Is there a chance a non-believer will go to heaven?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.