in a state of unbelief you will DEFINITELY go to hell. It's pretty clear in that regard.

Originally posted by menokokoro
You are making too many assumptions. 1. that most (or all, since you believe all who don't believe are damned) that don't believe in God hate him (which in it'self makes no sense, how can they hate what they don't believe in)

I didn't assume that. In fact, the concept is irrelevant.

Originally posted by menokokoro
2. They all say horrible things about God.

It may not sound horrible to them...

Originally posted by menokokoro
3. No one who doesn't believe in God is a GOOD person, who loves everyone and would do anything for anyone.

"Good" means nothing outside of belief in God. It will profit your soul nothing.

Originally posted by menokokoro
Quit making assumptions about a group, that by the definition of the group is only that they don't believe in God, absolutely nothing else.

I don't care that much about it one way or another about what the unrepentant hellbound think of such things. Why should they care about what someone who believes in a "magic man in the sky" assumes about them?

Originally posted by menokokoro
Show me where it says that it is the worst sin.

The Holy Qur'an 4:48
Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I am saying that God knows all, and it is up to him, but it just doesn't make sense to damn one of his children, that he loves, that he does not discriminate against, to hell.

God discriminates in one way... those who believe in Him and live righteously are superior in His eyes to those that don't.

Originally posted by MRasheed


The Holy Qur'an 4:48
Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. yea.. thats a condemnation of polytheism, actually, which is considered the 'worst sin' by the muslims i have encountered.

have you read the entire quran?

Originally posted by MRasheed
That doesn't have anything to do with what you chose to do. What? So, God knowing exactly the reason why you made a decision, has nothing to do with the decision?


Originally posted by MRasheed
It is black & white though.. And this is where we disagree. Pretend that you don't believe that scripture like you do. Now REALLY think about it. If you grew up in a household where your Dad always explained that God doesn't exist and always gave a reason, and the reason made sense, like a lot of science (a topic for another time). Now, through your life, you never had an opportunity to learn the truth, and you die a disbeliever in God. Now, despite being a great humanitarian, someone who gave much, while taking little, and was kind to everyone, you go to hell because of your unfair life of not given the truth. Now, does that sound like something God would do? Remember Ignoring that scripture, I don't want to debate its interpretation, mostly because I don't believe in the Qur'an, but just pretend that it doesn't mean what you think it does, and think about that scenario.



Originally posted by MRasheed
"Good" means nothing outside of belief in God. It will profit your soul nothing. I am sorry, but that is completely and utterly false. Why else would God teach us to be "Good"?

Originally posted by MRasheed
What does your personality have to do with choosing not to kill an old woman and rob her house?



As a test for those who remain. If you get mad at God when it happens and denounce Him, you fail.



Humans have always been just as complex with the same choices. There's always been birth, death, love, marriage, community, charity, murder, theft, adultery, etc.

And God will always be God. some people actually lack the funtion to tell good from bad... so god gives a woman a baby then takes it away only for a reaction... WOW
also playing with a babies soul like that simple time simple people trying to explain things in the world... like i said

Originally posted by red g jacks
i have a feeling that if god really exists then he isnt such a control freak as most of his fans

he'll probably greet me when i die. he wont be insecure or insulted that i didn't believe he was real, he'll know that i was only making a guess based on the limited information at hand.

he'll say now you know da truth, and i'll say word up god so whats the deal with all these people who prophecize and preach in your name yet all have different versions of what you think and what you demand of humanity? he'll be like oh that? yea i had a bit of fun back in the dark ages

I also think that god won't care. I mean if he is real it seems that he doesn't care now, so I think that nonbelievers will probably be scared when they find out it's real. I know I would if I died and arrived at the pearly gates. Shaking in my pants, Oh ****, Oh ****, oh **** I'm going to hell I know it. Then god will be all like chill man don't piss in your pants, you can come in. sigh of relief (hopefully he says that)

Originally posted by MRasheed
As a test for those who remain. If you get mad at God when it happens and denounce Him, you fail.

So God can scorch his antfarm however much he want, in what appears to be a rather sadistic fashion, and if you get angry, he'll just denounce your soul.

"Love me, for I am malevolent"

Hey flawed creations, you are doomed unless you admit I made a mistake and pray for forgiveness.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
So God can scorch his antfarm however much he want, in what appears to be a rather sadistic fashion, and if you get angry, he'll just denounce your soul.

