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

Originally posted by TacDavey
By the by, I'll be gone for a few days and will be unable to respond to your posts until then.

Hey, there is no need to insult one another here. If you disagree with my stance you may point out why and we can talk about it.

You seem to misunderstand the argument. This is not circular logic at all. God is, by definition, all just. That means it is [B]logically impossible for Him to perform an unjust action. It simply cannot be done.

The problem is that the actions that you label "unjust" are labeled unjust by you.

So you would basically be saying a logically unacceptable statement when you said "An all just being is performing unjust actions." It may seem unjust to you. But it cannot be unjust. It's not logically possible.

You misunderstand. I'm not simply saying unjust actions performed by God are just actions when He performs it. I'm saying the actions that seem unjust to us cannot truely be unjust because if they were, God would not be able to perform them.

I believe I was the one who ended our last debate, and I'm glad I did so. It seems you are still incapable of having a rational debate. I'll offer the same thing to you this time as I did last time. When you can put away your insults and have a peaceful, respectful debate I'll be waiting. Until then, I'm not wasting my time or yours. [/B]

oh please, howl and lick your wounded ego somewhere else. you conceded by being INCAPABLE of understanding formal logical concepts{rich for some-one who refers to logic every other sentence} and repeating your brand of disproven nonsense, ad-nauseum.

p.s. im not the only one who finds your idea of using the infallibility of god as a primary premise, fundamentally retarded and indictive of deaper incapability of understand reason.

Originally posted by 753
question: what charatcerizes an action as just?

Wikipedia labels justice:

"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics. "

I guess that sounds about right to me.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But your problem is that the "all-just" moniker was just applied to the god of the bible by those who wrote it. Whether the being described actually is all just, is another issue altogether. When asking about the definition, you must always bear in mind "the definition according to whom"? In the bible, demons label themselves as just. You need critical thinking to tell the difference.

You can't cherry pick which parts of the Bible you want to accept and which ones you don't.

Originally posted by socool8520
To the first part, agreed. Insulting each other just makes us sound like politicians.

Second, it's not just that the actions are unjust to me or others who feel the same way. the actions are unjust to God as well. Was it not He who made the Commandments? Did he not say that murder is a sin, pretty much the definition of an unjust action? Yet, He has done it or had others do it for Him, which signifies to me that He can perform unjust actions and in turn, is not all-just. That is not by my definition, that is by His. Lawmakers are not exempt from their own laws.

This isn't quite right. If a person dies for just reasons, then it isn't murder. God has killed people, but He has not murdered anyone.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh please, howl and lick your wounded ego somewhere else. you conceded by being INCAPABLE of understanding formal logical concepts{rich for some-one who refers to logic every other sentence} and repeating your brand of disproven nonsense, ad-nauseum.

I'm not going to have this thread boil down to hurling insults at each other, leonheart. Go try to start a flame war somewhere else.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
p.s. im not the only one who finds your idea of using the infallibility of god as a primary premise, fundamentally retarded and indictive of deaper incapability of understand reason.

I have no doubt this is true. Notice that everyone else seems to be able to debate it calmly and rationally.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wikipedia labels justice:

"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics. "

I guess that sounds about right to me.

Vague unto the level of meaninglessness?

It's a well-worded technical definition of a concept that itself is quite broad and vague in many regards.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
It's a well-worded technical definition of a concept that itself is quite broad and vague in many regards.

And you don't see the problem with that? It's not an useful answer to the question asked.

No, I do. Providing a Wikipedia definition to a question "what characterizes a just action" is absurd. However, the Wikipedia definition itself is technically sound in defining justice.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wikipedia labels justice:

"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics. "

I guess that sounds about right to me.

So let's try this another way:

you claim that the actions undertaken by god in the bible were just in and on themselves, not just because god was the one to carry them out. so it is just to kill the first born children of an entire nation regardless of their own actions or age to coerce its government to release the slaves? notice that the god of the bible is described as being omnipotent and could have released the slaves without bloodshed and, in fact, the biblical text says that it was god itself that hardened the pharao's heart to moses's pleas in the first place. was it just to harden the pharao's heart?

it is just to drown the world and wipe out all terrestrial life except for noah's family, some seeds and animals because of the sins of some people? (of course, that has never actually happened, but that's how the bible goes) and since sin as defined by the old testament has remained pervasively present ever since, is it fair to repeat that purge now?

Many Hindus believe in a version of 'heaven' called "svarga," where the righteous go to reap the rewards of positive karmas (basically doing righteous deeds throughout a lifetime). However, ultimately, a person has to leave svarga and atone for his negative karmas (unrighteous deeds).

