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

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.

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?

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.

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.