Not for anger, for disbelief.

Originally posted by MRasheed
Humans have always been just as complex

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
simple time simple people trying to explain things in the world... like i said

Humans have always been just as complex as we are now. We were only simple when we are children.

Yeah, humans are flawed and need to be punished.

Originally posted by menokokoro
What? So, God knowing exactly the reason why you made a decision, has nothing to do with the decision?

Not even a little bit. Why would it? God is separate from His creation. All rules apply to us not to Him. He only influences things if He wills it, and He doesn't interfere with Free Will. It wouldn't be fair.


Originally posted by menokokoro
Pretend that you don't believe that scripture like you do.

No.

Originally posted by menokokoro
If you grew up in a household where your Dad always explained that God doesn't exist and always gave a reason, and the reason made sense, like a lot of science (a topic for another time). Now, through your life, you never had an opportunity to learn the truth, and you die a disbeliever in God. Now, despite being a great humanitarian, someone who gave much, while taking little, and was kind to everyone, you go to hell because of your unfair life of not given the truth. Now, does that sound like something God would do?

No, it doesn't. Everybody encounters the Word of God at some point in their life. Everybody. Your scenario is unrealistic.

Originally posted by menokokoro
Remember Ignoring that scripture, I don't want to debate its interpretation, mostly because I don't believe in the Qur'an, but just pretend that it doesn't mean what you think it does, and think about that scenario.

No. Why don't you pretend to repent and bow down to the Lord who made you.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I am sorry, but that is completely and utterly false. Why else would God teach us to be "Good"?

He defined what is 'good' and what is 'evil' and then instructed us in how to live. Your concept of a Godless 'good' is completely and utterly false.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Yeah, humans are flawed and need to be punished.

The flesh is weak, but humans are not flawed. They function the way they were made to function. In that they are perfect. The Creator knew what He was doing.

Yeah flawed and needing of repentance.

Originally posted by MRasheed
Not for anger, for disbelief.

You can't be angry at him if you don't believe in him.

You need to repent if you chose a life of disbelief and sin.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
You can't be angry at him if you don't believe in him.

Some peoples' disbelief is a form of anger, like they are getting back at Him over some imagined wrong. Meanwhile their disbelief is only hurting their own souls.

That's silly.

Imagined wrong? He killed their child.

We need to praise god more so that we can be happy in all areas of our lives.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
That's silly.

It is both silly and sad. I've known a lot of people like that. A few got over it and returned to God.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
Imagined wrong? He killed their child.

It was the child's time to go.

Originally posted by MRasheed
It is both silly and sad. I've known a lot of people like that. A few got over it and returned to God. No need to return to some god. It's just how the process works. Except it, learn from it and move on.

It's almost like you're saying that you need to return to god for a guarantee.

LOL mrrasheed... simple time simple people...
you see
they were not technological. they couldn't predict a hurricane nor did they understand it...ETC

when i say simple people i don't mean physically, what makes you even assume i mean physical simplicity?

Originally posted by MRasheed
It was the child's time to go. WOW so a baby who dies 10 min after birth, you just write it off as it was his time to go? do you see how flawed that is?
1. the babies never even lived at all
2. why would god create a life who would live for 10mins?

would the baby age in heaven?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
It's almost like you're saying that you need to return to god for a guarantee.

You need to return to God to be saved.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
LOL mrrasheed... simple time simple people...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue, Omega.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
you see they were not technological. they couldn't predict a hurricane nor did they understand it...ETC

They had the technology they needed for their lives necessary at the time and probably some extra stuff that was lost.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
when i say simple people i don't mean physically, what makes you even assume i mean physical simplicity?

When I say past humans were complex I mean they had all of the same thoughts, relationships and problems as any modern peoples. Children aren't as emotionally, mentally or relationship savvy as adults.

Originally posted by MRasheed
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue, Omega.



They had the technology they needed for their lives necessary at the time and probably some extra stuff that was lost.



When I say past humans were complex I mean they had all of the same thoughts, relationships and problems as any modern peoples. Children aren't as emotionally, mentally or relationship savvy as adults. thats what i mean by simple people.
what are you not getting?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
WOW so a baby who dies 10 min after birth, you just write it off as it was his time to go? do you see how flawed that is?