As a Hindu, I personally don't believe in such a heavenly world (even though I believe in reincarnation anywhere), but the concept of Christian heaven is confusing and troubling to me.

Is it like if someone as 60% "good" and 40% "evil" he gets in? Or 70-30? I get the notion of redemption and repenting your sins in a lifetime, but still. I see it like a cloth- a cloth that is dirtied can be washed away to be clean, but never new. It's an interesting analogy and nice to ponder upon.

christian dogma is tailored towards proselitism and since there is no concept of reincarnation in christianity, the promise of redemption after repentence for one's sins and acceptance of christ as god and savior is more appealing to would be christans than eternal punishment after death.

Originally posted by 753
christian dogma is tailored towards proselitism and since there is no concept of reincarnation in christianity, the promise of redemption after repentence for one's sins and acceptance of christ as god and savior is more appealing to would be christans than eternal punishment after death.

Hmm, I don't know much about Christianity, but that certainly seems quite vague. Heaven and Hell seem to be these moral extremes that the vast majority of humanity doesn't seem to fit into, since everybody commits moral and immoral acts on a daily basis.

And then this thread's topic. Here, I'll tell a story, recapping in brief a conversation I once had:

One time I was at a bus stop and I was approached by these two missionaries who were handing out fliers. They obviously came to me because I am not Caucasian. We had a discussion, in which I silenced their claims that "Hindus believe in ten million Gods" and their random misguided view that "Indians don't like telling their names to others." I told them that I agree that there is one 'God'/Divine Creator/Essence , and I added that it can be called any name (Jesus, Allah, Vishnu). I explained the Hindu emphasis of living an active, ethical, and peaceful life while devoting time to prayer and meditation.

Their response?
*sigh* "Look son, I'm sorry, but you're going to Hell. You have to stop believing in those lies and confess your sins to our Lord and savior Jesus Christ."

The bus arrived, and I turned to them and responded, "I guess I'll be seeing you two gentlemen in Hell then."

Granted, that was a bit unwarranted, but those missionaries were extremely ignorant and frankly deserved it. This was also several years ago. I probably would have acted a bit more composed now.

--------------------------------------------------
I had this same type of discussion with a Muslim friend of mine, and he kept arguing, "It doesn't matter how many good deeds you do. If you don't believe in Allah and Muhammed as the final prophet, then on the Day of Judgement, you won't be granted access to Paradise. How dare can you believe everything is one and that your God is Allah?" After which, I decided it was best not pursuing the conversation, since it wouldn't go anywhere.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
[B]Hmm, I don't know much about Christianity, but that certainly seems quite vague. Heaven and Hell seem to be these moral extremes that the vast majority of humanity doesn't seem to fit into, since everybody commits moral and immoral acts on a daily basis.

on the other hand, a decent person who does not accept christ goes straigh to hell. islam follows suit. it is not about weighing good and bad actions, but about embracing their god, loving him, submiting to him and repenting the wrong you have done.

according to catholic dogma, good people who were born before christ, including the prophets of the old testament would go to a superficial level of hell that resembled paradise, from which christ has taken them since his ressurection. unbaptized children, too young to sin on their own, would go to some kind of limbo, although a more recent interpretation of the dogma given by the vatican has declared that limbo does not exist, Im not sure if the current interpretation is that they gain a free pass to heaven or go to hell along with the pagans.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You can't cherry pick which parts of the Bible you want to accept and which ones you don't. .

By your logic, a book that makes a single true claim, must be 100% true on all facts.

Originally posted by 753
the dogma of original sin states that men are born tainted by sin and are therefore doomed to hell unless they recognize the god christ as their savior, love god above all things and repent their sins. if this is done and the conversion is sincere, even if it is at death's door and after a life of sin, the repentant will be forgiven for all his wrongdoings and go to heaven. this is ritually represented by extreme unction (last rites) in which a priest absolves a man of all his sins and commends his soul to heaven or, in the case of children, by baptism, which washes original sin away.

on the other hand, a decent person who does not accept christ goes straigh to hell. islam follows suit. it is not about weighing good and bad actions, but about embracing their god, loving him, submiting to him and repenting the wrong you have done.

according to catholic dogma, good people who were born before christ, including the prophets of the old testament would go to a superficial level of hell that resembled paradise, from which christ has taken them since his ressurection. unbaptized children, too young to sin on their own, would go to some kind of limbo, although a more recent interpretation of the dogma given by the vatican has declared that limbo does not exist, Im not sure if the current interpretation is that they gain a free pass to heaven or go to hell along with the pagans.

This is why I don't understand Abrahamic faiths. According to what you said above, Gandhi, a religious man himself, would have gone to hell because he was a Hindu (although he supported/respected all other faiths) and didn't surrender himself to Christ or Allah?

It's frustrating to hear a religion say, "you believe in our God or you go to Hell" despite any amount of righteous deeds or virtuosity you have. That just seems awfully dogmatic, which I'm glad Hinduism doesn't do.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
This is why I don't understand Abrahamic faiths. According to what you said above, Gandhi, a religious man himself, would have gone to hell because he was a Hindu (although he supported/respected all other faiths) and didn't surrender himself to Christ or Allah?

It's frustrating to hear a religion say, "you believe in our God or you go to Hell" despite any amount of righteous deeds or virtuosity you have. That just seems awfully dogmatic, which I'm glad Hinduism doesn't do.

Various Abrahamic faiths have had various views on this. As far back as Dante you can find people who had a problem with the concept. In the Divine Comedy he meets the great Greek and Roman thinkers twice. Once in Purgatory where they are condemned for not know about Christ and then later in Heaven where they had been sent after Jesus rescues them.

The doctrine was called "The Harrowing of Hell" or something along those lines. People have recognized the problem of the "virtuous pagan" for a long time. In fact a lot of the Inferno shows Dante (as a writer) trying to resolve this. He meets his old mentor in the fields of the sodomites and they chat like old buddies, and then he's like okay dude enjoy eternal damnation.

Modern, liberal, forms of Christianity (I was raised Presbyterian) tend to gloss over the issue. Good people go to heaven no matter what they believe but mumble mumble mumble probably best to be Christian.

Originally posted by Korto Vos This is why I don't understand Abrahamic faiths. According to what you said above, Gandhi, a religious man himself, would have gone to hell because he was a Hindu (although he supported/respected all other faiths) and didn't surrender himself to Christ or Allah?

It's frustrating to hear a religion say, "you believe in our God or you go to Hell" despite any amount of righteous deeds or virtuosity you have. That just seems awfully dogmatic, which I'm glad Hinduism doesn't do. [/B]

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wikipedia labels justice:

"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics. "

I guess that sounds about right to me.

You can't cherry pick which parts of the Bible you want to accept and which ones you don't.

This isn't quite right. If a person dies for just reasons, then it isn't murder. God has killed people, but He has not murdered anyone.

I'm not going to have this thread boil down to hurling insults at each other, leonheart. Go try to start a flame war somewhere else.

I have no doubt this is true. Notice that everyone else seems to be able to debate it calmly and rationally.

1. that is a non reply to the problem of you summoning references to logic and reason on the one hand, and on the other, being incapable of defending said references under scrutiny of "FORMAL LOGIC" {i.e. the formalised, uncontreversial, academic discipline/methodoly of the subject of philosophy of logic/reason}. To the point that you are willing to do everything {including feigning righteous indignation and victimisation} to not admit that you dont know anything about the subject and your vast ignorance of it{which would make you incapable of claiming something to be logical or illogical like you do}. again, when you can reply to the both the FACTUAL possibility of free will without evil{as dictated by formal logic which flies into the face of any weak rationalisation you give to the contrary} as well as the contradiction between your stance of on the one hand, requiring evil for free will and on the other having god limit possible options while still mainting free will. THEN we can talk. otherwise, i will be reasonable and consider your unnecesarry banter to be irrelevant and unimportant

2. i can refresh your memory by quoting to you the person who replied before me who called your brand of apriori,circular assumption of god's just nature, moronic. its all well and good to talk about manners when you have nothing substantitive to defend your claims by. {on a side not, do you understand the problem of contradictory premises and circular reasoning? both of which fly in the face of your moronic argument for god's justice?}

your problem taceydavey, is that you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than you actually are. the very reason why you overuse the words "clearly" and "obviously" in conjunction with the words "logical" and "illogical" {for your own arguments and others' arguments respectively}. you are also blind to how dismissive and insultingly patronizing your statement often are in tone and content{considering that you neither judge it necessary to reply to proper arguments by the opposition, nor consider the flaws pointed out by other to be significant enough to grace with a reply}. in other words, your holier than thou attitude and faked polite tone neither makes you REASONABLE, nor POLITE. now please, either reply to the ARGUMENTS, or shut up.