Does the baby have time to formulate an attachment for life on earth? So why would he give a sh*t? He gets to spend all of eternity in paradise. There is no tragedy from the baby's point-of-view.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
1. the babies never even lived at all

They live forever in heaven. The whole point in life on earth is to determine who will go to heaven and who will go to hell when it's all over.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
2. why would god create a life who would live for 10mins?

To test the living.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
would the baby age in heaven?

There is no mention of that in scripture. We'll have to wait and see.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
thats what i mean by simple people.
what are you not getting?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
thats what i mean by simple people.
what are you not getting?

The idea that people of the past "invented God" because they didn't have a toaster, a box fan, or striped toothpaste is stupid as hell. I certainly hope that's not what your point was supposed to be.

Originally posted by MRasheed
The idea that people of the past "invented God" because they didn't have a toaster, a box fan, or striped toothpaste is stupid as hell. I certainly hope that's not what your point was supposed to be. LMAO why be ignorant?

i clearly said they're trying to explain the world... thus why i mentioned storms earlier

they didn't know why the ground shook, funnels reaching from the skies, or why water was drowning cities... so they say a god was responsible

thats what i mean


or is that too farfetched for you

Originally posted by MRasheed
The flesh is weak, but humans are not flawed. They function the way they were made to function. In that they are perfect. The Creator knew what He was doing. in that case god wanted us to think for ourselves, even if it lead us to the 'wrong' conclusions.

the creator knew what he was doing.

Originally posted by red g jacks
in that case god wanted us to think for ourselves, even if it lead us to the 'wrong' conclusions.

That's exactly right.

In addition, He made sure we had access to His Word and knew what the rules of the Game were. So even if we make the decision that the Word, God, heaven and hell aren't real...

...we can't say we didn't know about it when it is time for Judgment.

Originally posted by MRasheed
That's exactly right.

In addition, He made sure we had access to His Word and knew what the rules of the Game were. So even if we make the decision that the Word, God, heaven and hell aren't real...

...we can't say we didn't know about it when it is time for Judgment.

Except "access to His Word" really isn't accessable to everyone, in real world practice.

So what kind of "game" is it if someone fails to meet the criteria simply because they were never given the chance to accept "His Word" or not.

i can say i haven't been shown any good reason to believe in it. i'm guessing there is no god because religious myths have been debunked time and time again.

your answer to this would be "read the quran"

a christian's answer to this would be "read the bible"

neither of your books strike me as all that convincing

Originally posted by MRasheed
Not even a little bit. Why would it? God is separate from His creation. All rules apply to us not to Him. He only influences things if He wills it, and He doesn't interfere with Free Will. It wouldn't be fair.




No.



No, it doesn't. Everybody encounters the Word of God at some point in their life. Everybody. Your scenario is unrealistic.



No. Why don't you pretend to repent and bow down to the Lord who made you.



He defined what is 'good' and what is 'evil' and then instructed us in how to live. Your concept of a Godless 'good' is completely and utterly false. wow, you suck at debating. You can't even look at things from someone else's point of view. And no, that scenario is not unrealistic, there are lots of people who never get taught true gospel. I agree that lots of people "hear" about God, but that doesn't mean that everyone who ever lived has had equal opportunity to learn about him and his gospel.

Anyway, it is clear to me that you are far to dense to reason with, so I will simply leave you with that. Have fun damning everyone who disagrees with you to hell.

Originally posted by MRasheed
That's exactly right.

In addition, He made sure we had access to His Word and knew what the rules of the Game were. . So, god plays games??

Originally posted by Robtard
Except "access to His Word" really isn't accessable to everyone, in real world practice.

So what kind of "game" is it if someone fails to meet the criteria simply because they were never given the chance to accept "His Word" or not.

The Koran actually addresses that apparent loophole, for "those who hath not heard the word". On the Day of Reckoning (in the Koran) people who lived before Islam and others who never had the option to hear and accept it or turn it down (eg: lost Amazonian tribes) will all be gathered before the Lord. Allah will speak unto them, deliver an ulitmatum, and then judge them accordingly.

"Of all who plot, it is He who plots best".

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Koran actually addresses that apparent loophole, for "those who hath not heard the word". On the Day of Reckoning (in the Koran) people who lived before Islam and others who never had the option to hear and accept it or turn it down (eg: lost Amazonian tribes) will all be gathered before the Lord. Allah will speak unto them, deliver an ulitmatum, and then judge them accordingly.