From wiki:

Critical thinking, in general, refers to higher-order thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false, or sometimes true and sometimes false, or partly true and partly false.

You will notice that this IS a legitimate option; not "cherry picking", as you put it. Obviously, it is no fallacy to examine the veracity of claims on an individual basis; that simply is not a rule of logic.

on the point of god's infallible good/justice
[i.e. everything god does is good]

YouTube video

powerful words

Originally posted by 753
correct. at least as far as official dogma goes, but as chaos pointed out, contemporary christians, specially the more liberal ones tend to think that good pagans go to heaven or whatever and that there is more than one way to reach god
Im not profoundly knowledgeable on hinduism, but doesnt it have its own share of irrational dogmatism historically employed at the service of earthly political and economic interests? isnt the caste system itself based on hindu cosmology?

1. Hmm, all right.

2. I'm talking about its relation to non-believers or individuals of other faiths. You have to understand that Hinduism itself doesn't fit into the Western label of 'religion' per say. It's mostly a set of beliefs, natural laws, and practices, which is why it used to be called Sanatana Dharma.

There are these two websites that explain it better than I can:

Santana Dharma states something cannot come out of nothing and, therefore, the universe itself is the manifestation of the Divine being. This universe comes forth from the Divine, yet the universe takes nothing from the Divine and adds nothing to It. Divine remains ever the same. Since the universe has come forth from the Divine, all things and beings are sacred and must be treated so in human thought and action. The Divine sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals and thinks in humans.

Sanatana Dharma looks upon a person as a part and parcel of the mighty Whole, but never regards him as “the Measure of all things.” In the West, “person” is a supreme and final value, while Sanatana Dharma regards person as a part of the Whole, having the same vital essence as all other human and sub-human creatures of the universe. This cosmic view of Hinduism transcends the sectarian or group dogmas and paves a way for the coexistence of all creatures under the Vedic principle of Vasudev Kutumbhkam, meaning “The Universe is One Family.” This principle guides the humankind towards universal harmony through acceptance and tolerance.

Sanatana Dharma recognizes that the Ultimate Reality, which is the ground of infinite potentiality and actualization, cannot be limited by any name or concept. The potential for human wholeness (or in other frames of reference, enlightenment, salvation, liberation, transformation, blessedness, nirvana, moksha) is present in every human being. No race or religion is superior and no color or creed is inferior. All humans are spiritually united like the drops of water in an ocean.

Therefore:

Don't enforce one belief, one way of worship or one code of conduct for all. Do not attempt to destroy different forms of worship, claiming your own way to be the only right one. Such enforcement of uniformity would be un-natural and contrary to the Divine Law. It hinders the progress of a human being in his/her journey to the state of divinity.

The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual...it is all about an individual approaching a personal God in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution. If he does not like Siva, he can choose Vishnu. If he does not like either of them, he can bring in a few elements from other religions like Buddhism, Jainism, or even Islam and Christianity and add them to his rituals or ways or worship. In summary we can say that Hinduism accepts
various forms of worship including the forms of worship followed in alien cultures as long as they are in harmony with the original ideas founded especially in the Upanishads.

3. As for the caste system, the origins of that date back to the invasion and assimilation of Aryans/Indo-Europeans into the Indian subcontinent. The system is built upon the idea of social diversification and spiritual development. The notion is that there are three primary forces of Nature (tamas, rajas, sattva) that exist in all human beings in various relative strengths. Society was split into four castes (priests, warriors/royalty, merchants/farmers, servants) with certain castes possessing a tendency for one of these forces. The advantages of it at the time were that people are naturally born into the world at different socioeconomic backgrounds; therefore, by being born into a specific caste (each caste being a necessary cog of society), there would be a sense of comfort to that individual and a general establishment of egalitarianism. Furthermore, the spiritual aspect of it was that because of one's karmas, a person ended up in a particular social standing because of the soul's deeds in previous lives. Therefore, by following the varna-ashrama dharma, the ethical duty of that caste, that individual/soul would ascend and be born in the next life as a higher caste.

This society functioned in harmony until the last 1500-2000 years, after which it degenerated into the one that resembled what people traditionally perceive as the brutal unequal social ladder today. However, since the later part of the 20th century and 21st century, the Indian government has been trying to eliminate this hierarchy and improve the needs of the lower classes. The caste system has all been abolished in the urban and developed areas of India (most of India nowadays). However, in the deep and remote villages, it still exists. Even now, caste plays a major role in a person's identity; however, the caste system is disappearing.