"Of all who plot, it is He who plots best".

Was not aware of that loophole in that book. Guess when you come last, it's easier to fill in the potholes.

But then I'm to assume the KMC Islamic doesn't really know his own book(not surprising), as he's said "Everybody encounters the Word of God at some point in their life. Everybody." When he could have just gone with that loophole you posted.

It's sad when someone is trying to sell something and they're not fully knowledgeable of what they're selling. Like in the mid late 90's, my friend was looking at buying a 90-91 Iroc Z Camaro, he took me along as I know a bit about cars and he knows nothing. The sales-man actually said "this car is also a safe car, it's front-wheel drive; that gives you better control." I nearly pissed myself laughing.

Well, the Koran says "Our signs are everywhere . Look around, art thou eyes not bedazzled by Our handiwork? Yet ye still believe not?".

He could have been referring to that^ line, or any other numerous (literally hundreds), similar Koranic verses.

Originally posted by MRasheed
That's exactly right.

In addition, He made sure we had access to His Word and knew what the rules of the Game were. So even if we make the decision that the Word, God, heaven and hell aren't real...

...we can't say we didn't know about it when it is time for Judgment.

I have always wondered ... What about those who don't have access to His words? There are tribes and societies all across the world that's never heard of God, nor has He properly approached them.

In fact, if the theory of God wasn't taught in school, a majority in the world would barely know of Him as it is, let alone know why people worship him (Even less knowing how to save your own soul)

That's one problem I've always had, with any religion that expect things of you: If you don't do it, you go to Hell. If you do X or Y, you go to Hell. If you take thy Lord's name in vain, you go to Hell. What of those who has had no opportunity, that has no clue of the existance of God, that live so resort that the idea of wide theology is alien them? Why must they lose their souls for all time, simply because the open society haven't reached them?

What does the good book say about those people?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, the Koran says "Our signs are everywhere . Look around, art thou eyes not bedazzled by Our handiwork? Yet ye still believe not?".

He could have been referring to that^ line, or any other numerous (literally hundreds), similar Koranic verses.
I'm sure he'll say that's what he meant now.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
I have always wondered ... What about those who don't have access to His words? There are tribes and societies all across the world that's never heard of God, nor has He properly approached them.

In fact, if the theory of God wasn't taught in school, a majority in the world would barely know of Him as it is, let alone know why people worship him (Even less knowing how to save your own soul)

That's one problem I've always had, with any religion that expect things of you: If you don't do it, you go to Hell. If you do X or Y, you go to Hell. If you take thy Lord's name in vain, you go to Hell. What of those who has had no opportunity, that has no clue of the existance of God, that live so resort that the idea of wide theology is alien them? Why must they lose their souls for all time, simply because the open society haven't reached them?

What does the good book say about those people?

Did you miss my response to that point?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Koran actually addresses that apparent loophole, for "those who hath not heard the word". On the Day of Reckoning (in the Koran) people who lived before Islam and others who never had the option to hear and accept it or turn it down (eg: lost Amazonian tribes) will all be gathered before the Lord. Allah will speak unto them, deliver an ulitmatum, and then judge them accordingly.

"Of all who plot, it is He who plots best".

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Did you miss my response to that point?

I did, actually. That brings up two questions:

1. Why didn't he inform them earlier, so that they could dedicate their life to him, rather than their afterlife? That in addition to the fact that if they are approached at the end, it's not likely they will trust some random entity that suddenly approach them, no matter how good he appear. Especially if they've come to live according to a (commonly) natural entity as many tribes did.

2. They could've dedicated their whole life to sin, oblivious that it was sin, and upon facing Allah, accept his ultimatum? Quite the kick in the crotch to those who dedicated their life to good, for Allah's embrace. Should they not gain equal opportunity, it is unjust for they were oblivious.

yea they have the advantage of actually knowing god is real when they make their decision. we shouldn't be worried about all the people who never heard allah's word, they're the lucky ones.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
I did, actually. That brings up two questions:


And the simple, obvious answer is: Read the Koran.

Doing so would thoroughly answer both questions (which are good questions by the way), because those natural follow-up questions are addressed; the book does a pretty good job of confronting its criticisms. But assuming you don't have the time or will to read it, and I have; I'll do the leg-work for you best I can.

So let's take a look...

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
1. Why didn't he inform them earlier, so that they could dedicate their life to him, rather than their afterlife? That in addition to the fact that if they are approached at the end, it's not likely they will trust some random entity that suddenly approach them, no matter how good he appear. Especially if they've come to live according to a (commonly) natural entity as many tribes did.


Well, according to the Koran, God's first revelation was to Adam at Creation, and then to Moses, and then to Jesus, as well as the other 124,000 lesser prophets that preceded Mohammed. So, humanity received numerous revelations over many eons, with Mohammed being the final. The final one was in the 7th Century A.D. for reasons known "only unto Him". Throughout human history, since the dawn of the species, there have been relevations from prophets sent to all tribes in all parts of the globe.

And God won't be a random entity; he will make himself known.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
2. They could've dedicated their whole life to sin, oblivious that it was sin, and upon facing Allah, accept his ultimatum? Quite the kick in the crotch to those who dedicated their life to good, for Allah's embrace. Should they not gain equal opportunity, it is unjust for they were oblivious.

Actually it isn't sin, because a person must know its a sin. The ignorant can be pardoned for not being aware something is prohibited, because "they hath not any forewarning". So some tribe living in the South American jungle worshipping idols, who has never heard of the Koranic laws, has technically not sinned. You must be told or warned, and then knowingly, conciously disobey it. In legal terms: volition or, mens rea (willful mind) is required.

And it wouldn't be an insult to those who obeyed during their physical life. Quite the opposite: it would boost their standing in the eyes of Allah. Since they poured their lifes' works into Islam, and "beleived and did the deeds that are upright", they will reap the rewards. They will gain entry into a better tier of Paradise then an outright sinner who is merely forgiven, ie: given God's grace through little or no merit of his own.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea they have the advantage of actually knowing god is real when they make their decision. we shouldn't be worried about all the people who never heard allah's word, they're the lucky ones.

That doesn't necessarily make them lucky, or earn them entry into Heaven.

how do you mean?

Those are actually rather good answers, thank you.

Originally posted by red g jacks
how do you mean?

What are you not getting? I thought I was pretty unambiguous.

maybe my understanding is simply off...

the way i pictured it is that come judgment day, god is going to give an 'ultimatum' to all those who never heard 'his word'

i thought this meant they could choose to follow him or go to hell, just like the rest of us

apparently it means something different... or i'm missing something here...

The way Judgment day is presented is that the dead and the living will be judged before god. If people were sent to hell they would get a re-sentence (which doesn't make any sense, but hey it's a small break from the flames) The goats on the left and sheep on the right. The sheep get to go to heaven the goats go back into hell, the living will also be sentenced to hell, if you're in the goat line. lol

Originally posted by Deja~vu
The way Judgment day is presented is that the dead and the living will be judged before god. If people were sent to hell they would get a re-sentence (which doesn't make any sense, but hey it's a small break from the flames) The goats on the left and sheep on the right. The sheep get to go to heaven the goats go back into hell, the living will also be sentenced to hell, if you're in the goat line. lol

^ Biblical or Koranic?

Biblical. More the protestant church and fundamental movement.

What never made sense to me is that the people in hell would be brought up and rejudged and sent back to hell. Why all that? Is it some tease?

urlTBBKTO68

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
urlTBBKTO68 This is pretty much exactly why I think it is stupid to believe that everyone who doesn't believe, to be damned, it just doesn't make sense.

Is there a chance that a believer will go to heaven, Will Charlie Manson go to heaven?

Originally posted by SamZED
A question to religious people only (obviously).

Most religions believe that people who worship other Gods or do not believe in God at all will go to hell. So my question is - is it possible for a nonbeliever to go to heaven?

For example, someone lives in some village. Never even heard of cellphones, let alone religions but is generally a very good person. Works hard, doent steal, kill etc. Maybe even saved many peoples lives etc. But he'll go to hell because he's never even heard of Christ or Allah? they go the elysian fields, but they wont get to hang with moses cause jesus took all the really cool non christians out to party with him in heaven

hell is here on earth...

there's no such thing as heaven.

and to me, a non-believer is a person whom doesn't believe that there isn't a god which there isn't factually.

Who Knows?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
there's no such thing as heaven.

and to me, a non-believer is a person whom doesn't believe that there isn't a god which there isn't factually.

Incorrect. You cannot prove that God does not exist. At best you can show it isn't likely He exists, but not even that has been accomplished I say.