Phew, that concludes my long post!

Originally posted by 753
sigh... that defines justice in a broad sense, it does not, however, describe what is just and what is not according to any given ethical system. you see, most people would claim that justice entails rewarding virtue and punishing or supressing vice (however vice and virtue may be defined) most rational people would also agree that punishing the innocent for the crimes of others is in fact, unfair.

Isn't that what the quote said? Something that enforces positive/right actions and punishes those that break them.

Originally posted by 753
So let's try this another way:

you claim that the actions undertaken by god in the bible were just in and on themselves, not just because god was the one to carry them out. so it is just to kill the first born children of an entire nation regardless of their own actions or age to coerce its government to release the slaves? notice that the god of the bible is described as being omnipotent and could have released the slaves without bloodshed and, in fact, the biblical text says that it was god itself that hardened the pharao's heart to moses's pleas in the first place. was it just to harden the pharao's heart?

it is just to drown the world and wipe out all terrestrial life except for noah's family, some seeds and animals because of the sins of some people? (of course, that has never actually happened, but that's how the bible goes) and since sin as defined by the old testament has remained pervasively present ever since, is it fair to repeat that purge now?

The Bible says everyone on earth was living in sin except Noah. The same is not true today.

And punishment was handed out differently back then. After Christ there no longer needed to be a physical death as punishment for sin.

Not to say I have an answer as to why every action God performed was justified. I simply have the knowledge that He is all just, based off a text that I believe is true. An all just being can't perform an unjust action. If you want to claim God performed an unjust action, you must first provide reason to believe the Biblical God is not the true God. Which, is another debate.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't accept any of it, and the self-contradiction is a big reason why. I don't know what school you went to, but a big part of education is something called "critical thinking", which means not just blindly accepting a claim because of its source.

By your logic, a book that makes a single true claim, must be 100% true on all facts.

Of course I don't think that. I'm saying that you cannot accept only the parts of a document that support your claim while ignoring the rest of the very same document that hurt it. That is, by definition, cherry picking. What if I said that the part of the Bible that says God is all just is true and every part of the Bible that has God performing a seemingly unjust act is just false? Wouldn't you have a problem with that argument?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. that is a non reply to the problem of you summoning references to logic and reason on the one hand, and on the other, being incapable of defending said references under scrutiny of "FORMAL LOGIC" {i.e. the formalised, uncontreversial, academic discipline/methodoly of the subject of philosophy of logic/reason}. To the point that you are willing to do everything {including feigning righteous indignation and victimisation} to not admit that you dont know anything about the subject and your vast ignorance of it{which would make you incapable of claiming something to be logical or illogical like you do}. again, when you can reply to the both the FACTUAL possibility of free will without evil{as dictated by formal logic which flies into the face of any weak rationalisation you give to the contrary} as well as the contradiction between your stance of on the one hand, requiring evil for free will and on the other having god limit possible options while still mainting free will. THEN we can talk. otherwise, i will be reasonable and consider your unnecesarry banter to be irrelevant and unimportant

Leonheart, this is a topic from another thread. If you wish to continue the free will and evil debate, by all means I will debate with you. But I will not do so unless the debate is respectful and rational.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
2. i can refresh your memory by quoting to you the person who replied before me who called your brand of apriori,circular assumption of god's just nature, moronic. its all well and good to talk about manners when you have nothing substantitive to defend your claims by. {on a side not, do you understand the problem of contradictory premises and circular reasoning? both of which fly in the face of your moronic argument for god's justice?}

That is a "you to" fallacy. You are attempting to claim that your actions are justified because someone else is doing it to. Notice that, at the moment, the debate, for the most part, is free of insults aside from your posts.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
your problem taceydavey, is that you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than you actually are. the very reason why you overuse the words "clearly" and "obviously" in conjunction with the words "logical" and "illogical" {for your own arguments and others' arguments respectively}. you are also blind to how dismissive and insultingly patronizing your statement often are in tone and content{considering that you neither judge it necessary to reply to proper arguments by the opposition, nor consider the flaws pointed out by other to be significant enough to grace with a reply}. in other words, your holier than thou attitude and faked polite tone neither makes you REASONABLE, nor POLITE. now please, either reply to the ARGUMENTS, or shut up.

Reply to the arguments? I have been replying to the arguments. I don't know what you mean.

And I'm confused. Are you saying that debates should not be handled in a polite way? I'm sorry if you thought I was secretively insulting you. I did not intend for this to be the case at all.

Regardless, I apologize for any offense I may have unintentionally made.